Slashdot Mirror
Esther Dyson Grudgingly Defends Internet Anonymity
An anonymous reader writes "In an interview, Esther Dyson, chairman of EDventure Holdings, describes anonymity on the Internet as similar to abortion: a bad practice that people should still have rights to. Calling anonymity one of the greatest disappointments of the Internet's evolution, Dyson said: 'I'm pro choice, but I think abortion is an unfortunate thing. I think the same thing about anonymity: Everybody should have the right to it, but it's not something one wants to encourage.'"
Why not encourage anonymity? It doesn't affect anyone so why not encourage it?
Is she related to Freeman Dyson, (inventor of the Dyson Sphere)
I'm pro choice, but I think abortion is an unfortunate thing.
No, really? Is there anyone who is pro choice who doesn't feel the same way? I mean, I've never heard anyone who was honestly "pro-abortion," just "pro-having the option when life hits the fan."
So you're saying by posting anonymous cowardly then I'm advocating abortion?
I almost feel as sorry as when I heard that god kills kittens when I masturbate... those poor kitties.... millions of poor dead kitties... :(
This space is not for rent.
Anonymity wouldn't be necessary if there weren't so many jackasses out there trying to get us all pregnant with ads, malware or the like. Anonymity is an important part of a user's self-defense when using the internet. So in a way, she is right... it is unfortunate that we need to defend ourselves, but we do. We absolutely need to protect ourselves.
I don't allow ACs on my own blog. And perhaps that is part of the reason that the signal/noise ratio is much better than here. There are still "handles", and in the end the only thing I have to identify most subscribers is an email (which can itself be anonymous). But even that much reduction in anonymity seems to prompt people to behave better.
Bruce Perens.
Sure you can, jerk.
Microsoft rules.
Google and Apple suck.
I am a man who likes men.
George Bush was a great president.
His son was better.
Digg is the best place for all news.
Abortion, if you're not killing a person (tricky thing to define, I admit, but your arm is alive and removing ('aborting') it is no moral problem and I feel the same way about an unthinking fetus.
I don't understand the arguments that seem to justify murder for the woman's convenience, however, anymore than killing baby after birth for the woman's convenience is acceptable. Even in a future where a fetus can be transplanted into another mother I suspect the "pro-choice" crowd will insist that the mother can still choose to abort it.
Likewise, with anonymity, I think it's one of the best parts about the internet. It's hardly unfortunate that it makes it difficult for governments to track down dissenters, etc. Sure, people use it for bad things as well, but that's true of ANY freedom. Might as well suggest that "free speech is unfortunate thing that people should still have the right to." People will 'abuse' free speech in other different ways but it's still inherently a good thing.
anonymous posting is NEEDED.
there are many who want to silence those that post opposing views.
until we 'fix' that (it will never happen) - the ability to post without tracable info directly to yourself is a MUST HAVE.
she's dead wrong. this is a fundamental RIGHT, or should be considered as such.
the argument about spam is different and you don't solve one by 'ruining freedom'.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Did he just compare not revealing your identity to strangers over the internet to killing unborn children?
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
I would liken Internet anonymity to secret ballot. In case with secret ballot you exercise your voting rights without fear of persecution for your choice/beliefs. In case of Internet anonymity you exercise your freedom of speech without fear of persecution from the authorities. Criticizing government may not be a problem in a democratic society, but in many countries Internet is __the only__ place where people can do so without fear of persecution.
Broadband is not a technology issue, it's really a financial issue. How should it be funded? Should it be subsidized? I tend to think not. Broadband is a miraculous technology, and it ought to be able to pay its own way. We need competition; we also need attractive enough propositions [in which] companies will invest.
Broadband CAN pay for itself... and companies do spend money on infrastructure. The problem is that they won't put broadband everywhere. They only put it in places where they believe there will be a high rate of return on investment. "Cherry picking" leaving every place else without anything more than dialup which is barely acceptable for email. If the nation is to move forward and have broadband everywhere, companies will NEVER do it of their own volition. They have to be required to do so by government mandate. This is what utilities commissions are for. They just don't often include requirements for broadband... yet. And they should.
I've been there from before the always-on net. Back from modem-to-modem days. I think what made the internet what it is, was the wild-west aspect. Anyone can stake a claim and work it the way they wanted, with no one to tell you "no."
I decided never to get upset by words. And that includes spam, which is not really that hard to deal with on the client end despite the whining and gnashing.
Now we got the masses, and they want us coloring between the lines and following the rules and not offending our sensibilities and they will suburbanize our net and kill it.
The fact the anonymity has to be defended at all, let alone grudgingly, means the end is near for the frontier. And that is what made the net special.
Every [employer] should have the right to [know what you did last weekend], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
Every [government] should have the right to [know your personal beliefs on every issue you have ever cared to discus], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
Every [corporation] should have the right to [research your life to be used for directed marketing], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
Every [insurance company] should have the right to [your medical history], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
I don't think many people like the symptoms, but maybe we should stay focused on the actual problem.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Her point, and yours, is that annonymity IS necessary BECAUSE there are those who would seek harm to those that post opposing view points. If there was no fear of reprisal, than annonymity wouldn't be so necessary. (Just like abortion wouldn't be so necessary if we'd teach comprehensive sex education. Funny how the same people oppose abortion and sex-ed.)
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
As long as there's retribution in the form of everything from lawsuits to unmask those who disagree with corporations to HR departments including an "Internet Search" as part of the hiring practice anonymity on the Internet is the only way we can enjoy freewheeling and honest discussions.
Yes there will be bad actors on both sides, but I'll pay that price as opposed to the alternative.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I couldn't disagree more. Back in the day, when it was used by universities as a method of sharing knowledge, anonymity was not desired, but in todays world, where spam is king, and so much personal information is available at the fingertips, I myself, relish in my anonymity and obscurity.
For example, many years ago, I created a hotmail account with untrue personal data, and whenever I signed up for a forum, or subscription or anything that required an email, I supplied that. I still do, to this day. I am the last barrier of defense against the phishers and spammers and all those little script kiddies trying to put together a personal portfolio for identity theft etc..
I think he's a bit behind in the times, or he's behind a REALLY good firewall.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
We are entering an age where everything will be recorded for eternity. Every word you speak, every transaction, any time you are in public in view of a CCTV camera or any time a friend of yours captures your image on their cellphone. It's only a matter of time before lax security at the corporations and governments that store the security will be breached and their promises of privacy will be meaningless. Your secrets will be easily found by any Google search. I want to make my opinion known without retailiation.
As far as defamation goes, why does anyone believe an anonymous source? An anonymous source which cannot be verified. Who cares if an anonymous source writes that you have sex with puppies on the Internet. Journalists spend a great deal of time and effort to maintain their credibility. Do we give everyone on the Internet the same degree of respect?
Child pornography is a huge problem. A huge problem which will not be solved at all by taking away anyone's privacy. Unfortunately, two perverts can exchange their collections using portable storage devices which will never touch the Internet. Why take away my privacy to implement a measure when criminals can just bypass it.
As far as terrorism goes, let the terrorists believe that they are communicating without giving up their identities. I'm not under the delusion that if the NSA really wanted to find me, they couldn't. I believe most terrorists avoid the Internet for this exact reason. Stripping the average person of their privacy will not catch terrorists. If everyone has their privacy protected(including terrorists), the terrorists are more likely to have a false sense of security and use the Internet, allowing governement action (with a warrant) to uncover their schemes. Otherwise you need an informant or deep cover agent. Take your pick.
I don't believe that piracy is an issue. I think most hardcore pirates are incorrigible and will never buy legitimate media. The people on the fence tend to pirate a bit and buy what they want. Think of it as marketing. They like first episode and then buy the box set because it fits nicely on their shelf. People actually do spend money sometimes.
You can take away my privacy if you can come up with a good reason. As far as I can see it, there isn't a good reason.
We care what Esther Dyson thinks for exactly WHAT reason, now?
she's dead wrong. this is a fundamental RIGHT, or should be considered as such.
Her words:
Everybody should have the right to it, but it's not something one wants to encourage.
I think you actually agree with each other on the primary point. You haven't made it clear where you stand on her more subtle point: does anonymity, which we all agree is essential, also have unfortunate negative side-effects? I'd say it does. Anonymity removes all incentive not to behave anti-socially. Anti-social behavior isn't always bad, but quite often it degrades the benefits of society.
/...
OTOH, if birth control is widely available, pre natal care is available to all comers, and food, shelter, and education is given to all children, without question or exception, then one can imagine a world in which every child would be wanted. Likewise, if maximum information and open debate were seen as a asset, and everyone was encouraged to have their say, all everyone was honestly listened to, and no one would retaliate based on personal superstitions, then one could imagine a world in which everyone could be open and honest with their opinions.
In the real world, though, significant militant groups enjoy killing people who disagree with their superstitions. For example, groups have felt the right to kill people who believe differently from them, following a tradition that killed the man that believed that the heart pumped the blood. Clearly when the righteous feel the right to kill based on beliefs, anonymity is necessary.
But I will be a rebel and say that even in a perfect world where all superstition was gone, both anonymity and abortion would still have a place. No matter how careful and care full we are, there will still be that one case where a family might have to choose between the mother and unborn child.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The democratic voting process is typically conducted by anonymous poll. In this context, we recognize the crucial importance of anonymity in allowing all citizens to have an equal voice in decisions of common interest without fear of reprisal.
For decades I have actively promoted the usefulness of strong identity to secure many conceivable uses of the Internet. But voting is one example where both identity and privacy have to be maintained. I don't consider that a "bad practice" but an essential capability.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
PJ has confessed she had to move six or seven times since starting to do Groklaw because she receives death threats she must take seriously. Anonymity is a defense against those jackasses that will bully you or worse in retaliation for spreading ideas they don't like and telling facts they don't want to be known. Insinuating that anonymity could be something dirty is nauseating. The right to anonymity is nothing less than a requirement to Freedom of Speech.
And yes the bullies and the issuers of threats are doing their misdeeds anonymously. It does not mean anonymity is wrong. Bullying and death threats are what is wrong.
Or to continue the analogy, kitchen knives are used to murder spouses. Should we consider kitchen knives bad?
People have thin skin, the desire for control, and the inability to look at context that's the problem.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This post should be modded -1 flamebait as long as it has that sig.
It's DESIGNED to inflame in any topic.
It's not different then if I said:
I can sum it up in 3 words: God is a lie.
That would also inflame.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Freedom is never the problem. It is the solution.
Oppression is the problem. When someone uses their free speech rights to trample the rights of others (i.e. libel, etc...), the problem is not that they have free speech. The problem is always a matter of the actual harm caused by said speech.
Likewise, when people use their anonymity on the internet to hide their crimes against others, the problem is not a matter of anonymity, but rather, the crime committed in the first place. The value of a society where speech is effectively anonymous far outweighs the loss caused by the occasional criminal who uses it to hide from law enforcement.
Before the internet, and even today, one can send hate mail through the postal service *anonymously*. We didn't shut down the Post Office when the Unabomber used it to send bombs to people, instead, the FBI went looking for the perpetrator.
I can't help but wonder if Ted Kazinksi (sp?) would have become an internet troll rather than the Unabomber, had he been born 20 years later.
From time to time, there are people who suggest that we could catch criminals if we eliminated anonymity. They are lying or just plain naive. The fact is, if you remove anonymity from one medium, criminals will use another. Think about that for a moment. Now, in the era of the internet troll, frustrated individuals take out their passions online, rather than sending bombs through the mail. Which would you rather have?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
You guys are total fuckwad assholes.
WAITASEC WHERES THE AC CHECKBOX
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
...I only care what you say.
Why does it make a difference whether the author of a statement reveals their identity? It doesn't make their statement any truer or falser, any more or less relevant, any better or worse presented.
And frankly, if the poster above me had signed their contribution with their full name, address, phone number, finger print and bust size/penis length I still wouldn't have a clue who the hell they are. Identity on the Internet doesn't mean shit.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
Why not??
Its plain stupid to think that one shouldnt encourage anonymity. Of course we should encourage it for people that need it and we sure as HELL need to warrant it as an inalienable right of the netizen.
Stupid people wants cyberspace to work like meatspace and, in the process, want to fuck everyone else up.
YES, its MORE IMPORTANT that trolls are respected, than to take care of "the children" online.
We do not forbid bungee jumping. We just know who can and who cannot get up on one.
The internet is a dangerous place, children should not roam it alone. If you worry about the kind of shit they are exposed to, ask yourself where the fuck the parents are.
NO SIG
Of the vital and necessary freedoms, anonymity is one of the least valuable. It's sort of like the right to own a machine gun. We need to keep it available and overthrow any government that tries to take it from us, but we almost never actually need to use it. It's one of those "just in case" kind of things.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Funny how the same people oppose abortion and sex-ed.
Apparently their plan is to convince the entire world to stop having sex for fun. I don't see how they could possibly fail!
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
[Anonymity] should be allowed. People should be able to make that choice, and there are many reasons to make that choice. If you live in an oppressive regime, you may well want people to be able to remain anonymous or have secret communications. But at the same time, it should not be encouraged, and it should be acknowledged that itâ(TM)s a response to a bad situation.
It would seem that she agrees.
If this were a wiki post, I'd use the term "weasel words" to describe the analogy--The author is confusing several issues. Women's rights have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the issue of anonymity online.
The material issue here is whether the benefits to society in allowing anonymous posts outweigh the harm in doing so. And in the United States, we already have the answer -- we have a long history (albeit, recently screwed up!) of supporting free speech and expression as a general rule. And nowhere does it say that you must reveal your identity to protest -- for example KKK protests. In fact, anonymity is an indespensible tool in a society where it is a moral offense to be different from your neighbors. In every case I've seen where a person clamoured for a secret identity to be revealed one of the following has been true:
1. Money or economic interest; ie, quash a leaked trade secret, protect a brand name, or a copyright.
2. Personal attack; ie, Myspace, Facebook, "cyberbullying"; Where someone didn't like being told they were a douche, etc.
3. Batman
4. Political dissent
5. Unpopular viewpoint (NAMBLA, for example)
6. Illegal; ie, terrorism, white collar crime, etc.
In my opinion, #4's benefits outweigh the risks and harm caused by all others, and also applies to all others. Things are made illegal (such as file sharing) that are not necessarily in the public interest all the time. Money or economic interests -- money doesn't vanish because someone made a comment, it just goes somewhere else. They're reciprocally free to post their opinions. Personal attacks are a fact of life... Deal with it people. Same with unpopular viewpoints -- they're an anecdote to mass hysteria and mob thinking.
Anonymity is a necessary first step in political protest, because protest is never necessary when the majority approves... Remove anonymity and what you've got left are circumstances ripe for tyranny either by the few or the many, but tyranny all the same.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Or would you go along with the committee who decided that an election was valid... despite some people actually dying of injuries sustained in the course of getting to the polling place... because "a man of normal courage" was still able to vote?
Pseudonymity, perhaps, is enough in many cases... but the alternative in an increasingly transparent society is finding yourself picking your dancing partners based on whether you think your boss would approve.
I agree that the GP does agree with Dyson, but you missed a ball here:
does anonymity, which we all agree is essential, also have unfortunate negative side-effects?
Which also raises the question, "Does a lack of anonymity have negative side-effects?" The answer to both questions is "yes," but leaves you in the same place: what to do about it. Should anything be done about it, should there be an opinion at all, if your stance on anonymity comes down to religious taste? Not organized religion, but the comparison between the relative amounts of side-effects will come down to a person's personal values and ethics. Then the question remains, "should one person's idea (or a minority of the population's, or a majority's for that matter) about the value of anonymity be codified into law or practice?
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Yes, Esther, both anonymity and abortion are unfortunate things.
In a perfect world where people never made mistakes in judgement, where contraception never failed, where women were never raped, where sudden medical complications didn't arise out of nowhere, where events beyond your control never turned your life upside-down without warning, we'd never had a need for abortion.
And in a perfect world where people with power never abused that power to take revenge against those who made their misdeeds public, where bullies and petty tyrants never attempted to "punish" those who didn't bow to them, where fraudsters never attempted to masquerade as others, where criminals never attempted to use information for illicit gain, and where small-minded people never made life miserable for those who weren't exactly like them, we'd never have a need for anonymity either.
Pity this isn't a perfect world we live in.
Both phrases have 4 words in them. Or are they both inflammatory because they make fun of the "don't know how to count past two without pulling down my pants" crowd?
Besides, God IS a lie. Nothing inflammatory in that. Ask pretty much any religion about other religions' gods, and you'll get the same answer. Atheists just take it to one god more than most.
Actually, she agrees with you, and she makes a good point about it. It's necessary, but it does bring with it a bunch of problems.
It's really a problem with freedom and rights in general. There are those who will abuse them; however, it is far better to have those freedoms and rights and accept that they will be abused and that we will have to deal with the abuses, than to restrict everything.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
If you have an abortion, you avoid the serious consequences of a momentary irresponsible act, because sex did not lead to a baby.
If you post anonymously, you do the same, because criticizing the government of China did not lead to a jail cell.
It's time to take responsibility for your actions: Speak your mind, do the time.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H.L. Mencken
I grepped for Esther Dyson in the Linux source and could not find her name, I guess she was too shy about her contributions and desired to remain anonymous.
You give people anonymity "rights" by criminalizing disclosure. That doesn't make sense. You shouldn't have to take away freedom from others to create your own "rights".
This nonsense is getting to the point where rights aren't even a good thing anymore. By that I mean claiming that people have the "right" to be given health care, or the "right" not to be discriminated against, or the "right" to be married. Any right that grants benefits entitlements is not good.
...with their segment "Who the fuck are you?".
Seriously. Esther Dyson? EDventure Holdings?
Never heard of them. Who cares what he has to say?
Sounds like slashvertisement...
Let my try this too:
I'm Carl Ranseier from CRapload Holdings, an I think that EDventure Holdings are completely irrelevant and that internet anonymity is the only reason the Internet exists as it is.
Yeah. Good and ready to post! ;)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Judgment is human nature. People who keep secrets for fear of judgment are trying to lie to themselves. There's nothing I can do about that.
However, people who keep secrets for fear of sanctions or penalties would not keep them if we held a more reasonable view on punishment.
In my opinion a punitive legal system does not make sense. If someone does not know they are doing wrong, you only have to tell them and they will stop. If someone does know, but does it anyway, punishing them is not likely to stop them. Please do not talk to me about children or animals, or the mentally infirm. I am talking about rational, thinking adults.
We should only put people in jail if we have judged that they are a credible threat to society and the costs of imprisoning them are worth the benefits of removing them from general society. This process should not be considered remedial to the offender. That means that there should be no set length for prison terms. Criminals should be held there until they are no longer a treat to society. Criminals should not be given warnings, or threats, those things only encourage people to hide their actions and embitter them against us.
Just because it's a fundamental right, doesn't mean that it's perfect and that we shouldn't lament the faults.
I'm sure there many folks on slashdot wish there was a better way to select leadership given that most voters are uninformed about candidates and issues. Even though the current system sadly amounts to selecting who has the better ad campaign, the alternative can lead to gross abuse. So we begrudgingly deal with the fact that elected officials are the ones people will follow, not necessarily the ones best suited to lead.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Regarding an embryo as a citizen naturally leads you to regard a zygote as citizen, and sperm and ova as half-citizens. Thus, willingly letting sperm die makes you guilty of numerous half-murders, which, ultimately, makes everyone a mass murderer.
This is such a horrible, horrible argument.
Aborting a fetus is taking an active measure to prevent a life from forming.
Not preserving every sperm or every egg is passive. It would take an active measure to bring the sperm and the egg together thus creating the potential for human life.
It is the difference between bulldozing a half-finished house, and never starting the project to begin with.
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
in the united states, indeed in every western democracy, ballots are secret. no one questions this anonymity -- indeed, it's mandated by law.
I totally agree with the need for secret ballots in general elections (even though I'm not posting anonymously).
I would like to point out in addition that absentee voting is becoming increasingly popular in the US. An absentee ballot is fundamentally incompatible with the mandate that ballots be secret, because there is no way (no constitutional way, at least) to enforce secrecy of ballots within the privacy of an individual's own home.
If we ever as a society lose our right to secret ballots, I suspect it will happen gradually, one step at a time, with mandatory absentee voting (already implemented in Oregon, and due by 2010 in Washington) being the first step.
Without privacy you have no actual freedom.
Without anonymity you have no actual freedom of expression.
Without freedom individual life is pretty meaningless, and choices are arbitrary.
The same person who thought the Clipper chip and the government escrow of encryption keys was just okie-dokie and that we should trust experts like her to say the security was good enough is uncomfortable with anonymous speech. I'm shocked.
...oh crap. They're trying to turn the pro-life group against anonymity. Oh, won't someone think of the children!
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
If we had a way to create a one login to a single individual, stuff like making a new style of government could take place. Instead of a congress to represent everyone, everyone who cared could vote on every bill up. You could even have people be jurors in every case out there. The old time where everyone could not be in the same place has passed, we are living in a new time where everyone can gather in the same place. Now I'm not saying this is a superior style of government and trials, I'm just saying it is possible.
God spoke to me.
Pseudo-intellectual masturbation from an overly self-important has-been. Esther, take a break. Walk on the beach. Have a drink with some old friends. Smoke a cigarette, or two. Get over yourself. We have.
Sig this!
+1 Slashdot Gambit
"You have a positive Karma greater than the cube of your IQ. You sacrifice about 7 of those points to make one fun comment that only works with your name visible."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
It's like the anonymity of the vote -- there is no true liberty without it.
But it's over used. I've been posting under various pseudonyms for years now and I think it abstracts conversation. Creates a feeling of familiarity while simultaneously buffering and isolating the users.
./ too) because some things aren't worth the off-chance of petty reprisal. But if I really want to say something I believe in I think it only detracts when I push my bits as Joeuser123984 (or msimm). Anonymity has it's place, but most of the time it's just pushing *more* space between you and the people you talk to and not for any particularly good reason.
I'm not against it at all. I use it for all my throw-away activity (sorry, that's
Quack, quack.
Here's how this was shot down last time I saw it brought up: "I say the richest 1 percent of the population should pay all their money to the rest of us. Passes, 297 million to 3 million!"
Maybe she should have posted that pile of crap as AC? Ms. Dyson does her gender and her namesake an incredible disservice by spouting such ignorant bullshit.
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
She's the daughter of Freeman Dyson, the sister of George Dyson and a journalist who writes about technology as well as being an IT orientated entrepreneur.
I shouldn't worry, I didn't know who she was either, I had to look her up on Wiki. Well, I knew the name, I just had no idea what she actually did.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
Well, it could be millions under two circumstances:
First, let's assume the poster is 35 years old. If he started--his business--at the ripe age of 13, he would have had an opportunity to tend to his business for about 8000 days. Assuming that by "millions," he implies a value of around 2,000,000 releases of his fluids, he could quite easily hit that target by masturbating around 250 times per day. (Of course, his arm would probably be as big around as a tree trunk by this point, which could serve to impair his function--and I'm certainly not going to discuss the sort of dreadful things that may befall one's member after that much of a workout.)
Conversely, he could be anywhere from 500,000 years old and up, depending on if his average were a more sensible four or fewer times per day.
Now, on a more disturbing note, if this individual did in fact manage to hit the 2 million mark, he would have generated something on the order of about 5,200 gallons of semen which is equivalent to approximately 124 barrels of oil or enough juice to fill up a 15 foot round swimming pool.
And you thought you were going to sleep soundly at night knowing you weren't killing kittens.
He who has no
Here's a timely update for all concerned: Every time an abortion debate breaks out, God exterminates a species.
I think abortion is "off topic" on more than one level here. Don't we just use abortion as an excuse not to debate the more difficult matter of responsible parenthood?
Do we really want a lot of stressed out teenagers, who had no intention to start a family, with poor job prospects, raising a child without the benefit of universal health care, scraping along in an "at will" employment environment, where even the crappy job they can manage to hold disappears whenever fat bankers torch the economy? It has long puzzled me that anti-abortion views are so strongly held in the richest country that provides the least support.
I'm also surprised by the fatalistic instinct most of us possess toward conception. If a stranger walked up to your toddler and denting his/her skull with a hammer most parents would be angry. Yet if a conception involves a genetic liability of equal concern as the hammer blow, well, luck of the draw. We'll get through this together. God's will. Love conquers all. Yada, yada, buy me a Lada.
I think the underlying fear of abortion is that we'll start choosing our offspring the same way we (wish we could) choose our mates; or that if conception is not the first taste of adult responsibility, for many of us the line will never be crossed.
In this attitude of parental brinkmanship that makes us feel good about ourselves as a society of adult who suffers? The children. How we hate to admit that.
I think the article should have used analogies with Gun Control and Creationism too, then with any luck the discussion could have avoided the issue of anonymity completely.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
Support the FairTax
Anonymity for defending the rights of free speech is the same as requiring women to wear a full veil so they're free to move in public.
People don't use their real names on the net to not have to fear any consequences. What they get is that they can say what they want without anyone listening and without changing anything.
Getting people to hide from each other is the best way to make them powerless and frustrated. They will cry and whine and protest in the virtual world and hide and do as they're told in the real world. It's so easy to vent your frustation online and then to do nothing and change nothing in the real world.
Yes, anonymity should be a right on the net. But being able to use your name and your identity and actually be an individual being (that is: a not divided being) is a right, too. Freedom does not mean doing what you want as long as you're able to hide, it means doing what you want in the open.
Anonymity is not free, it comes at a high price. Just like abortion it's not the easy way out.
Our super technology has become our own undoing.
Seriously -- you believe it's morally and legally correct for we, as a community, to simply decide you need to die? You actually WANT to live in a society where that's codified?!?!
Um, we do. You live in a society where "crimes" exist. You commit certain types of crimes and you'll be hunted down, jailed, a trail, and then executed if found guilty.
You seem to want to live in a society where laws and crimes don't exist and where no one will be able to force their views on you. Ha, you are living in a fantasy land.
Or do you simply think that not having rights to one's own body is a status that should be reserved only for women? Would you support government-sponsored rape camps?
Hey just because I grew in some one else's body doesn't mean that should give them total rights over me. I didn't state that women or men have no rights over their body. They have the rights that we as the community permit them to have. I don't support government rape camps, but if enough of the community does support it, then I'm afraid yes it would legally happen. Heck, we could quiet easily change our penal institutions where that was s mandatory part of being jailed if we wanted to. No one wants that though. Now do they? You don't see anyone forming political groups to support that action now do you? I didn't say that I supported that, just that if the community decided that an action was so, that's how things will legally be.
Until something inside your body, made by your body, is voluntarily removed from your body with your explicit permission, it is not in our world or our nation.
Oh my, my shit doesn't exist until I poop! I didn't know that.
It is within sovereign territory, over which no government can claim authority; that territory has but a single ruler. Any invasion of that territory is a crime against basic human rights. Which, it's clear, you don't believe everyone deserves.
I'm mixed on the concept of "body rights" being a basic human right as you seem to view it. I'm not convinced that it is. Your logic is that you are the ruler of your own body and that no one out side of your body has rights over you or it. By your logic, police can't search you for hiding drugs in your body or search your body for blood alcohol level.
Any group of people that out number you and has enough control over you, has effective sovereignty over you regardless of what you'd like. It's only because we have of the customs and laws that we have that limits what rights others have over each of us. If you are suspected of a crime, many of those rights seem to suddenly be reduced.
You're actually one step off - anonymity encourages lack of accountability, which is fine, but lack of accountability encourages bad behaviour as well as encouraging good behaviour.
I used to run one of the early remailers. I eventually had to close it down, because some troll posted flamebait to some flame-sensitive newsgroups, and the resulting level of complaints led my ISP to ask me to shut it down. If the complaints had been because somebody had posted a socially valuable message, such as revealing government secrets or complaining about some serious social problems, my ISP would have helped me fight it, but this was just basic trolling.
Also, genuine lack of accountability is difficult; there are technologies like Chaum's Dining Cryptographer networks that can do it, but they're not widely implemented. Remailers and Anonymizers and the like depend on people explicitly not keeping user information, so that you don't have to trust them about the past, only the future, but even then you have to assume that some of them will be compromised.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
So we are all guilty of negligent manslaughter?
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
So we are all guilty of negligent manslaughter?
No.
The point is that aborting a fetus is an active act.
NOT creating one to begin with is a passive one.
People argue active passivisim, but those people are idiots.
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.