Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Party Banned From Social Networking Site
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that as the European Parliament elections loom, StudiVZ, Germany's largest social networking site, has opened up to political parties for election campaigning. That is, if you aren't the Pirate Party. "The other political parties were allowed to have a special account to show they are an organization and not an individual. The Pirate Party, however, was not allowed to have one and instead operated on a standard user account registered by an individual. StudiVZ noticed that the Pirate Party account was not a "real person" and despite it having a thriving network with hundreds of followers, it was summarily deleted. This means that it is impossible for the Pirate Party to have a presence at all on the largest social networking site in Germany."
Update: 05/02 19:17 GMT by T : Reader riot notes: "FYI: I just translated the press release to English."
Once you hoist the Jolly Roger, you excuse yourself from polite society. Isn't that sort of the point of being an outlaw?
Goddard's Law right out of the gate. This has to be a record.
I'm sure they didn't let any other fake parties in.
Are you adequate?
One such member was quoted saying
"Aye. We just want to run for pARRRRRRlament!" No ninjas were found for comment.
But it's a private website. It is the website's call if they want to ban pirates or ninjas. I do some coding for a social networking site and we will delete accounts if they don't meet our guidelines (the site targets a specific audience, and we want it that way). The 'net is a big place... big enough to allow site owners the right to keep out unwanted parties. Don't like the site's way of doing things, go elsewhere. It isn't like there aren't a dozen social networking sites trying to fill the big boy's shoes.
But I'm an asshole I guess, as I have also never seen the problem with an apartment not renting to people with kids, or restaurants not seating kids, but that is illegal.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
Except that they are more about civil liberties then they are about hijacking ships off the Somalian coast.
It does not matter what your party name is. If you have a sufficient sized following and your trying to get into power to improve your country why should you be treated any different than the rest of the political parties?
See, where i live, you could sue over that to achieve redress.
A German friend of mine called it Stasi-VZ, after the former East-German secret service.
After reading this, that comment makes even more sense.
't used to be LawnMOWER, really...
Prepare to be boarded by the cutthroats and brigands of The Crimson Permanent Assurance!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Sorry, maybe I misunderstand your comment, so let me make sure: are you seriously comparing the account deletion policy on a social networking site to the Nazis? Please tell me I've misunderstood. Please.
are you confusing "Pirate Party" and "The Pirate Bay"?
Is the Pirate Party an officially-registered political party in GERMANY?
I know they've gotten press in Sweeden, but I didn't know they were active in Germany too.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Second, this particular "victim" has perhaps the largest-trafficed site in the world. They don't need any help.
Pirate Party != The Pirate Bay
Especially true when speaking of the German Pirate Party. The Swedish Pirate Party has a slightly closer association.
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
First, yes they can do whatever they want, as long as it is legal.
Second, you are mixing up the Pirate Bay with the Pirate Party. Two very different things. Also, the Pirate Party in TFA is the German Pirate Party, which is very different from all other Pirate Parties in other countries.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
it is... they are running also for the upcoming EU parliament elections. Just to quote from the TF article: Andreas Popp, lead candidate for the upcoming European Parliament elections characterizes the censorship as undemocratic.
if your in the us, political media must recieve equal time and access (with in limits)
Oh yeah, its a really short step from the denial of internet access to wholesale slaughter and genocide.
You're a private site, welcoming users to view your ads so you can make a little money with the intellectual property of your work.
Well of course you're not going to like the pirate party. Although they may actually draw in more visitors/hits/money if you did allow them to establish themselves, it's still your right to dislike a group of people whose goal is to destroy the system you rely on.
Such delusion.
Third, democracy is perhaps one of the dumbest actual concepts in practice. Why the hell sholud my vote on 90% of topics count equal to someone expert in the particular field. I've got my expertise, where my vote should count more than the average joe, and my ignorances where my vote should count way less.
And who gets to make the determination that your vote/say (whether or a particularly narrow topic or just in general) is any better than someone else's? It's a classic chicken/egg scenario we can't ever hope to solve to even a majority's satisfaction, so we don't even bother wasting the time in the first place.
Hence: Democracy. Yup, it's far from perfect, but it's relatively low maintenance (something you want in a toll that's supposed to last you long periods of time), and it's about as fair as we can currently figure out, which has the very obvious advantage that it keeps post-results bitching to a minimum and thus allows for longer periods of progress and peace.
That's hardly a plus for the actual system.
Actually, that's a great plus. History is littered with despotic regimes whose chief hallmarks were lack of transparency and accountability. For example, the current situation in the US is directly linked to two very important facets of its democratic makeup. Number one is America's system of "representative" democracy which is more elitist than "direct" democracy. Second, the current financial mess is directly traceable to a collapse of the regulatory organs of the state during the last few decades.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Godwinned.
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
Who fucking cares if there are 1000 social networking sites if the social groups (or majority of) you intend to communicate with are only on the 1 you are banned from?
They should go to Facebook, they have even added a special language option just for them. English (Pirate)
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
Also, just to clarify: yeah, I think this is a dick move (although I'm too lazy to read the details, so I could be wrong). But then, I remember Facebook having a whole passel of election-related gizmos last fall that only included the Republican and Democratic parties. As a supporter of neither of those parties, I naturally took this as further validation of my belief that Facebook is a stupid toy run by and for trivial people. You know what I didn't think, though? That FACEBOOK = NAZIS!!1!
Sorry, maybe I misunderstand your comment, so let me make sure: are you seriously comparing the account deletion policy on a social networking site to the Nazis?
Well the first thing the National Socialists did when they came to power was shutdown all the Christian Democrat and Socialist newspapers and arrest their party leaders.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
ignorance is a bliss, right?
please point out where their ideology is based on theft? Furthermore, what is theft actually?
When your political party is based on the ideology of corruption and who knows who, you shouldn't be surprised if you get the boot eventually. And you certainly don't defend democracy by trying to silence the opposition.
Sorry, maybe I misunderstand your comment, so let me make sure: are you seriously comparing the account deletion policy on a social networking site to the Nazis? Please tell me I've misunderstood. Please.
Also (and I almost forgot), by not mentioning Nazi's by name he also includes the DDR (East Germany) who basically did the same thing to non-communist political parties.
There are plenty of people alive the lived under them and remember a time when openly joining a political party other than the Communists meant jail time.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
That's not the end of it. Those goddamn Nazis running the German government have also banned the National Socialist Party.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
The purpose of Democracy is two fold.
1. To reduce civil wars.
2. To force the government to at least TRY an pay attention to the nees of people besides those directly in power.
First, if you have enough men to fairly win a civil, then you should have enough men to win an election - with much less casualties. In other forms of government, you might have 90% of the population hating the leader, but without democracy the only way to remove them is to fight and die.
Second, a democracy requires the government to consider what everyone else thinks. In most other forms of government, who )(*&@ cares what the peasants thinks.
P.S. There is a third benefit that happens often, but not all the times. Democracies usually have voting fairly often, so it speeds up the process of removing the incompetent, as compared to many other forms. But this is not always the case.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Will you delete a site that /does/ meet the guidelines, but you have a /personal/ grudge against?
That's whats going on here.
Sorry, maybe I misunderstand your comment, so let me make sure: are you seriously comparing the account deletion policy on a social networking site to the Nazis? Please tell me I've misunderstood. Please.
One can compare and contrast many things, regardless of their relative value.
I can compare a penny to a dollar coin. A dollar coin is worth one hundred times more than a penny.
But they are both money.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
But it's a private website. It is the website's call if they want to ban pirates or ninjas.
And it is our call if we want to take them to task for it. This freedom of speech thing works both ways.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
First, private company can do what it wants -- I own three.
Right, but if you behave in such a way that other people find offensive they are allowed to bitch about it. Freedom of speech works both ways.
I mean if you posted offensive or intolerant views on your websites (like say you have proof that Windows is better than Linux), don't people have a right to write make their own websites, blogs, and petition Slashdot on the topic?
Either the German site can either put up with the criticism or let them on their site. It has the right to not let them join, but they can bitch all they like about not being allowed.
It is their right.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Really? I thought they were "well affiliated". Or at least mutually supported.
The rule is that if a media outlet is offering time to a particular candidate for a particular office, then other candidates for the same office should be able to get the same deal.
This is only relevant to media subject to FCC regulation. Which, in general, does not include the Internet.
But in any case, it's quite easy to get around the Equal Time Rule by doing everything as a newscast.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
They have banned the Scientologists too, which is good btw.
What are you saying? That someone can't believe in Scientology? The arguments against Scientology are Not whether someone can believe in whatever L. Ron Hubbard came up with, but rather are they really a non-profit religion, and then criticising the censorship within Scientology. By banning them, you effectively become them in your censorship of belief.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Dude, totally! And like, someday Germans will get to tell their kid about how joining a party other than the officially sanctioned ones could, like, totally result in not being able to get your Facebook feed updated with official party event invitations! You could only get invitations to events from some other person setting up a non-official facebook group for the party, which meant you wouldn't get the little blue background bar invites in your facebook feed! And sometimes the javascript didn't work right to update your Twitters, so you'd totally have to get it sent to email instead! Dark times, dude, dark times.
I'm sorry, but: do you really not feel that these comparisons are maybe just a little bit silly?
They weren't banned. They just had their tax-exempt status revoked.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
People have no rights in the private sector. Any attempt to force the private sector to recognize the rights of people is government intervention, and conflicts with my laissez-faire ideologies. People have rights like freedom of speech under the government. Oh and BTW, I think we should shrink the size of the government and let the private sector handle everything.
Because there are already several other groups, I think more popped up, aand: Before this, was in none of them. Now I am in all of them. :D
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Who gets to make the determination? How about a minimum level of determination? Like when I vote, in order for my vote to be counted, I need to know the name of the person for whom I'm voting, and their position on three key issues -- you know, the types of things that htey state forty times in every speech. Something, anything, to prove that I'm not just ticking off a random name. And maybe, just maybe, I should have to do it for at least one other candidate.
But to say that a system is good because it avoids being bad doesn't say anything for what it improves. Unless you're saying that government is there simply to keep chaos at bay. Which is certainly valid. But I like to see more from my society.
Congrats on a fast but subtle Godwining
Do YOU know why your neighbor is coughing? DO YOU???
Pubic hair caught in her throat?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
[...] it's really the first step from the denial of free speech to wholesale slaughter and genocide.
There. Fixed that for ya.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Democracy's a bit like Wikipedia: the most obsessive win.
Oh yeah, it's a really short step from having the newspapers edited to wholesale slaughter and genocide. Er, wait... What were we talking about again? I can't seem to find any reference to it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The problem is that people treat democracy as if it is virtuous, rather than accepting it because it does the least to restrict liberty.
I mean, a 9/10 vote to do something stupid still ends in doing something stupid.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
But that's precisely my point. I don't care what peasants think -- especially when I'm a peasant. Democracy doesn't force government to consider the needs o the people, it forces government to consider the vote of the people.
So if someone has an actually good idea, but it requires, oh, I don't know, a grade ten education to understand, then it can never happen because people won't vote for it because they don't understand it.
So then you start electing people who sound intelligent, not people who actually are intelligent. Those two tend to be inversely proportional.
"We reserve the right ot refuse service to anyone for any reason." It's in every restaurant.
"This job requires someone fluent in Chinese." See how many Indians apply.
Oh, and in conducting interviews for a position, I don't have to say why I chose to hire someone else.
"Must be available to work on. . ." list the set of holidays that conflicts with your religion of non-choice. See how many Catholics will work on Christmas.
Welcome to private business. I can refuse a client because "I find him rude, arrogant, or such unappreciative of my work." I can refuse a new employee, or fire an existing employee because "I'm cutting back." and then two weeks later I can change my mind. Or "He's not a team player." or "I just don't feel that he'd be a good match for my company."
Forcing me to put up a sign would be more work for me, not less.
There have been, over the years, plenty of persons with whom I have decided not to work simply because I disagree with elements of their personal life, and I choose not to support them financially. I'm allowed to decide who gets my money, and who gets my services, and who doesn't. That is indeed one of my rights -- or two of them, I suppose.
In fact, that's the primary reason that I chose to start my first business -- I didn't want to be forced to work with other people that I don't like.
In related news, the swedish pirate party looks as though they might hava a shot at the EU-parliament.
5.1% of the votes in a recent poll:
http://translate.google.se/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dn.se%2Ffordjupning%2Feuropa2009%2Funga-valjare-kan-ge-piratpartiet-eu-mandat-1.855936&sl=sv&tl=en&history_state0=
Important stuff
Free speech has never applied to private forums, the only thing it covers is government action. Facebook is not a part of the government and as such not required to offer freedom of expression to anyone.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Betcha the Pirate Party would be less corrupt than any other.
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
Now one of them is going to quote Gandhi's "then they laugh at you" line, and I just want you to know, you're to blame.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
or maybe sick of antisocial kids screaming and shouting in restaurants?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Not ALL Parties are allowed on that social network (StudiVZ) - only the ones which are currently in the Parliament... which the Pirate Party isn't... I'm angry about the lockout, too, but this report is just plain exaggerating!
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Well the first thing the National Socialists did when they came to power was shutdown all the Christian Democrat and Socialist newspapers and arrest their party leaders.
So when this private social networking site takes over Germany and shuts down the Pirate Party, you'll have a valid comparison.
I've never seen one. But even if it's there, it doesn't alter the actual law one jot.
A related example: lots of shops put up signs when there's a sale on saying "No returns on sale goods". In many countries that's illegal, it carries zero weight; in some the shop can be fined merely for displaying it.
Newsflash: Laws are made & passed by the government, not some fucktard with a piece of card and a marker pen. Three businesses my arse.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This is bullshit. Just because a commerical website is banning this fine party does not mean anything beside that StudiVZ is bad. However, StudiVZ is the worst possible choice you can make if you are looking for a social network. Their security model is more or less fake security.
If you haven't left StudiVZ and their other VZ services, then leave now.
That's why almost no country implements a direct democracy and you usually see representative democracies where people elect those who they consider sufficiently knowledgeable about the issues and let them decide the details. If it's too complex for the masses to understand the hope is that at least the representative (or someone he picks) can understand it and get it done.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
As a german I can tell you - the political situation here is BAD! censorship is back, surveillance is back, corruption... never left
the lockout of the pirate party is just a small puzzlepiece of opposition-oppression, but all in all - yes - we are headding for the fourth reich...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Wrong, democracy is is theatre that gives the prols the false feeling that even if they don't have control themselves they at least have a choice over the selection of the people that do and the decisions they make. Meanwhile behind the curtain its full steam regardless of the incumbent players. But remember to applaud, boo and shout "behind you" at the correct moments or you fellow prols will tear you down for being disruptive. Bread and circus all the way.
God is dead! -- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead! -- God
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Three "incorporated" businesses. A few other sole proprietorships or partnerships kicking around new ideas. My first business is now 15 years old, about two years ago, I decided that it was mature enough that I could extend my time and effort and money to some new ideas.
As for atually altering the actual law, no one cares. It's what winds up happening that matters. Make all the laws you like, it's the enforceable ones that matter.
You know, like "spam is illegal", gee, thanks for that. I get well over 10'000 each and every day.
As for the "no returns on sale goods", I too work for multiple clients who write such things. It's a great deterrant to customers who would otherwise rent their products -- like my sister does with her shampoo and her purses.
But in this case, we have something much more fundamental here. If I have two clients, one who pays me $50'000.00 annually, and one who pays me $5'000.00 annually, and the larger one doesn't like the smaller one -- for whatever reason, racist or otherwise -- I'm left losing one client or losing the other.
Now, maybe you'd have me dump the racist client in favour of the ethical client -- but they you'd have me go bankrupt and not only losing my business, but also as a result that ethical client too. Of course, I'm going to dump the smaller, ethical client -- politely, and with some guidance -- in favour of the evil client who keeps me alive.
Welcome to business -- times three.
The next thing they did was make all the corporations democratically run by the workers. Which really pissed off the foreign owners who were milking the country dry. That's what the war was about, maintaining the enslavement of the people.
They recognized that the capitalists and the money changers were guilty of crimes against humanity, and they tried to liberate humanity. That's why the blitz worked, because the people in the various countries they invaded actually greeted them as liberators.
The reason you think what you think about the Nazi's is because you were raised on a diet of propaganda designed to hide the shame of your forefathers. That's not to say the things you think you know are defensible, because they're not. The point is, nothing you think you know about the subject is actually real.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I can compare a penny to a dollar coin. A dollar coin is worth one hundred times more than a penny. But they are both money.
Yes, but to say that a private social network not allowing a fringe group to use the same functions as mainstream political parties means that the country where that private network operates is going the way of the Nazis or the DDR is a lot like a bum who gets a dollar claiming to be like Bill Gates.
Either way, I call Godwin's on this thread. It's ridiculous, and truly, invoking that type of history on this type of issue minimizes what actually happened. I don't think anyone in the Pirate Party has been arrested, put into forced labor camps, or gassed, incinerated and sent up the chimney.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Tell me: Why should it?
Political affiliation is not an analogous ground under S.15 of the Charter; it is hardly an immutable characteristic, or one that can only be changed at great personal cost.
Given that, why should that translate through to the Human Rights Code?
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
As an active member of the Swedish pirate party, I'm interested to know what our German counterpart does to make it "very different?"
No, he is saying that Scientology is actually a Mafia. Loosely.
Their policy is still that any action is sanctioned if committed against anyone on their enemies list. And they *do* have one. It's pretty long, and there is a long list of things you can legally do that will put you there. They have killed, kidnapped, drugged, continue to use the courts to harass.
What is quite unfortunate is that they really are on to something with their "training techniques". If you are in to reprogramming the human biocomputer, checking out their working procedures from that perspective is highly enlightening. For example, their technique of going back, over and over, through your past, using amphetamines to keep the subject going, switching out the processors, etc. It is all a very well done procedure.
It's ironic that techniques developed for freeing the mind became fused with fully formed an authoritarian framework to invade the newly free headspace.
The trouble is that the difference on whether somebody is 'intelligent' or just 'sounds intelligent' is directly proportional to whether they agree with the person making the judgement in most cases. The people you claim are intelligent probably are the ones somebody else will call psuedo-intellectuals and vice versa. So, how do you decide, you either have a democracy or you have some form of authoritative government that is not likely to change. If that latter system puts people into office who make a mistake, then everybody is hosed because even if everybody else sees the ship sinking, there's nothing that can be done because those in charge don't because according to them, they've already made the right choice and that other system probably doesn't allow for a change due to others feelings.
I think there's a difference between a member doing something against the TOS and a member that you don't like, or have been told to not like. This, to me, is a political deletion, has nothing to do with getting rid of bad members.
I'd hazard a guess that your site isn't thriving if you can't tell the difference between a personal dislike and someone breaking the rules of your site. Where I live, if this happened, the site owners would find themselves infront of the ACMA quicker than you can say "politically unjust act".
Yes, you are an "asshole" as you said, but you're also an idiot too... but they usually go hand in hand.
Amen. The many myths that surround the Nazis and the 'you know what' are pretty impressive if one even remotely tries to understand why they are so viciously defended.
It depends on what the political contribution laws are in the said country. Once a company starts allowing some political parties their services for free while banning them to others (like the Pirate Party which is a registered political party in Germany IIRC), that might be seen as an endorsement or contribution and could be in violation of some laws dealing with political contributions.
First, they came for the tweeters but I did not complain because I was not on twitter. Then they came for the facebookers but I didn't speak up because I didn't have a facebook account. Then they came for the myspace douchebags but I didn't speak out because I wasn't on myspace. When they came for the slashdotters, there was noone left to speak up for me.
I'm pretty sure being a member of the communist party is still acceptable discrimination if you are a resident alien seeking citizenship, applying to government related jobs, etc. in the US. My wife, formerly a Chinese citizen, was asked this several times by officials and in official documents.
I'm not really sure what we have is necessarily that altruistic.
That's not true. I disagree with many people who are more intelligent than I -- simply not in my field. That's the thing. I can easily recognize that I'm an idiot it many areas, and then trust that the expert in said field is likely to be more correct than I am.
But when I do know something, and it is in my field, and I disagree with someone, it's likely that I'm the one who's more correct.
But hey, it's easy to see if someone's an idiot. You give them a chance, and you see if they actually produce. And then you look back and decide if you should have given them the chance in the first place.
With enough experience, you can learn to become moderately psychic and figure it out in advance.
Perhaps my humour's a little dry, I'll admit to that. But, once more for clarity:
Ba dum, tish!
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I thought this was about social networking sites.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
What's illegal about a restaurant refusing to seat kids (and as a result, refusing business to someone who comes there with kids)?
You can do it now, or you can do it in a year - but if you don't do it, it will never be taken seriously on the political scene.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
So if you're a bar, you can't refuse admittance to a 9-year-old, and refuse to sell them an alcoholic drink that they're too young to safely imbibe? On the basis of age discrimination being illegal?
Oh, by the way... political beliefs and political party associations aren't in that list!
yeah...giving a single private company huge amounts of power over how a large number of people communicate is a bad idea....social networking sites still don't make sense to me, the web has been about social networking since it's inception. Why did people decided that the web wasn't good enough that they'd rather just have a handful of companies in charge?
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
oh, wonderful baiting there.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
Yeah, way to go showing a good character. ^^
Do you only obey some important rules, when law (eg the possibility of a cop dragging you to jail) forces you to do so?
A wise man once said: "Good people don't need laws. They already know what is right and wrong themselves. And bad people don't obey them anyway."
If you do the right thing when nobody asks you to... or when nobody is looking... that is were real goodness in character shows.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
do you think that everyone woke up late may 1941, and said, "Hey, Lets have a Holocaust!". the answer of course is No. small changes like this culminated in atrocity. seriously, search slashdot for "yro germany", and tell me you don't see a disturbing picture appearing over the last 2 years. probably not a sign of impending genocide, but that was only one aspect of the regime. everyone focuses on it (and rightly so), but it's not the only bad thing they did.
There is a German Pirate Party but it never took off like the Swedish one. Might actually be a geographic thing; Germany has small towns all over the place while I think the Swedes tend more towards fewer, bigger cities. As small parties like the Pirates usually only are up for election in the most densely populated areas due to resource constraints, they're less effective when many people are not in those areas.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
You're a member of "The Ninja Party", aren't you?
You need a way to keep the experts from colluding and taking advantage of the peasants. Case in point: the banking crisis. Now, I'm no expert in banking, but I sure don't want to give those who are power over everything. It is very clear that they weren't thinking about peasants, they were thinking about their own wallets.
You make a good point that democracy sometimes can be inefficient, and come up with bad solutions, but I am willing to put up with inefficient government if it means I don't have to worry about having a king. After a while Kings stop worrying about the peasants, and if there's no way for the peasants to protect themselves, then it's bad. If you have a way to organize government that is both safe and efficient, I am definitely interested, but so far you don't seem to have a better idea.
Qxe4
But it's a private website. It is the website's call if they want to ban pirates or ninjas. I do some coding for a social networking site and we will delete accounts if they don't meet our guidelines (the site targets a specific audience, and we want it that way). The 'net is a big place... big enough to allow site owners the right to keep out unwanted parties. Don't like the site's way of doing things, go elsewhere. It isn't like there aren't a dozen social networking sites trying to fill the big boy's shoes.
This whole "it's a private website" argument has fundamental problems. Perhaps the website is acting legally and perhaps no law *should* be passed against it, but people and websites have social responsibilities beyond legality. Additionally, network effects (especially on a social *networking* site) make it hard for people to go elsewhere, destroying the normal methods of accountability for socially irresponsible decisions. Your post sounds like an attempt to discredit the discussion and say everything's perfectly OK. Yet, in your post, you point out that if a site does something you don't like, don't use it, and that's what competition is for. But that is exactly what this discussion could very likely accomplish: coordinating a boycott and publicizing the fact that many of us don't like the site. It's outside the realm of government. If you think the discussion is pointless, argue that, but don't argue that it's trying to intrude on the private rights of private websites, and don't smugly recommend that we do what we are already doing: coordinating not using the site and supporting the competitors.
How is that any different from being "sick of antisocial blacks screaming and shouting in movie theaters"? Do you think your personal prejudices justify legal/commercial discrimination?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
I can't find the source of the quote at the moment, but I remember reading once something to the effect of "Software/media companies made a huge mistake by calling the violation of their copyrights 'piracy'. Everybody wants to be a pirate. They should have called it something like 'software faggotry'."
Kidding aside, piracy has been romanticized in the Western collective consciousness for more than a century. Society today has a positive perception of romantic piracy at all levels, from the movies of Errol Flynn influencing the elderly all the way to that Lazytown song 'You're a pirate' being made into a flash animation meme influencing the internet generations. Aside from 'real pirates' like in Somalia, pirates are (however wrongly from a historical perspective) almost universally held in favorable regard.
I think that if the Pirate Party changed its name, people would feel it was less genuine, like it was trying to hide its true nature and repackage itself in a pandering sort of way. I think that as it stands, the Pirate Party can capitalize a lot on the inherent human desire for unique and even rebellious expression/identity.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
+1 OHHHSNAP!
It's not about fate, it's about character.
there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
Well, I think this is the game that we always wind up playing. In the case where the experts want to collude, the peasants can't stop them. Experts look at peasants statistically. Peasants aren't going to rally against the experts -- not only do they not know how, but tehy don't know that tehy even need to.
So here's my quick-and-dirty solution. The trick is to enable peasants to become experts when they feel that they need to.
So, in my world, a peasant gets one vote, an expert gets ten -- arbitrary numbers for now, obviously. Maybe three levels of expert at 5, 10, and 15.
So first off, peasants, should they actually rally, do get enough sway.
Moving forward, anyone can become an expert. You got one level for a certain threshhold of education, another level for experience (running a business in that field, teaching, contributing, whatever), and a third for passing a very direct questionnaire about the issue. Something like a three-hundred point factual multiple-choice exam on the broad topic (chosen randomly from 5'000 questions, just for fun) and an essay question just to see if you care enough to sit for an hour and write about it. It's not actually graded.
So if you feel that the experts are colluding, you're welcome to join their ranks as easily as taking an exam, or passing a few courses, or donating to the industry, or working in the industry.
So, how's that?
Really, I don't want to form a king-ship, or an elitest society. I just want to separate people who vote from people who know and vote. Not only because I want some of my votes to count more, and because I feel that some other people's votes should count less, but more than anything I want the decisions made by my civilization to make sense. Experts do that, not selfish individuals.
And I don't mean selfish like greedy. I mean that democratic voting is typically about "well, this law makes the most sense for my situation, so I'll vote this way. you should vote the other way".
That's what happens around here all the time. I vote for lower business taxes because I run businesses. My friends vote for lower personal taxes because they have income. I vote for fewer social services because I don't use them -- like public transit. My friends vote the other way.
And what never gets considered is what's better long-term, or for the city as a whole. And if I were someone who could earn that distinction, I'd consider that maybe I should vote for public transit because it lowers traffic for when I do drive. Or maybe my friends should be voting for lower business taxes because they'll wind up being paid more by their employer.
But that's the kind of question that only experts can assess. Peasants aren't going to pay more taxes so their employers can pay fewer taxes -- no matter how good that might be.
So that's my idea. I don't think it's perfect, I don't think it's thought-out. I'm not an expert in political or social systems of government. But I am an expert in decision-making systems (A.I. and neural networks, decision trees, business algorithms, data analysis) and I know how to have many many data-points and perspectives contribute to a whole. And it's not a one-node one-vote system. It's a weighted-vote system based on the connections present at each node.
For one, a much better shot at getting elected, if the recent increase in registration can be translated into actual votes.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Dude, I can list a few at the top of my head. Workplace safety regulation. Consumer protection laws. Working hours regulation. Sick pay. Paid vacation.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Fucking Nazis!
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Good luck trying to stop people who have already proven themselves masters of the internet. This is laughable. The German social site will no doubt suddenly start finding dozens, if not hundreds, of "members" devoted to the cause.
I call Godwin's on this thread.
*facepalm*
Part of Godwin's Law is that it only works when you don't explicitly invoke it.
http://outcampaign.org/
First, private company can do what it wants -- I own three.
Only due to the benevolence of the government who can take away your property any time or just stop protecting it so someone with bigger weapons can take it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The problem is that people treat democracy as if it is virtuous
Very well said. Nothing is a magic bullet. Now, if I can finally convince people that the US Constitution is *gasp* not 100% perfect...
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Better to start complaining at the first signs of corruption than wait until it's too late to do anything about it.
It's more like giving all the Republicans free air time on your network, while not allowing Democrats to even buy airtime. It's in blatant violation of God knows how many campaign laws. Well, I say that, but I have no idea what the law is like in Germany. I would think that they would be pretty strict with such things though.
Which party do the owners belong to now?
guyminuslife wrote: "That's not the end of it. Those goddamn Nazis running the German government have also banned the National Socialist Party."
Would this be funny: "That's not the end of it. Those goddamn Zionists running the Israel government have not yet banned the Renewed Religious National Zionist Party."?
In fact, the similiarity with the Nazis are striking: "Ideologically, the party subscribes to Greater Israel, supports the Israeli settlement drive in Gaza and the West Bank. It vehemently opposes disengagement from West Bank, but opposes violence and civil disobedience against the IDF, and calls to respect the rule of law. The party platform also emphasizes the fight against government corruption, and more recently, also promoting social justice. The movement is supported by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, who could be seen as its spiritual leader, whilst Nobel Prize winner Robert Aumann is the party's scientific advisor. All from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewed_Religious_National_Zionist_Party
I am fed up with jokes and links between modern Germans and what happened sixty years ago. And, no, I have no connection whatsoever with Germany, or, Robert Aumann, or, far-right, or, far-left wing ideologies.
You'd be wary of new unusual political parties too.
There is a limit on the number of "r"'s allowed and the pirates seem to go through them at quite a rate. Perhaps we could allow them in if they paid for each additional "r", but then we'd be seen as profiting from one party and not another so we can't win either way.
In the UK it's the British National Party (quazi Nazis), membership of this party precludes you from employment in the government, police, etc. Vile as they may be, they are a legitimate political party and legalising discrimination against them is even more vile, as well as the most dangerous precedent imaginable. Unfortunately this policy is actually quite popular in the UK - the sheeple will get what they deserve in the end I guess.
So if you're a bar, you can't refuse admittance to a 9-year-old, and refuse to sell them an alcoholic drink that they're too young to safely imbibe? On the basis of age discrimination being illegal?
No, in that case, the denial of service is not merely based on age alone, but rather on the law that prohibits the sale of alcohol to underage people.
Oh, by the way... political beliefs and political party associations aren't in that list!
Yes, that's what the GP was pointing out when he said "political discrimination is not protected" in his country.
By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.
So the Pirate Party may not have its own site?
If any party of the ones currently around, the Pirate Party is a grassroots movement. Who should keep the "pirates" from taking over other parties' pages? Just ask all parties politely why they are allowed while another party is banned. Board flooding is hardly a new idea, and it usually isn't something I'd recommend or even approve or support, but hey, if you are not allowed your own gathering ground, gather somewhere else. Would be sweet if some conservative party with hardass positions on copyright was subverted into the "inofficial" pirate party hangout. :)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
While I agree mostly with your post (they are a legitimate political party and most legitimate parties should not be discriminated against), I think in entities like the police, it makes sense to discriminate against members of the BNP (and other such parties). I mean, how fair can you expect someone with a background of discrimination against immigrants to be when arresting/investigating an immigrant as part of the police force?
Then why bother singling out the BNP or any other political party? Why not just leave the criteria at having a history of racism? After all, just because someone is a member of a party doesn't mean they believe in everything or even a majority of what that party promotes. Maybe they are a single issue voter and that's the only party that agrees with their point of view with respect to their single issue? And on the flip side you sure don't have to be a member of any political party to be racist. One rule/law that covers all cases rather than a whole bunch of laws, one for each special case.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It appears you can put anything as your political affialiation. Maybe we should change our to Pirate Party as a show of support.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Just don't blame the government or the population for the acts of a private corporation. It'd be worse if the govt made laws to force everyone to offer free speech on their websites.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
The sign doesn't say that the reason has to be given. "Sir, you're going to have to leave; right now."
I'm saying that my restaurant, my home, my store, my place of business, it's trespassing if I want you to leave and you don't. Private property, the public has no right to it.
My business is mine. Just like my car, my table, and my apple. I'm not forced to serve or to hire anyone -- because my business is not a public resource. It's mine.
So that's exactly what I'm saying. It certainly doesn't make me a moron. As to why you'd get upset because I own something and ensure that my rights to my own property are maintained is unknown to me.
Do you not own anything?
Yes. However there are huge consequences when governments do that. And it's not easy for them to do. Increasingly difficult over here too.
But you're certainly correct in saying that I wouldn't be able to protect it with my own two hands.
Hence I choose a civilized community, where laws are generally obeyed, and society believes in the general basis of law-organized society.
I think your argument is with GGP, not me.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
The next thing they did was make all the corporations democratically run by the workers. Which really pissed off the foreign owners who were milking the country dry. That's what the war was about, maintaining the enslavement of the people.
You know that Hitler started WWII? You know that he even let people be killed to make it look like the Poles attacked first, not the Germans? Yeah, that's totally about evil bourgeois wanting their business to go on as usual. It's not even tangentially related to the original National Socialist ideology of more living space in the east.
They recognized that the capitalists and the money changers were guilty of crimes against humanity, and they tried to liberate humanity. That's why the blitz worked, because the people in the various countries they invaded actually greeted them as liberators.
They got huge sums from capitalists and their great second enemy, who's a bastard of the first according to them, was Communism. Surely they would embrace that stupid theory by that fucking jew Marx! (Buzzword: Sozialismus der Tat)
The reason you think what you think about the Nazi's is because you were raised on a diet of propaganda designed to hide the shame of your forefathers. That's not to say the things you think you know are defensible, because they're not. The point is, nothing you think you know about the subject is actually real.
Yeah, of course. Most German kids learn in grade 9 or 10, depending on federal land, all the nice horrors from 1933 to 1945. The nice thing: The books actually _cite_ their texts; contemporary witnesses, credible historians, and even original sources, like a recording of one of Hitler's speeches. That's about as unreal as anything can get, eh?
If you don't have any clue what you're talking about, shut the fuck up. (Disclaimer: I'm actually a secondary jew-hater (i.e. anti-Semite). These people think that the jews now take advantage of their position as victims to be in a better political/economical/foocal position.)
Maybe it's different because children are a different group than blacks?
So are women. I guess it's OK to discriminate against women, then?
That whole set of traits -- not being alive very long, lack of impulse control, lack of socialization -- that aren't good descriptors of black adults as a group.
The first has nothing to do with being allowed into a restaurant or apartment, and the second two are stereotypes. Some individual kids might be unable to behave in a restaurant or apartment, but that's not true of kids in general.
But as long as we're allowing stereotypes, I've heard that black adults are noisy in movie theaters, and they also play loud rap music and get into gunfights. Are you saying I should have to put up with shouting and gunfights in the next row while I'm trying to watch a movie?
See how easy it is to argue for discrimination when you can just fabricate evidence that $GROUP can't behave appropriately in $SITUATION?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Seems like a really good way to attract hackers to your website.
>> or maybe sick of antisocial kids screaming and shouting in restaurants?
How is that any different from being "sick of antisocial blacks screaming and shouting in movie theaters"?
That's probably one of the most racist things I've ever read.
Do you think your personal prejudices justify legal/commercial discrimination?
No, but unless you're advocating drivers licenses for 8 year olds and holding adults to the terms of contracts they signed when they were 12, you're just as guilty of "ageism" as the post you replied to.
That's probably one of the most racist things I've ever read.
Then you must've lived a sheltered life. I've seen far more racist things... and far more ageist things than the quote I was responding to. I think I did a fairly good job of matching the level of racism in my comment with the level of ageism in cliffski's comment.
The difference is that I'm not actually a racist; I was making a point. But I believe cliffski actually is an ageist.
I wonder, where's your outrage over the ageism in cliffski's comment?
No, but unless you're advocating drivers licenses for 8 year olds and holding adults to the terms of contracts they signed when they were 12, you're just as guilty of "ageism" as the post you replied to.
Yes, I would be guilty of ageism if I thought an 8 year old who proved his ability to drive safely shouldn't be given a license, or a 12 year old shouldn't be allowed to sign contracts simply because of his age.
But I don't. I do, however, find it interesting that you assume I must share your ageist beliefs.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Or planes. And I can't get away from them on a plane. But it isn't just antisocial kids on planes, they might have colds (kids always seem to) and it's absolute bloody hell flying with blocked sinuses.
And if the network was owned by either the democrats or republicans (and so, therefore, funded by them) - would you still insist that they allow their opposition airtime?
More likely he's trying to get someone to mention the Nazis, so he can invoke Godwin's law on them.
CynicalBastards are me.
I wouldn't insist anything. I think that such election laws are bad, because they interfere with free speech, which is a top level right. I'm just pointing out that the actions taken by the German company are likely illegal, and giving a parallel in terms of US law.
But the USA is not a pure democracy. It is a Democratic REPUBLIC. That is, we don't vote directly, we do it indirectly. We elect representatives - congressman to vote on the real issues. We don't even vote directly on who is president - we elect Electors to vote on that.
This means your entire concept falls apart. We vote for people NOT the issues. Unlike issues, you don't need an education to understand people. Some very uneducated people are very good at telling the difference between scum and an honorable man.
We also don't vote for people who sound intelligent. No. Instead we vote for people that appear to follow our basic moral ideals.
The intelligence part comes from winning the election. It doesn't matter how perfectly your moral ideals follow the general population - you need to convine smart people to help you plan your election and rich people to pay for it. Then you have to make your own decisions. Usually this means that you NEED to be intelligent to WIN the election. Not genius level, but above average.
End result we get a bunch of people that roughly follow our moral principals and are above average intelligence. THEY then vote on the issues.
But most importantly, you have STILL MISSED THE POINT The point is NOT to get the best decision. NOT to get the best guy/right law. etc.
The point is to convince people not to start a civil war
because frankly, it is more imporant to avoid starting a civil war than it is to pass the right law
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
"Unlike issues, you don't need an education to understand people."
Wow, that just throws psychology, A.I., and psychiatry, and medicine right out the window doesn't it.
I'd say you don't need an education to understand people who aren't trying to fool you. But con-artists find it easy to conduce just about anyone into doing almost anything.
So yes, I'm saying that in politics, you aren't going to be able to tell the con from the honourable person. And I'd even go so far as to say that in politics, a big part of those speaking skills are precisely to con the public.
I'm not saying that you guys should vote on issues. I'm saying you keep the system you have, but you verify that voters know the actual stance of the person for whom they are voting. And based on that understanding, their vote counts more or less.
But I mentioned somewhere else, that if your entire system of government is there to avoid negatives (like civil wars), then you're missing out on all of the good that government is able to provide. Not only is that short-sighted, but it's archaic too.
Think of all of the wacky differences between 2009 and whenever your civil war occured? The biggest probably being access to information, personal communication, international affairs, global economies, and private business, not to mention national wealth, global positioning, and material sciences.
Forget the standard "how are person guns going to prevent a British missle launch" and look at how overwhelming societal organization makes all sorts of new options available.
100 years ago, you couldn't have everyone voting on everything. Tomorrow you could. 100 years ago, public opinion, didn't exist -- that covers marketing, broadcasting, polling. But now. . .
Stop treating 2009 as though it were 1909. You're running a system based on mistrust. You have presidents that cannot serve 9 years in a row -- no matter how many people vote for them. You have two parties, no matter how many others wish to exist. I know virtually nill about yoru political system -- I know almost as little about my own -- but I do know what your citizens and my citizens do with regard to those political systems, and it ain't enough.
With a fuck you attitude like that to your potential users, yes, you're an asshole. It's about time discrimination and freedom of speech were legally enforced against these so called "private websites". If you want a private website, get it off the fucking net, the net is a public place. End of story. Set up your own fucking WWW and keep it private. Otherwise, you're nothing but a leech, depriving others of their freedoms. I hate bastards like you.
As to the social website in question - typical, they're already *owned* by big business and political parties. That's an even more reason for knocking these bastards down.
Dave
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
You have it backwards. They are barred from certain jobs because being a member of the party deemed to extreme by Oswald Mosley's Nazi party is good evidence of racism. Even if the BNP are the only party that agree with your policy on chewing gum disposal and so you join them, you are still saying you don't have a problem with their bashing immigrants policy.
This is not done due to a distaste for their opinions, but due to the fact that they are genuinely dangerous. I think you'd find the police would turn down job applications from anyone writing Al Queada under "Political Affiliation" on the form.
If you can read this you've gone too far.
Even if the BNP are the only party that agree with your policy on chewing gum disposal and so you join them, you are still saying you don't have a problem with their bashing immigrants policy.
That's bad logic. Few people agree 100% with the policies of their political parties.
I think you'd find the police would turn down job applications from anyone writing Al Queada under "Political Affiliation" on the form.
Since when is Al Qaeda a registered political party in the UK?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The logic is not that you have to agree with every issue. In order to support the BNP you have to believe whatever policy you share with them outweighs the "end to non white immigration" policy. Unless the policy you share is that one. Either way it doesn't look good for you.
Who said anything about registered? If you declare your affiliation with a (quite possibly non existent) terrorist organisation, or with a bunch of racist thugs, you are going to find it hard to get into the police force. By making the official policy "No BNP members" the police cut down on paperwork. There would be much more paperwork involved in turning down individual applications to the police based on perceived racism that there would be turning down the application of a teacher for perceived pedophilia if they belong to a pedophile ring.
If you can read this you've gone too far.
The logic is not that you have to agree with every issue. In order to support the BNP you have to believe whatever policy you share with them outweighs the "end to non white immigration" policy. Unless the policy you share is that one. Either way it doesn't look good for you.
No, that's a lot of assumptions. For example, one might feel that since every other party's policy is pro equality in immigration, then it doesn't matter that the BNP has that as a policy - they have no chance of being successful with it because all the other parties have it covered. But since none of the other parties cover the other non-racial issues you really care about, like say greenpeace and dog cruelty, you support the BNP.
Who said anything about registered?
You did when you made the analogy between Al Qaeda and the BNP.
By making the official policy "No BNP members" the police cut down on paperwork.
Yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Oh for fucks sake.
kids are NOISY. If you want it rephrased that only well behaved and quiet kids are allowed then fine. But far easier to just to set an age limit.
Typical slashdot poster, always arguing that anyone who runs a business is being evil...
if you want to run a combined restaurant /creche, go ahead, don't expect everyone to fucking agree with you.
If YOU had kids, thats YOUR decision. don't inflict your brats on the rest of us
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
I guess we should let kids buy hardcore porn and drink neat vodka too, whilst playing with machine-guns, because OH NOESSSSS! its teh discrimination!!!!111oneone.
laughable.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
I guess we should let adults buy hardcore porn and drink neat vodka too, whilst playing with machine-guns, because the minute you complete your 18th orbit of the sun you become A PARAGON OF RATIONALITY no matter who you are or how much you've been drinking.
equally laughable.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
kids are NOISY. If you want it rephrased that only well behaved and quiet kids are allowed then fine.
You're close, but not quite there yet. Try this: "only well behaved and quiet people are allowed". It doesn't matter how old they are. If they're making a scene, then kick them out; if not, then let them stay.
But far easier to just to set an age limit.
Yup, just like it's far easier to ban all black people from the movie theater -- after all, some of them are noisy too, at least according to stand-up comics.
Just like it's easier to lock up anyone accused of a crime -- after all, most of them end up being convicted, so why not save the hassle and expense of a trial for the few who are innocent?
Because it would be barbaric, that's why. People deserve to be treated as individuals, not faceless members of a group. Even if 99 out of 100 kids couldn't control themselves in a restaurant, it would still be unjust to ban the last one because of his age... but in real life, the odds aren't nearly that slanted.
Typical slashdot poster, always arguing that anyone who runs a business is being evil...
I said nothing of the sort, and you know it.
Anyone who practices unfair discrimination is being evil, but most people who run a business manage to avoid doing that.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
The difference is that I'm not actually a racist; I was making a point. But I believe cliffski actually is an ageist.
Another difference is that racism is based on incorrect beliefs about different races, and 'ageism' (the way you're using the word) is based on factual information - children really are different than adults in relevant ways.
Yes, I would be guilty of ageism if I thought an 8 year old who proved his ability to drive safely shouldn't be given a license, or a 12 year old shouldn't be allowed to sign contracts simply because of his age.
I do strongly support the idea that there should be legal ways of getting around age limits (emancipation, etc). I also understand that the specific ages our system uses are somewhat arbitrary and should be open to debate. But that doesn't mean that laws (or rules) that treat people differently based on actual differences is morally equivalent to those that treat people differently based on non-existent differences.
I do, however, find it interesting that you assume I must share your ageist beliefs.
Unless you treat newborn infants and full-grown adults in exactly identical ways you're 'ageist' as well.
Another difference is that racism is based on incorrect beliefs about different races, and 'ageism' (the way you're using the word) is based on factual information - children really are different than adults in relevant ways.
There is no factual information saying that all 18 year olds are capable of activity X and all 17 year olds are incapable; biology doesn't work that way. Ageism takes statistical generalizations ("more 18 year olds than 17 year olds are capable of activity X") and incorrectly applies them to individuals.
I also understand that the specific ages our system uses are somewhat arbitrary and should be open to debate. But that doesn't mean that laws (or rules) that treat people differently based on actual differences is morally equivalent to those that treat people differently based on non-existent differences.
The problem is, these laws and rules don't "treat people differently based on actual differences". They treat people differently based on age, which may or may not correlate with actual differences.
As an analogy, consider a fire department that refuses to hire women. They might say that it's a valid form of discrimination, because firefighters need to carry heavy loads, and women tend to be weaker than men: there's an "actual difference" between the sexes. But any particular woman may or may not be weaker than any particular man. It would be unjust for the department to discriminate based on sex, when what really matters is physical strength, which varies from one individual to another.
Likewise, it's unjust to discriminate based on age when what really matters is some other trait that's loosely correlated with age. The DMV can directly observe driving ability, and restaurant owners can directly observe a person's ability to avoid making a scene; they don't need to ask anyone's age.
Unless you treat newborn infants and full-grown adults in exactly identical ways you're 'ageist' as well.
No, that's ridiculous. I don't have to treat newborns as adults in order to be anti-ageist, any more than the fire department has to hire 90 lb women who can't lift an axe in order to be anti-sexist.
I just have to base my differential treatment on individual traits rather than age-based generalizations. There are enough actual, obvious differences between a newborn and an adult that we don't need to ask either of them their age.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
There is no factual information saying that all 18 year olds are capable of activity X and all 17 year olds are incapable; biology doesn't work that way.
You seem to be using the continuum fallacy.
I don't have to treat newborns as adults in order to be anti-ageist, any more than the fire department has to hire 90 lb women who can't lift an axe in order to be anti-sexist.
According to your reasoning: in order to be non-sexist people would have to allow women the same chances that men have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently, right? Simply swapping prejudices and following the same line of reasoning suggests that: in order to be non-ageist people would have to allow newborns the same chances that adults have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently.
There are enough actual, obvious differences between a newborn and an adult that we don't need to ask either of them their age.
That's exactly my point.
You seem to be using the continuum fallacy [wikipedia.org].
No, you've either misunderstood the continuum fallacy or misread my comments. I'm not saying "no one can be incapable of doing activity X because there are varying degrees of capability". That would be the continuum fallacy.
What I'm saying is that even if many (or most) members of a group are incapable, that doesn't justify discrimination against the remaining members. Even if most women can't lift the loads expected of a firefighter, that's no reason to reject the ones who can. And even if most 12 year olds couldn't pass a driving test, that's no reason to reject the ones who could.
According to your reasoning: in order to be non-sexist people would have to allow women the same chances that men have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently, right? Simply swapping prejudices and following the same line of reasoning suggests that: in order to be non-ageist people would have to allow newborns the same chances that adults have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently.
Yes, that's correct, unless we can come up with medical proof that all members of an age group are incapable (which I suspect would be pretty easy if we're talking about newborns).
But obtaining that individual data is hardly a burden. It doesn't take much effort to look at a newborn and realize that this individual is not going to be able to drive a car or fill out a ballot, when he can't read, speak, stand up, or focus on distant objects.
["There are enough actual, obvious differences between a newborn and an adult that we don't need to ask either of them their age."]
That's exactly my point.
So then, you agree that all age restrictions should be abolished, and we should judge people based on their capacity as individuals instead? Glad to hear it.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Oops, forgot my /sarcasm tag.