Ok, but it seems like you have to get certain basic laws like those down before you can even begin to have a government. Otherwise you get anarchy.
Beyond that, I guess I subscribe to the view that says, "If I'm not hurting anyone else and I'm not depriving anyone else of something that belongs to them, then I should be allowed to do as I wish."
I'll definitely not be voting republican. I can't stand the way they like to legislate morality. McCain is especially bad about this, but Bush isn't much better. Then there's Forbes saying that the DOJ shouldn't go after Microsoft. No chance of him getting my vote.
Gore isn't a total loss. He seems to be on the right side of some issues, but I think he's a bit too censorship-friendly for my taste, and then there's his wife. Damn. Maybe I'd vote for him if he got a divorce.
Aside from the hardcore libertarians (while I like some of their ideas, they'd probably just make a mess of things if they got into the white house. Nothing would get done.), that leaves Bradley. I don't agree with him on everything, and I don't even know his position on some things, but he's my first choice right now. Seems like he's taking a wait-and-see approach to a lot of things. I would hope that he's at least making an attempt to educate himself on these issues. They're just going to get more complex and more visible than they are now. All the candidates better prepare themselves.
I think it means a new market for Linux companies. Before it was just government employees installing Linux on some boxes. Now it's government agencies buying Linux distros from RedHat complete with docs and support. That's what's new.
First of all, the certification is given for "platforms." This includes all the hardware and the operating system. NT 3.51 was certified on 3 different platforms. The key thing is that NT was only certified as an isolated machine. It can't even have a modem, let alone a network connection.
Secondly, I think NT 4.0 just got C2 certified, but I'm not sure on what hardware. I don't know if it can have external connections either, but I suspect not.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at. As for the emperor thing, I could almost agree. The current system is obviously very very broken. It's a huge burden on the country to have to have so many people doing nothing but charging other people for their knowledge of the law. If the law is that damn hard to grasp, then it is unworkable and we should do something to remedy that situation. Hell, you can't do much of anything anymore without consulting a lawyer to make sure you don't accidentally break the law, or open yourself up to being screwed by someone else.
How was this flamebait? I could understand not moderating it up, or possibly even moderating it down as redundant (though it probably wasn't at the time it was posted), but flamebait? I think some of the moderators have brain damage. It's the only explanation for some of the things they've done lately.
Who's concept is it? It's just the way things are. We only try to change it where we can by trying to get people to agree to act a certain way, and usually punishing them if they don't. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Either way, there are always exceptions. Some people don't want to be told what to do. Some people want to live by their own rules rather than the rules that somebody else made up. "Natural law" will always be with us because it's part of what we are. Ignoring it won't make it go away, it'll just help you to make bad decisions.
Even if you insist on a weapon, what's wrong with a hiking stick? (Can be used as a quarter-staff, staff, or an aid in mobility.) You've less chance of killing anyone, but you've a very good chance of fending off 3 or 4 attackers simultaneously indefinitely.
Give me a break. Maybe you could do this if you were well trained and in excellent shape. What about the other 99% of the population? Not everyone is athletic. Not everyone learned martial arts when they were growing up. Most people can't afford the time or expense of learning a martial art well enough for it to do them much good against an attacker anyway. Most of us have work, school, kids, and other commitments that we call our lives. Most people don't have the time or energy to devote to making their body itself into a weapon. Therefore we buy a weapon that we can use to defend ourselves.
I could buy a taser, but I'm not entirely confident that it would do the job. How many times consecutively can one be used? How effective are they? Are there effective defenses against them? How close do I have to get? With a gun, I don't have to worry about these things. Even if the assailant was wearing a bullet-proof vest, a decent gun can still incapacitate him.
Besides, if an intruder values his life, he shouldn't attack me or my family or invade my home. Why should I have a single iota of concern for someone's life if they enter my home prepared to take my life, my families lives, and my posessions? If the person is unarmed, then they will only have to do as I say and wait for the police to arrive. If they are armed and try to resist, then I shoot them. It's that simple.
As for food, ever hear of mushrooms, fruit, nuts, rice, wheat, barley, corn, potatos, carrots, beetroot, peas, beans, sugar beat, samphur (if you're on a mudflat), rhubarb (not the leaves!), cabbage, cauliflower, leeks, etc?
Sure! I love veggies. But I like meat as well. Humans are omnivores. We normally eat a combination of meat and fruits and vegetables. I suppose I could live on a vegetarian diet, but I wouldn't want to. Why should I?
I need to start cutting and pasting this reply. It seems like it's going to get a lot of use here.
You should read Larry Lessig's book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. It should help you see that the internet is only what business and the government decide it should be. They have the power to control it if enough people let them do it. The Internet is governed by code. That code can be changed.
Go read Larry Lessig's book. You are exactly the person it was written for. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace is the name of it. It should clear up your misconceptions. The Internet can most certainly be made regulable. All it takes is for business and the government to decide to do it and for the people of the U.S., or any other country to not put up a good enough fight against it.
I think the point is that it's a parody and should therefore be protected. We make fun of people for all sorts of things that aren't nearly as stupid as spoon bending. I think he's definitely fair game.
People who actually have truly hazardous jobs definitely do support OSHA. Many companies used to get away with all kinds of things that they would not be able to get away with today. The working conditions in some jobs caused the premature deaths of the workers. Things such as inhaling lead particles or asbestos do bad things to people. Making employers responsible for a safe working environment was a good thing.
There is still the question of how far the power of OSHA should extend though. I think that there have been some good posts addressing just that.
They might have been the Church, but they did not change the rules others had to follow.
Sure they did. They told everyone that the Church supported the burning of heretics among other things. Maybe you believe that there is some higher law that binds Christians, but their faith is only as good as their understanding of the Bible. Most people rely on the Church to interpret what it really means. That gives the Church great power to influence them.
Well, the priests I have spoken with encourage questions. A blind belief is not healthy.
All religion is blind belief. You can't prove any of it. That's why it's called faith. The ministers I've talked to always make circular arguments and end up coming down to the fact that you just have to accept the Bible as the truth if any of it is to make sense. That doesn't really answer any real questions since you can't prove that the Bible is true.
Sociology: mob theory. You have no idea if those people were religious or not. Or of what religion if they were.
Heh. My instincts tell me they were probably Catholic, if only because they were afraid not to be.
They explicitly keep the Church out of the conflict. They might state their stance, but they do not go after a single politician.
They can't give money to support or attack politicians, but they can and do encourage their members to do so. The leaders and members ARE the church. Perhaps the church as an entity can't support or attack, but all the members can, which amounts to the same thing.
For the same reason as above, the Church avoids doing any pushing around of politicians. Their non-profit status, for example, would dissappear.
You're just playing at semantics here. Regardless of what the fictional non-profit entity of the church does, the church is really composed of the leaders and members. I'm talking about the Christian religion itself. Christians constantly look for ways to impose their beliefs on EVERYBODY regardless of whether they are Christian or not.
Unlike the ACLU, they are unable to force people from attending brothels. Therefore, I assume they are using the only legal means they have which is shame. The brothel could be a source of problems within the community they live in. Also, look at what they are doing. They are doing no harm nor preventing people from going. They are just taking pictures and posting them. I am sure the ACLU will take away their rights to take pictures soon enough although it is perfectly legal. If someone took pictures of me going to church, I would not care. Why should the people going to brothel feel any different?
Actually it's the same kind of harassment that cause the courts to impose the boundaries around clinics that perform abortions. You argued earlier that if people vote for it then it is the will of the people and I should accept that. Now you argue that even though these brothels were established legally by the government of that state and city, Christian groups should not accept it and should harrass the customers. I would not argue that the law should simply be accepted all the time. I would however say that if you're going to oppose the law, it shouldn't be on the basis of your religion, which is the reason that this particular group was doing it. They came right out and said that. That's why I am saying that Christians try to enforce their religion on others and take away other people's rights.
They have gone to attacking a private organization, the Boy Scouts, just because they have a rule WITHIN the group which has not affect on others or the community.
I have heard about this and my first reaction was to disagree with what the ACLU did in that case, but I don't have all the facts either. I think that as long as the Boy Scouts receive absolutely no funding from any government entity, they should be able to make their own rules. I don't know for sure that they don't receive government funding at any level, so I'm not sure if the ACLU was right or wrong in this case.
If someone took pictures of me going to church, I would not care. Why should the people going to brothel feel any different?
They shouldn't have to feel different, but like I said, most people are Christian, or have to deal with Christians and therefore have to keep up appearances for the sake of such relationships. While Christians may preach things like "love the sinner, not the sin," etc. They rarely practice what they preach and therefore if someone is known as a customer of a brothel, they'll likely be shunned by Christians and quite possibly lose their job, have a tough time getting a loan, have others refuse to do business with them, etc. Yes, much of this falls under free association and is protected, but much of it is regulated and is supposed to be non-discriminatory, which is often a farce when it is another Christian deciding what constitutes discrimination.
Laws against stealing were probably based on religion.
Laws against stealing make sense regardless of religion and some form of such laws most likely pre-date most religions. It's about protecting a person's liberty. (more on this later)
It was not enough to tell church members not to steal, but they had to prevent anyone from doing it, regardless of their religion.
Ok, now use that logic to explain bans on oral sex and other similar "morality" or "decency" laws. Why exactly was it necessary to prevent ANYONE from doing it?
My reasons are biological as well as religious.
The biological reasons probably have some merit. The religious reasons do not since there is no real evidence to back them up, and therefore no law should be made just because you "believe" that something is true. The burden of proof is on you.
I am also against executions. I must say that partial-birth abortions are just plain sick. Just try to execute someone by sucking his brains out. Not even the ACLU would support that.
For the record, I am against executions as well. I don't even recall the ACLU supporting ANY kind of execution. I support a woman's right to choose when it comes to early-term abortions. I think her body belongs to her and if she does not want to carry a child she should not be forced to do so. Admitedly, late-term abortions don't sit well with me either, but I would need to learn more about fetal development before I could form an opinion of exactly when an abortion is ok and when it is not. Most abortions are not so-called "partial birth" abortions. Most are done quite early in the pregnancy when the fetus has barely begun to form. It ends up being a judgement call, and as long as the decision is based on sound facts and science, I don't think I'll have a problem with the decision.
Till noon just does not make sense.
Sure it does. The vast majority of church services are over by noon. That was probably the best they were able to push through before it began to cost too much and generate too much opposition.
This almost convinces me that atheism should be considered a religion and treated as such.
You're overlooking one really big difference. People who are not members of a major religion usually have to fight to keep their rights from being taken away by those who are members of a major religion. They aren't the ones taking people's rights away, they are the ones trying to limit how much the majority can take away from the minority.
I come from Indiana. A fairly relgious state.
I live in Texas, apparently an even more religious state. They bring people out to lead prayers at football games and other school events. Teachers, especially in elementary schools, used to lead the classes in prayer in the morning before they started their work. They can't do that anymore thankfully, but they still got away with the prayers at school sporting events and such. There was recently a big lawsuit about it, but I think it's still being appealed. This might strike you as being a case of the minority taking rights away from the majority, but it's not. It is simply enforcing the separation of church and state that has been seriously eroded. Public schools should not be supporting any particular religion or group of religions. It's simply not fair to the students.
Saying something is your and not their property is just a matter of opinion.
Actually it's a very pragmatic decision. Religion and decency have no real part in it, they simply helped to enforce the law by putting "the fear of God" into the masses. Law's against stealing help to ensure economic stability and security. If they did not exist, then we would have anarchy, which does not promote economic growth or a better standard of living.
I was against the CDA.
Wow, that's at least 2 things we've agreed on... we're on a roll:)
By using tax money to lobby Congress.
If you can tell me where to find more information about this, I'd love to see it. Not sure how they would be able to do this unless there is a glaring loophole in the law somewhere. I don't know how they are regulated, or what sort of status they have, but it would be interesting to read about.
Abortion will only become more acceptable when the child is asked whether it wants to live or die. Until then, it is not being given a choice.
Again, I haven't studied fetal development, so I only know what I learned in high school. Perhaps there is some point at which you can say that the fetus becomes a person, but I don't know what that point is. Until that can be figured out, I think the woman has the right to determine the fate of her own body, and certainly has a right to an abortion if her life is in danger. This is a very complicated issue and requires a lot of study and thought. I am truly not qualified to make the decision, I just know what guidelines I would use if I were able to get ahold of all the information I'd need.
Who is to say their BELIEFS are correct? Why should their beliefs be written into laws?
You're distorting things here. The ACLU and others spend most of their time fighting things that are already written into law or are about to be. Listen carefully to what I'm saying. In the absence of law, we can do whatever we want. There are very logical arguments in favor of many, if not most laws. The burden of proof is on the people that want to create the law to support it with facts and reason. When laws are created that are based on what someone thinks is moral, without any good facts or reason to back it up, then that person or group is imposing their personal beliefs on everyone. That's why things like the CDA are bad. That's why things like banning oral sex are bad. It also creates the potential for selective and discriminatory enforcement. These are huge reasons why such laws should not be allowed and why the ACLU is so necessary to our country. They help get rid of bad laws and return us to the status quo where you can decide for yourself to do what you believe is right and so can I. If I want to go to a brothel, I can do so. If you find brothels offensive, that's fine too. Nobody will force you to go to one.
If some students want to pray, the ACLU has no right or reason to stop them, but they continue to attack those with opposing beliefs.
Give me a break. Nobody is saying that students can't pray in school. Just that you can't have people leading prayers in class or at school events since this would entail the supporting of a particular religion or group of religions in a public school. It can alienate non-Christian students and make them feel pressure to conform to the majority or possibly draw attention the fact that they aren't Christian. That's just something that students shouldn't have to deal with at school. If a kid wants to pray on his own time, that's his business and should be perfectly legal as long as he's not being disruptive. Nobody else should be subjected to one group's religious rituals.
The US has a list of things you are ALLOWED to do (a constition). And a jolly silly thing it is too.
That's not quite right. The Constitution is there mainly to control the government rather than the people. I presume you're referring to the Bill of Rights when you talk about a list. The Bill of Rights just restricts the government from passing laws that violate certain values that the founding fathers of this country wanted to preserve. They basically try to keep the government from gaining too much control over people in certain ways. In real life, you are pretty much allowed to do anything that there isn't a law against, but since we have laws against just about everything we don't want people to do, it's not much different than the UK in that respect. We just have the Constitution and Bill of Rights there to help keep the government from passing laws that violate the values that were originally intended to be upheld.
They both adhere to the Constitution, but I see many differences between the two.
They belong to different political parties. Perhaps that is like the difference between being Methodist or Baptist.
They mangled some rules to justify their OWN ends, but it still went against the Church's beliefs and rules.
This is exactly what I'm saying. They were the Church leaders. They WERE the Church. They decided what the Church's beliefs were. People believed what they said. People blindly followed them and set out to murder others. That's one of the biggest problems with many "people of faith." They are taught not to question things. They do as they are told. Sure, not all of them. But at least the majority.
Anyone (individual) can justify doing something wrong based on something else, but it still does not make it right. "Depends on what the definition of 'is' is." The Christian religion does not say "Thou shall torture in the name of Christ." They mangled some rules to justify their OWN ends, but it still went against the Church's beliefs and rules.
We're not talking about an individual. We're talking about the leaders of the Church defining the beliefs of millions. That's a lot of power. I find it frightening that they were able to persuade their followers to murder and torture people even though it directly contradicts one of the Commandments, supposedly the direct orders of God. Hell, people used to gather in great crowds to watch someone be burned for being a heretic.
No joke. The purpose of the Church, at least today, is more of a standards board (i.e., IEEE). Setting down guidelines seems to be the most apparent thing it does. I don't have to follow a standards board; I choose to. No control of me involved.
You are blind if you believe that. The Church throws its weight around all the time. Look at the abortion issue. Does the Church just lay down the rules for its followers and leave it at that? Hell no. They pressure and attack politicians. They try to get laws passed that bind EVERYBODY. Not just the followers of that faith. Same thing with other "morality issues."
I guess you will start distrusting IEEE soon. IEEE will want to control JAVA and will use any means necessary to do it.
No, the IEEE won't lobby or pressure politicians to pass laws forcing me to use their JAVA standard for any programming I do.
FUD. You were probably thinking about Microsoft.:)
No, I'm quite certain I was talking about the Church. If you think it's FUD, then tell me why you think the Church doesn't use shame and ostracism as tools to coerce people into behaving the way it wants them to.
You do realize that there is a Catholic Church and a U.S. Catholic Church. Besides, Catholicism is a minority even among the Christian churches in the U.S. I believe the Protestant Church is the largest in the U.S.
They're all just variations on the Christian religion. Some are more tolerant and less strict than others, but they're fundamentally quite similar. I've been to Catholic, Methodist and Baptist churches, as well as a couple other oddball denominations that I can't recall the names of now. They were all very much the same aside from the Catholic penchant for chants and ritual. I've also been to a Jehova's Witness Hall. They seem to follow a strictly by-the-book view of Christianity. Very humble and sincere from what I can see. They avoid politics as much as possible. If it weren't for the fact that they feel compelled to try to get everyone and their dog to become Witnesses (and possibly even in spite of it), they'd probably be one of the better and most trustworthy religions out there.
Like the bad people involved in the Inquisition, those children are rewriting the rules to justify the ends.
Actually, they probably learn from the example of their parents and other members of their church. Non-Christians are gonna burn in hell, remember? Gay people are abominations. Jewish people killed Jesus, etc. Sure, maybe only a few vocal Christians claim these things, but they have large followings of other Christians that believe them and hold the same feelings.
It was more likely an excuse to beat-up the new kid. I went to eight or nine schools before college. Most of those I was beat on without anyone knowing my religion.
It was basically like a mini-inquisition. They would get asked if they believe in God. Say no and get a beating. Makes you wonder if the Church was run for centuries by 16 year olds. Yeah, it was probably just an excuse. Just seems strange that that excuse seemed the most acceptable to them.
Many priests push the following message: "Love the sinner, not the sin." I don't have accept something I don't believe in, but I should still not hold anything against the person.
There are a lot that preach intollerance as well. And they have a whole lot of followers. Some Christians seem to think that it is their duty to enforce what they think is God's will. That's why doctors who perform abortions live in constant fear. That why gay guys get beaten and killed. Christians just can't leave other people alone. Just yesterday a Christian group was proclaiming that they were going to videotape customers entering a legal brothel and put their images on the Internet for all to see. All I can say is WTF!? Why is this any of their business? Nobody is making them go there. Nobody is making them do anything they don't want to do. Why can't they leave other people alone???
I guess a majority of people in that region wanted it. That is probably why it was passed into law.
Right. The majority are Christians. And being Christians, they should simply be able to tell their members not to purchase alcohol before noon on a Sunday, right? But no, that isn't enough for them. See, they don't just want to guide church members, they want to control everyone. Therefore instead of just instructing the church members that it's wrong, they seek legislation to prevent ANYONE from doing it, regardless of their religion.
Are you saying that a minority group of people should rule and overturn the majority? That is not very democratic.
No, I'm saying that there is supposed to be a separation of church and state so that the members of the majority religion cannot force others by law to adhere to their religious beliefs. If they can't provide some reason for the law other than "it's immoral or indecent to let people do that," then it shouldn't be a law. Unfortunately, since Christians are the majority by a fairly wide margin in the US, they've taken it upon themselves to ignore the Constitution when it gets in the way of imposing their religious beliefs on others.
Now I have to ask if you are joking or not. All people regardless of religion, sex, age, race, or sexual preference want others to believe what they believe.
Why doesn't it surprise me that you believe that? It's just another way for Christians to justify their attempts to enforce their religious beliefs on others. I don't really care what other people believe as long as they don't interfere with my right to behave as I choose without a good reason. "Because God said so" is not a good reason. "Because it's indecent" is not a good reason. "Because it's offensive" is not a good reason.
I don't believe in abortion, but there are pro-choicers who want to shove their belief down my throat.
Wrong. They're not forcing you to get an abortion if you don't want one. They're just making it possible for people to decide for themselves. Christians don't like this. They want to force everyone to conform to their views by making it illegal to do otherwise.
I bet the alcohol-free Sunday was written and voted on by another religion.
Regardless of which religion voted on it, it was a Christian religion and it's typical of their attempts to control others no matter what religion they might be.
There could have been some other reason. **snip** Which religious morals are these laws based on?
I never claimed that every law was passed for a religious reason. I claimed that Sunday alcohol sales ban was passed based on religion. I was told this by the manager of a store that I worked for that sold alcohol. He remembered the law being passed. Made sense, why else would you ban alcohol sales before noon on Sunday?
Separation of Church and State means that any church cannot make laws.
Separation of Church and State was intended to prevent the Church from running the State. But since one religion makes up the vast majority of the country, they've been trying to get rid of the pesky separation of Church and State. They think it's ok to alienate non-Christian kids by having teachers lead prayers in their classrooms. (this can easily lead to the beatings I talked about earlier) They think it's ok to post religious documents in the schools. They wouldn't agree to post documents from minority religions though, especially those that believe in multiple gods.
But people belonging to any church can vote on a law using their own beliefs as do those who are atheist.
The problem is not the voting. The problem is the fact that the laws should have to pass a litmus test to determine whether they are based on reason or faith. If you can't give a good reason for something without resorting to religion or vague notions of what's "decent," then the law should not even be voted on. That gives us crap like the Communications Decency Act that would restrict the freedom of all Americans to view or write things that the majority do not like. The US is not a pure democracy. It's a republic. Tyrrany of the majority is not supposed to happen anymore than tyrrany of the minority. Blacks are a minority. Does that mean it's ok to vote to have them enslaved again? No, because you are violating their personal rights. Just like the CDA would have violated the rights of all Americans.
If you ban churches, you better ban NOW, Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, and many other PAC's as they are just as bad (or worse).
They are nothing of the sort (well, not sure about Greenpeace as I don't know much about them). They are the ones fighting against the majority trying to take away the rights of the minority. Planned Parenthood tries to prevent the government from dictating to us what we can or cannot do with our bodies. They aren't forcing you to do anything at all. It's the Christian majority that try to ban things that don't jive with their religious beliefs. Organizations like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are the last line of defense for the minority against having their rights taken away by the majority. You can have your religion and you can abide by your beliefs. Just STOP trying to FORCE the rest of us to abide by YOUR beliefs! THAT is where the fear of all churches comes from.
Your argument is the intellectual equivalent of "I don't think that beach house in Malibu is worth $1 million and I don't want to pay that bastard that much money for it so I'll just squat there".
And that argument is just silly since "intellectual property" is not at all the same as physical property. IP owners just like to portray it that way to dodge the real issues.
Paying lobbyists off is scumbaggery but so is what you're doing.
Maybe, but my scumbaggery is a result of their scumbaggery. Think of it as scumbaggery in self-defense. They have the money and power and are willing to use it unscroupulously to get money from me. I have my relative anonymity and the ability to get the music I want from them without paying their extortionist fees. They decided what the rules would be for this game. Anything goes.
What you just said is pretty much what Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace addresses. If only we could get a lot more people to read the book, maybe they would have a clue about where things are going and why all these little court cases are actually quite important.
As I stated before, that Church (everyone in it) has long since died. All those attributes you mention are human attributes not an organization's. When you are talking about different people, different attributes come into play.
Yes, they're all dead, and replaced by those who followed in their footsteps. They adhere to the same religion. That adherence did not prevent the Church from committing atrocities then, why should it now? Why are Christians now better than Christians then? Did the rules change?
I did not state they should be trusted, but I do not care to hear arguments about people who died several hundred years ago when we are discussing entirely different people born much later.
Well, I certainly don't trust them. They used their religion to justify murdering people. That religion hasn't changed, and I see no reason to ever trust people who try to make others behave according to rules that they accept on faith alone. The Church does this to this day.
Or maybe those bad individuals are dead and the ones in charge of the Church do not need to be in control of others?
That's a joke, right? The Church EXISTS TO CONTROL. That's its entire purpose. To get people to adhere to its standards and rules. By whatever means necessary. They have learned to use shame and ostracism quite effectively since killing people in any significant quantity has become counter-productive. Since there are a large number of Christians in the US, they are able to exert quite a lot of influence. Since they've managed to work their way into our laws more and more, they are able to alienate and play the people against each other. If you go to school and admit that you don't believe in God, you will likely be shunned and/or attacked by all those good Christian children. I've seen it happen in two of the highschools I went to. It's a religion that seems to preach conformance above tolerance and acceptance. That's dangerous and creates an environment of conflict.
Personally, I'm tired of seeing laws passed that are basically personal favors to the Church. These morality laws violate the separation of church and state. For example, in the city I live in, it is illegal to buy alcohol before noon on a Sunday. Why do you think that is? Who do you think wanted that law? Why should those of us who don't attend church or follow any religion in particular be made subject to such laws? Because religious people feel the need to make others conform to their own beliefs, plain and simple (and I'm talking mainly about Christianity and Islam here as they're the prime offenders, there are many religions that aren't like this, but I'd be wary of letting a Christian know you follow one). I'd rather they do what they believe is right for themselves and their children and leave the rest of us alone.
It would be fairly accurate to say that the intended end of copyright is to benefit society, and the means to that end is providing a way for artists to get paid.
Quote from the Constitution:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Now musicians can't really do anything with the rights they are granted because distribution is tightly controlled by a few corporations. If they want to make any money, they have to sell the rights to a corporation that has the ability to distribute their work. These corporations all work together and all give similar terms that allow them to keep the vast majority of profits as well as ownership of the work. It's hard to decide whether to laugh or cry when these companies claim that they're defending the artists' ability to profit from their creation. Its their own profit that they're concerned with, since their profits greatly outweigh anything that the artist will ever see.
Additionally, the original term of copyright was 14 years, and has been extended several times since its inception. This is mainly due to lobbying by the publishing industry. They pay a bunch of lobbyists and make large campaign contributions in order to get what they want from Congress. Now, there was originally a balance between the public and the artists. That balance has been thrown out of whack and now we have the publishers playing the artists against the public and vice versa while they rake in the vast majority of the profits.
The original copyright term was reasonable. 14 years is a pretty fair amount of time to give someone a monopoly over a piece of information that they create. The government would enforce this monopoly for the term of the copyright and then it would be made freely available to all. This seems like an equitable way to ensure that people keep creating new things and that the public will have complete access to the artistic works and information. Now the balance has shifted, not towards the artist or the people, but on a completely different axis, towards the publishers and distributors (often one and the same). Copyrights now last for the life of the artist plus 70 years. If it's a corporate-created copyright, it lasts for 90 years. It was even extended retroactively, which makes absolutely NO sense given the intent of copyright. The public sees no benefit from copyright anymore. Nothing goes into the public domain anymore. Is it any wonder that people are rapidly losing respect for copyrighted works?
What we need is a reform of copyright laws to bring back the balance. We need to drastically roll back the length of the copyright term. I believe we should restore it to the original 14 years. That's plenty of time for someone to make a profit if the work is good. We also need to either repeal or fix the DMCA. That law is terrible and definitely goes too far.
They have these stores called "Tower Records" (among others) where you can actually listen to the entire CD before you choose to buy it!
Those stores are a pain in the ass. We have a few chains in town that do that. It sucks. Assuming you can actually find an employee to get off his ass and put a cd in the player for you to listen to, you also have to worry about whether they actually have what you're looking for, and God forbid you actually want to listen to several CDs. They'll be looking to throw you out of the store. Not the kind of experience I enjoy. I'll stick to Napster and the rest.
If you don't think the 2 good songs on the CD are worth $15, you don't have to buy it!
Exactly. I can just download the 2 songs I like. If the record companies think they can maximise their profits by marketing the hell out of a couple good songs and filling the rest of the album with crap, I'd like to encourage them to rethink this tactic. I really don't believe that downloading a copy of a couple songs that I like is any worse than paying lobbyists and buying off congresscritters to pass the legislation you want. In fact, I think I'm quite a bit higher on the ethics scale than they are.
Fanzines, books, tshirts - this goes against the beliefs of bands that are trying to convince people that mass consumption of needless/useless items is bad.
Obviously other people don't find these things needless/useless. Tshirts are great. You can wear them just like real clothes! If they have a nice picture or something on them, often band-related, all the better! What's useless about a tshirt? Should we all just wear white tshirts, khaki pants and sensible shoes? Fanzines are another issue. If people derive enjoyment from creating these things, well.. isn't that what life is about? Enjoying yourself and sharing with others? Fugazi seems to be going a tad overboard. Sure, perhaps these things aren't strictly "necessary," but I'm pretty sure I don't want to live in a world where all I can have are the necessities.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the environmental impacts of such consumption, but I think that can be addressed without actively prohibiting or even discouraging such consumption. Basically if you require that corporations not destroy the environment (or require that they repair any damage they cause or face severe penalties) costs of the merchandise will go up, and production and consumption will go down. The makers can still turn a profit, they just won't be producing or selling on such a large scale.
Actually there's another scenario that would say that instead of production costs just rising, corporations would seek better ways of producing the product without harming the environment (and therefore incurring no cost to repair it, not facing penalties, and not having to reduce production). This could create more incentives for us to come up with better, more environmentally friendly ways of creating the products we want. These methods will probably be more expensive at first, but they always get much cheaper over time.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, but it seems like you have to get certain basic laws like those down before you can even begin to have a government. Otherwise you get anarchy.
Beyond that, I guess I subscribe to the view that says, "If I'm not hurting anyone else and I'm not depriving anyone else of something that belongs to them, then I should be allowed to do as I wish."
I'll definitely not be voting republican. I can't stand the way they like to legislate morality. McCain is especially bad about this, but Bush isn't much better. Then there's Forbes saying that the DOJ shouldn't go after Microsoft. No chance of him getting my vote.
Gore isn't a total loss. He seems to be on the right side of some issues, but I think he's a bit too censorship-friendly for my taste, and then there's his wife. Damn. Maybe I'd vote for him if he got a divorce.
Aside from the hardcore libertarians (while I like some of their ideas, they'd probably just make a mess of things if they got into the white house. Nothing would get done.), that leaves Bradley. I don't agree with him on everything, and I don't even know his position on some things, but he's my first choice right now. Seems like he's taking a wait-and-see approach to a lot of things. I would hope that he's at least making an attempt to educate himself on these issues. They're just going to get more complex and more visible than they are now. All the candidates better prepare themselves.
I think it means a new market for Linux companies. Before it was just government employees installing Linux on some boxes. Now it's government agencies buying Linux distros from RedHat complete with docs and support. That's what's new.
First of all, the certification is given for "platforms." This includes all the hardware and the operating system. NT 3.51 was certified on 3 different platforms. The key thing is that NT was only certified as an isolated machine. It can't even have a modem, let alone a network connection.
Secondly, I think NT 4.0 just got C2 certified, but I'm not sure on what hardware. I don't know if it can have external connections either, but I suspect not.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at. As for the emperor thing, I could almost agree. The current system is obviously very very broken. It's a huge burden on the country to have to have so many people doing nothing but charging other people for their knowledge of the law. If the law is that damn hard to grasp, then it is unworkable and we should do something to remedy that situation. Hell, you can't do much of anything anymore without consulting a lawyer to make sure you don't accidentally break the law, or open yourself up to being screwed by someone else.
How was this flamebait? I could understand not moderating it up, or possibly even moderating it down as redundant (though it probably wasn't at the time it was posted), but flamebait? I think some of the moderators have brain damage. It's the only explanation for some of the things they've done lately.
It's a bad concept.
Who's concept is it? It's just the way things are. We only try to change it where we can by trying to get people to agree to act a certain way, and usually punishing them if they don't. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Either way, there are always exceptions. Some people don't want to be told what to do. Some people want to live by their own rules rather than the rules that somebody else made up. "Natural law" will always be with us because it's part of what we are. Ignoring it won't make it go away, it'll just help you to make bad decisions.
Even if you insist on a weapon, what's wrong with a hiking stick? (Can be used as a quarter-staff, staff, or an aid in mobility.) You've less chance of killing anyone, but you've a very good chance of fending off 3 or 4 attackers simultaneously indefinitely.
Give me a break. Maybe you could do this if you were well trained and in excellent shape. What about the other 99% of the population? Not everyone is athletic. Not everyone learned martial arts when they were growing up. Most people can't afford the time or expense of learning a martial art well enough for it to do them much good against an attacker anyway. Most of us have work, school, kids, and other commitments that we call our lives. Most people don't have the time or energy to devote to making their body itself into a weapon. Therefore we buy a weapon that we can use to defend ourselves.
I could buy a taser, but I'm not entirely confident that it would do the job. How many times consecutively can one be used? How effective are they? Are there effective defenses against them? How close do I have to get? With a gun, I don't have to worry about these things. Even if the assailant was wearing a bullet-proof vest, a decent gun can still incapacitate him.
Besides, if an intruder values his life, he shouldn't attack me or my family or invade my home. Why should I have a single iota of concern for someone's life if they enter my home prepared to take my life, my families lives, and my posessions? If the person is unarmed, then they will only have to do as I say and wait for the police to arrive. If they are armed and try to resist, then I shoot them. It's that simple.
As for food, ever hear of mushrooms, fruit, nuts, rice, wheat, barley, corn, potatos, carrots, beetroot, peas, beans, sugar beat, samphur (if you're on a mudflat), rhubarb (not the leaves!), cabbage, cauliflower, leeks, etc?
Sure! I love veggies. But I like meat as well. Humans are omnivores. We normally eat a combination of meat and fruits and vegetables. I suppose I could live on a vegetarian diet, but I wouldn't want to. Why should I?
I need to start cutting and pasting this reply. It seems like it's going to get a lot of use here.
You should read Larry Lessig's book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. It should help you see that the internet is only what business and the government decide it should be. They have the power to control it if enough people let them do it. The Internet is governed by code. That code can be changed.
How can you stop it?
Go read Larry Lessig's book. You are exactly the person it was written for. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace is the name of it. It should clear up your misconceptions. The Internet can most certainly be made regulable. All it takes is for business and the government to decide to do it and for the people of the U.S., or any other country to not put up a good enough fight against it.
1. People have the right not to be depicted as a little orange monster by a multibillion dollar multinational organisation.
People have no such right. Especially public figures. There's a little thing known as parody. Geller is an ideal target for it.
2. $97 Million has more to do with greed than about redressing one's violated rights.
Gotta agree with that.
If Mr Geller really wants to make a point, I suggest that he declares that if he wins, he will donate the money to charity.
Geller is his own favorite charity.
At least Magic is a pretty decent game, Pokemon doesn't even have that much going for it.
I think the point is that it's a parody and should therefore be protected. We make fun of people for all sorts of things that aren't nearly as stupid as spoon bending. I think he's definitely fair game.
People who actually have truly hazardous jobs definitely do support OSHA. Many companies used to get away with all kinds of things that they would not be able to get away with today. The working conditions in some jobs caused the premature deaths of the workers. Things such as inhaling lead particles or asbestos do bad things to people. Making employers responsible for a safe working environment was a good thing.
There is still the question of how far the power of OSHA should extend though. I think that there have been some good posts addressing just that.
Clinton changed the rules to fit his own needs.
What rule did he change?
They might have been the Church, but they did not change the rules others had to follow.
Sure they did. They told everyone that the Church supported the burning of heretics among other things. Maybe you believe that there is some higher law that binds Christians, but their faith is only as good as their understanding of the Bible. Most people rely on the Church to interpret what it really means. That gives the Church great power to influence them.
Well, the priests I have spoken with encourage questions. A blind belief is not healthy.
All religion is blind belief. You can't prove any of it. That's why it's called faith. The ministers I've talked to always make circular arguments and end up coming down to the fact that you just have to accept the Bible as the truth if any of it is to make sense. That doesn't really answer any real questions since you can't prove that the Bible is true.
Sociology: mob theory. You have no idea if those people were religious or not. Or of what religion if they were.
Heh. My instincts tell me they were probably Catholic, if only because they were afraid not to be.
They explicitly keep the Church out of the conflict. They might state their stance, but they do not go after a single politician.
They can't give money to support or attack politicians, but they can and do encourage their members to do so. The leaders and members ARE the church. Perhaps the church as an entity can't support or attack, but all the members can, which amounts to the same thing.
For the same reason as above, the Church avoids doing any pushing around of politicians. Their non-profit status, for example, would dissappear.
You're just playing at semantics here. Regardless of what the fictional non-profit entity of the church does, the church is really composed of the leaders and members. I'm talking about the Christian religion itself. Christians constantly look for ways to impose their beliefs on EVERYBODY regardless of whether they are Christian or not.
Unlike the ACLU, they are unable to force people from attending brothels. Therefore, I assume they are using the only legal means they have which is shame. The brothel could be a source of problems within the community they live in. Also, look at what they are doing. They are doing no harm nor preventing people from going. They are just taking pictures and posting them. I am sure the ACLU will take away their rights to take pictures soon enough although it is perfectly legal. If someone took pictures of me going to church, I would not care. Why should the people going to brothel feel any different?
Actually it's the same kind of harassment that cause the courts to impose the boundaries around clinics that perform abortions. You argued earlier that if people vote for it then it is the will of the people and I should accept that. Now you argue that even though these brothels were established legally by the government of that state and city, Christian groups should not accept it and should harrass the customers. I would not argue that the law should simply be accepted all the time. I would however say that if you're going to oppose the law, it shouldn't be on the basis of your religion, which is the reason that this particular group was doing it. They came right out and said that. That's why I am saying that Christians try to enforce their religion on others and take away other people's rights.
They have gone to attacking a private organization, the Boy Scouts, just because they have a rule WITHIN the group which has not affect on others or the community.
I have heard about this and my first reaction was to disagree with what the ACLU did in that case, but I don't have all the facts either. I think that as long as the Boy Scouts receive absolutely no funding from any government entity, they should be able to make their own rules. I don't know for sure that they don't receive government funding at any level, so I'm not sure if the ACLU was right or wrong in this case.
If someone took pictures of me going to church, I would not care. Why should the people going to brothel feel any different?
They shouldn't have to feel different, but like I said, most people are Christian, or have to deal with Christians and therefore have to keep up appearances for the sake of such relationships. While Christians may preach things like "love the sinner, not the sin," etc. They rarely practice what they preach and therefore if someone is known as a customer of a brothel, they'll likely be shunned by Christians and quite possibly lose their job, have a tough time getting a loan, have others refuse to do business with them, etc. Yes, much of this falls under free association and is protected, but much of it is regulated and is supposed to be non-discriminatory, which is often a farce when it is another Christian deciding what constitutes discrimination.
Laws against stealing were probably based on religion.
Laws against stealing make sense regardless of religion and some form of such laws most likely pre-date most religions. It's about protecting a person's liberty. (more on this later)
It was not enough to tell church members not to steal, but they had to prevent anyone from doing it, regardless of their religion.
Ok, now use that logic to explain bans on oral sex and other similar "morality" or "decency" laws. Why exactly was it necessary to prevent ANYONE from doing it?
My reasons are biological as well as religious.
The biological reasons probably have some merit. The religious reasons do not since there is no real evidence to back them up, and therefore no law should be made just because you "believe" that something is true. The burden of proof is on you.
I am also against executions. I must say that partial-birth abortions are just plain sick. Just try to execute someone by sucking his brains out. Not even the ACLU would support that.
For the record, I am against executions as well. I don't even recall the ACLU supporting ANY kind of execution. I support a woman's right to choose when it comes to early-term abortions. I think her body belongs to her and if she does not want to carry a child she should not be forced to do so. Admitedly, late-term abortions don't sit well with me either, but I would need to learn more about fetal development before I could form an opinion of exactly when an abortion is ok and when it is not. Most abortions are not so-called "partial birth" abortions. Most are done quite early in the pregnancy when the fetus has barely begun to form. It ends up being a judgement call, and as long as the decision is based on sound facts and science, I don't think I'll have a problem with the decision.
Till noon just does not make sense.
Sure it does. The vast majority of church services are over by noon. That was probably the best they were able to push through before it began to cost too much and generate too much opposition.
This almost convinces me that atheism should be considered a religion and treated as such.
You're overlooking one really big difference. People who are not members of a major religion usually have to fight to keep their rights from being taken away by those who are members of a major religion. They aren't the ones taking people's rights away, they are the ones trying to limit how much the majority can take away from the minority.
I come from Indiana. A fairly relgious state.
I live in Texas, apparently an even more religious state. They bring people out to lead prayers at football games and other school events. Teachers, especially in elementary schools, used to lead the classes in prayer in the morning before they started their work. They can't do that anymore thankfully, but they still got away with the prayers at school sporting events and such. There was recently a big lawsuit about it, but I think it's still being appealed. This might strike you as being a case of the minority taking rights away from the majority, but it's not. It is simply enforcing the separation of church and state that has been seriously eroded. Public schools should not be supporting any particular religion or group of religions. It's simply not fair to the students.
Saying something is your and not their property is just a matter of opinion.
Actually it's a very pragmatic decision. Religion and decency have no real part in it, they simply helped to enforce the law by putting "the fear of God" into the masses. Law's against stealing help to ensure economic stability and security. If they did not exist, then we would have anarchy, which does not promote economic growth or a better standard of living.
I was against the CDA.
Wow, that's at least 2 things we've agreed on... we're on a roll :)
By using tax money to lobby Congress.
If you can tell me where to find more information about this, I'd love to see it. Not sure how they would be able to do this unless there is a glaring loophole in the law somewhere. I don't know how they are regulated, or what sort of status they have, but it would be interesting to read about.
Abortion will only become more acceptable when the child is asked whether it wants to live or die. Until then, it is not being given a choice.
Again, I haven't studied fetal development, so I only know what I learned in high school. Perhaps there is some point at which you can say that the fetus becomes a person, but I don't know what that point is. Until that can be figured out, I think the woman has the right to determine the fate of her own body, and certainly has a right to an abortion if her life is in danger. This is a very complicated issue and requires a lot of study and thought. I am truly not qualified to make the decision, I just know what guidelines I would use if I were able to get ahold of all the information I'd need.
Who is to say their BELIEFS are correct? Why should their beliefs be written into laws?
You're distorting things here. The ACLU and others spend most of their time fighting things that are already written into law or are about to be. Listen carefully to what I'm saying. In the absence of law, we can do whatever we want. There are very logical arguments in favor of many, if not most laws. The burden of proof is on the people that want to create the law to support it with facts and reason. When laws are created that are based on what someone thinks is moral, without any good facts or reason to back it up, then that person or group is imposing their personal beliefs on everyone. That's why things like the CDA are bad. That's why things like banning oral sex are bad. It also creates the potential for selective and discriminatory enforcement. These are huge reasons why such laws should not be allowed and why the ACLU is so necessary to our country. They help get rid of bad laws and return us to the status quo where you can decide for yourself to do what you believe is right and so can I. If I want to go to a brothel, I can do so. If you find brothels offensive, that's fine too. Nobody will force you to go to one.
If some students want to pray, the ACLU has no right or reason to stop them, but they continue to attack those with opposing beliefs.
Give me a break. Nobody is saying that students can't pray in school. Just that you can't have people leading prayers in class or at school events since this would entail the supporting of a particular religion or group of religions in a public school. It can alienate non-Christian students and make them feel pressure to conform to the majority or possibly draw attention the fact that they aren't Christian. That's just something that students shouldn't have to deal with at school. If a kid wants to pray on his own time, that's his business and should be perfectly legal as long as he's not being disruptive. Nobody else should be subjected to one group's religious rituals.
The US has a list of things you are ALLOWED to do (a constition). And a jolly silly thing it is too.
That's not quite right. The Constitution is there mainly to control the government rather than the people. I presume you're referring to the Bill of Rights when you talk about a list. The Bill of Rights just restricts the government from passing laws that violate certain values that the founding fathers of this country wanted to preserve. They basically try to keep the government from gaining too much control over people in certain ways. In real life, you are pretty much allowed to do anything that there isn't a law against, but since we have laws against just about everything we don't want people to do, it's not much different than the UK in that respect. We just have the Constitution and Bill of Rights there to help keep the government from passing laws that violate the values that were originally intended to be upheld.
They both adhere to the Constitution, but I see many differences between the two.
They belong to different political parties. Perhaps that is like the difference between being Methodist or Baptist.
They mangled some rules to justify their OWN ends, but it still went against the Church's beliefs and rules.
This is exactly what I'm saying. They were the Church leaders. They WERE the Church. They decided what the Church's beliefs were. People believed what they said. People blindly followed them and set out to murder others. That's one of the biggest problems with many "people of faith." They are taught not to question things. They do as they are told. Sure, not all of them. But at least the majority.
Anyone (individual) can justify doing something wrong based on something else, but it still does not make it right. "Depends on what the definition of 'is' is." The Christian religion does not say "Thou shall torture in the name of Christ." They mangled some rules to justify their OWN ends, but it still went against the Church's beliefs and rules.
We're not talking about an individual. We're talking about the leaders of the Church defining the beliefs of millions. That's a lot of power. I find it frightening that they were able to persuade their followers to murder and torture people even though it directly contradicts one of the Commandments, supposedly the direct orders of God. Hell, people used to gather in great crowds to watch someone be burned for being a heretic.
No joke. The purpose of the Church, at least today, is more of a standards board (i.e., IEEE). Setting down guidelines seems to be the most apparent thing it does. I don't have to follow a standards board; I choose to. No control of me involved.
You are blind if you believe that. The Church throws its weight around all the time. Look at the abortion issue. Does the Church just lay down the rules for its followers and leave it at that? Hell no. They pressure and attack politicians. They try to get laws passed that bind EVERYBODY. Not just the followers of that faith. Same thing with other "morality issues."
I guess you will start distrusting IEEE soon. IEEE will want to control JAVA and will use any means necessary to do it.
No, the IEEE won't lobby or pressure politicians to pass laws forcing me to use their JAVA standard for any programming I do.
FUD. You were probably thinking about Microsoft. :)
No, I'm quite certain I was talking about the Church. If you think it's FUD, then tell me why you think the Church doesn't use shame and ostracism as tools to coerce people into behaving the way it wants them to.
You do realize that there is a Catholic Church and a U.S. Catholic Church. Besides, Catholicism is a minority even among the Christian churches in the U.S. I believe the Protestant Church is the largest in the U.S.
They're all just variations on the Christian religion. Some are more tolerant and less strict than others, but they're fundamentally quite similar. I've been to Catholic, Methodist and Baptist churches, as well as a couple other oddball denominations that I can't recall the names of now. They were all very much the same aside from the Catholic penchant for chants and ritual. I've also been to a Jehova's Witness Hall. They seem to follow a strictly by-the-book view of Christianity. Very humble and sincere from what I can see. They avoid politics as much as possible. If it weren't for the fact that they feel compelled to try to get everyone and their dog to become Witnesses (and possibly even in spite of it), they'd probably be one of the better and most trustworthy religions out there.
Like the bad people involved in the Inquisition, those children are rewriting the rules to justify the ends.
Actually, they probably learn from the example of their parents and other members of their church. Non-Christians are gonna burn in hell, remember? Gay people are abominations. Jewish people killed Jesus, etc. Sure, maybe only a few vocal Christians claim these things, but they have large followings of other Christians that believe them and hold the same feelings.
It was more likely an excuse to beat-up the new kid. I went to eight or nine schools before college. Most of those I was beat on without anyone knowing my religion.
It was basically like a mini-inquisition. They would get asked if they believe in God. Say no and get a beating. Makes you wonder if the Church was run for centuries by 16 year olds. Yeah, it was probably just an excuse. Just seems strange that that excuse seemed the most acceptable to them.
Many priests push the following message: "Love the sinner, not the sin." I don't have accept something I don't believe in, but I should still not hold anything against the person.
There are a lot that preach intollerance as well. And they have a whole lot of followers. Some Christians seem to think that it is their duty to enforce what they think is God's will. That's why doctors who perform abortions live in constant fear. That why gay guys get beaten and killed. Christians just can't leave other people alone. Just yesterday a Christian group was proclaiming that they were going to videotape customers entering a legal brothel and put their images on the Internet for all to see. All I can say is WTF!? Why is this any of their business? Nobody is making them go there. Nobody is making them do anything they don't want to do. Why can't they leave other people alone???
I guess a majority of people in that region wanted it. That is probably why it was passed into law.
Right. The majority are Christians. And being Christians, they should simply be able to tell their members not to purchase alcohol before noon on a Sunday, right? But no, that isn't enough for them. See, they don't just want to guide church members, they want to control everyone. Therefore instead of just instructing the church members that it's wrong, they seek legislation to prevent ANYONE from doing it, regardless of their religion.
Are you saying that a minority group of people should rule and overturn the majority? That is not very democratic.
No, I'm saying that there is supposed to be a separation of church and state so that the members of the majority religion cannot force others by law to adhere to their religious beliefs. If they can't provide some reason for the law other than "it's immoral or indecent to let people do that," then it shouldn't be a law. Unfortunately, since Christians are the majority by a fairly wide margin in the US, they've taken it upon themselves to ignore the Constitution when it gets in the way of imposing their religious beliefs on others.
Now I have to ask if you are joking or not. All people regardless of religion, sex, age, race, or sexual preference want others to believe what they believe.
Why doesn't it surprise me that you believe that? It's just another way for Christians to justify their attempts to enforce their religious beliefs on others. I don't really care what other people believe as long as they don't interfere with my right to behave as I choose without a good reason. "Because God said so" is not a good reason. "Because it's indecent" is not a good reason. "Because it's offensive" is not a good reason.
I don't believe in abortion, but there are pro-choicers who want to shove their belief down my throat.
Wrong. They're not forcing you to get an abortion if you don't want one. They're just making it possible for people to decide for themselves. Christians don't like this. They want to force everyone to conform to their views by making it illegal to do otherwise.
I bet the alcohol-free Sunday was written and voted on by another religion.
Regardless of which religion voted on it, it was a Christian religion and it's typical of their attempts to control others no matter what religion they might be.
There could have been some other reason. **snip** Which religious morals are these laws based on?
I never claimed that every law was passed for a religious reason. I claimed that Sunday alcohol sales ban was passed based on religion. I was told this by the manager of a store that I worked for that sold alcohol. He remembered the law being passed. Made sense, why else would you ban alcohol sales before noon on Sunday?
Separation of Church and State means that any church cannot make laws.
Separation of Church and State was intended to prevent the Church from running the State. But since one religion makes up the vast majority of the country, they've been trying to get rid of the pesky separation of Church and State. They think it's ok to alienate non-Christian kids by having teachers lead prayers in their classrooms. (this can easily lead to the beatings I talked about earlier) They think it's ok to post religious documents in the schools. They wouldn't agree to post documents from minority religions though, especially those that believe in multiple gods.
But people belonging to any church can vote on a law using their own beliefs as do those who are atheist.
The problem is not the voting. The problem is the fact that the laws should have to pass a litmus test to determine whether they are based on reason or faith. If you can't give a good reason for something without resorting to religion or vague notions of what's "decent," then the law should not even be voted on. That gives us crap like the Communications Decency Act that would restrict the freedom of all Americans to view or write things that the majority do not like. The US is not a pure democracy. It's a republic. Tyrrany of the majority is not supposed to happen anymore than tyrrany of the minority. Blacks are a minority. Does that mean it's ok to vote to have them enslaved again? No, because you are violating their personal rights. Just like the CDA would have violated the rights of all Americans.
If you ban churches, you better ban NOW, Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, and many other PAC's as they are just as bad (or worse).
They are nothing of the sort (well, not sure about Greenpeace as I don't know much about them). They are the ones fighting against the majority trying to take away the rights of the minority. Planned Parenthood tries to prevent the government from dictating to us what we can or cannot do with our bodies. They aren't forcing you to do anything at all. It's the Christian majority that try to ban things that don't jive with their religious beliefs. Organizations like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are the last line of defense for the minority against having their rights taken away by the majority. You can have your religion and you can abide by your beliefs. Just STOP trying to FORCE the rest of us to abide by YOUR beliefs! THAT is where the fear of all churches comes from.
Your argument is the intellectual equivalent of "I don't think that beach house in Malibu is worth $1 million and I don't want to pay that bastard that much money for it so I'll just squat there".
And that argument is just silly since "intellectual property" is not at all the same as physical property. IP owners just like to portray it that way to dodge the real issues.
Paying lobbyists off is scumbaggery but so is what you're doing.
Maybe, but my scumbaggery is a result of their scumbaggery. Think of it as scumbaggery in self-defense. They have the money and power and are willing to use it unscroupulously to get money from me. I have my relative anonymity and the ability to get the music I want from them without paying their extortionist fees. They decided what the rules would be for this game. Anything goes.
What you just said is pretty much what Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace addresses. If only we could get a lot more people to read the book, maybe they would have a clue about where things are going and why all these little court cases are actually quite important.
As I stated before, that Church (everyone in it) has long since died. All those attributes you mention are human attributes not an organization's. When you are talking about different people, different attributes come into play.
Yes, they're all dead, and replaced by those who followed in their footsteps. They adhere to the same religion. That adherence did not prevent the Church from committing atrocities then, why should it now? Why are Christians now better than Christians then? Did the rules change?
I did not state they should be trusted, but I do not care to hear arguments about people who died several hundred years ago when we are discussing entirely different people born much later.
Well, I certainly don't trust them. They used their religion to justify murdering people. That religion hasn't changed, and I see no reason to ever trust people who try to make others behave according to rules that they accept on faith alone. The Church does this to this day.
Or maybe those bad individuals are dead and the ones in charge of the Church do not need to be in control of others?
That's a joke, right? The Church EXISTS TO CONTROL. That's its entire purpose. To get people to adhere to its standards and rules. By whatever means necessary. They have learned to use shame and ostracism quite effectively since killing people in any significant quantity has become counter-productive. Since there are a large number of Christians in the US, they are able to exert quite a lot of influence. Since they've managed to work their way into our laws more and more, they are able to alienate and play the people against each other. If you go to school and admit that you don't believe in God, you will likely be shunned and/or attacked by all those good Christian children. I've seen it happen in two of the highschools I went to. It's a religion that seems to preach conformance above tolerance and acceptance. That's dangerous and creates an environment of conflict.
Personally, I'm tired of seeing laws passed that are basically personal favors to the Church. These morality laws violate the separation of church and state. For example, in the city I live in, it is illegal to buy alcohol before noon on a Sunday. Why do you think that is? Who do you think wanted that law? Why should those of us who don't attend church or follow any religion in particular be made subject to such laws? Because religious people feel the need to make others conform to their own beliefs, plain and simple (and I'm talking mainly about Christianity and Islam here as they're the prime offenders, there are many religions that aren't like this, but I'd be wary of letting a Christian know you follow one). I'd rather they do what they believe is right for themselves and their children and leave the rest of us alone.
It would be fairly accurate to say that the intended end of copyright is to benefit society, and the means to that end is providing a way for artists to get paid.
Quote from the Constitution:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Now musicians can't really do anything with the rights they are granted because distribution is tightly controlled by a few corporations. If they want to make any money, they have to sell the rights to a corporation that has the ability to distribute their work. These corporations all work together and all give similar terms that allow them to keep the vast majority of profits as well as ownership of the work. It's hard to decide whether to laugh or cry when these companies claim that they're defending the artists' ability to profit from their creation. Its their own profit that they're concerned with, since their profits greatly outweigh anything that the artist will ever see.
Additionally, the original term of copyright was 14 years, and has been extended several times since its inception. This is mainly due to lobbying by the publishing industry. They pay a bunch of lobbyists and make large campaign contributions in order to get what they want from Congress. Now, there was originally a balance between the public and the artists. That balance has been thrown out of whack and now we have the publishers playing the artists against the public and vice versa while they rake in the vast majority of the profits.
The original copyright term was reasonable. 14 years is a pretty fair amount of time to give someone a monopoly over a piece of information that they create. The government would enforce this monopoly for the term of the copyright and then it would be made freely available to all. This seems like an equitable way to ensure that people keep creating new things and that the public will have complete access to the artistic works and information. Now the balance has shifted, not towards the artist or the people, but on a completely different axis, towards the publishers and distributors (often one and the same). Copyrights now last for the life of the artist plus 70 years. If it's a corporate-created copyright, it lasts for 90 years. It was even extended retroactively, which makes absolutely NO sense given the intent of copyright. The public sees no benefit from copyright anymore. Nothing goes into the public domain anymore. Is it any wonder that people are rapidly losing respect for copyrighted works?
What we need is a reform of copyright laws to bring back the balance. We need to drastically roll back the length of the copyright term. I believe we should restore it to the original 14 years. That's plenty of time for someone to make a profit if the work is good. We also need to either repeal or fix the DMCA. That law is terrible and definitely goes too far.
They have these stores called "Tower Records" (among others) where you can actually listen to the entire CD before you choose to buy it!
Those stores are a pain in the ass. We have a few chains in town that do that. It sucks. Assuming you can actually find an employee to get off his ass and put a cd in the player for you to listen to, you also have to worry about whether they actually have what you're looking for, and God forbid you actually want to listen to several CDs. They'll be looking to throw you out of the store. Not the kind of experience I enjoy. I'll stick to Napster and the rest.
If you don't think the 2 good songs on the CD are worth $15, you don't have to buy it!
Exactly. I can just download the 2 songs I like. If the record companies think they can maximise their profits by marketing the hell out of a couple good songs and filling the rest of the album with crap, I'd like to encourage them to rethink this tactic. I really don't believe that downloading a copy of a couple songs that I like is any worse than paying lobbyists and buying off congresscritters to pass the legislation you want. In fact, I think I'm quite a bit higher on the ethics scale than they are.
This is why we should be able to simply purchase songs individually, or have cds custom-burned for us by the record label, retailer, or whomever.
Fanzines, books, tshirts - this goes against the beliefs of bands that are trying to convince people that mass consumption of needless/useless items is bad.
Obviously other people don't find these things needless/useless. Tshirts are great. You can wear them just like real clothes! If they have a nice picture or something on them, often band-related, all the better! What's useless about a tshirt? Should we all just wear white tshirts, khaki pants and sensible shoes? Fanzines are another issue. If people derive enjoyment from creating these things, well.. isn't that what life is about? Enjoying yourself and sharing with others? Fugazi seems to be going a tad overboard. Sure, perhaps these things aren't strictly "necessary," but I'm pretty sure I don't want to live in a world where all I can have are the necessities.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the environmental impacts of such consumption, but I think that can be addressed without actively prohibiting or even discouraging such consumption. Basically if you require that corporations not destroy the environment (or require that they repair any damage they cause or face severe penalties) costs of the merchandise will go up, and production and consumption will go down. The makers can still turn a profit, they just won't be producing or selling on such a large scale.
Actually there's another scenario that would say that instead of production costs just rising, corporations would seek better ways of producing the product without harming the environment (and therefore incurring no cost to repair it, not facing penalties, and not having to reduce production). This could create more incentives for us to come up with better, more environmentally friendly ways of creating the products we want. These methods will probably be more expensive at first, but they always get much cheaper over time.
Calling all Karma Whores: will someone please post the links for "Courtney Does the Math" and the Steve Albini rant that's based on?
Here ya go:
Steve Albini's rant
Courtney Love Does the Math