For example, laws against telling others to commit violent crimes against other people of a certain social group.
That is the problem with the concept of "hate" laws (whether it is "hate crime" or "hate speech"), they take laws that are not about hate and lump them in with laws they would like to pass in order to make those laws more palatable. The example you gave is not about hate, it makes it illegal to incite violence whether the target is a social or ethnic group, or "people that work for BP", or "that guy over there".
Have you read up on the political campaigns that went on while the men who wrote the Constitution were still alive? Ones which some of those same men took part in? The problem with restricting "hate speech" is that it is very hard to define what that is.
I'm confused as to what rights that those who are LGBT don't have that everyone else has. I'm pretty sure that they have all of these rights:
Right to equal protection under the law [1][2]
Right to freedom of thought[3]]
Right to freedom of speech and press (cf. freedom of expression)]
Right to freedom of association[4]]
Right to freedom of movement within the country[5]]
Right to vote in general election]
Right to procreate irrespective of marital status or other classifications]
Right to direct a child's upbringing [6]]
Right to marry the person of any race (although not of any sex, but then no one esle has that right either)
Right to privacy[7]
Right to property
Right to freedom of contract by parties with proportional bargaining power[citation needed]]
Right to keep and bear arms[8]]
If this comment was attacking Bush a few years ago, calling him a fascist, it might very well have been modded up (it also would've been true...). If we want a truly open forum here, we really shouldn't so quickly silence those who disagree with us.
Sorry, but Bush was very clearly not a fascist as not only is he no longer President, but neither are any of his political allies. The key reason I always opposed the labeling of Bush as a fascist was that he never took any steps that would have allowed him to control who his successor would be.
Obama has taken some steps that are reminiscent of fascism (the takeover of GM and Chrysler, his interaction with BP, plus a few other things), but it is certainly too early to label him as clearly a fascist. As we approach the 2012 elections we will have opportunity to see if he attempts to set things up to avoid the established electoral process. I do not believe that he is truly a fascist because most fascist leaders are control freaks and want to approve all aspects of every action and law, and Obama has demonstrated a willingness to pass off most of the detail work to others.
Unfortunately, too often, it is up to citizens to read all the sources and attempt to extract the truth from the pile of bias.
We used to have an institution that would do that for you, present all sides, including sections that are fact only, plus separate editorial pieces, all in once convenient package. I think they used to call it "the press".
When did the "press" ever do that? I remember when people thought that the "press" did that, but now that there are more sources of information available to the general public directly anyone who looks into it discovers that the "press" just suppressed that information that disagreed with their "narrative".
Actually, we are not sure how much Socrates used what we know as the "Socratic Method" since most of our examples are from the writings of Plato (where he uses Socrates as a character in dialogues designed to present a point that Plato wanted to make). Socrates left no writings and for the most part all we know about him is what was said about him in the writings of his students works on philosophy.
ISPs got the way they did by screwing the public by taking money to provide internet access and then unilaterally changing the definition of the internet to their own interests.
As someone here said to me (with a very good reason), the ISP business is a natural monopoly. How do you fix that without regulation?
How do you know that the ISP business is a natural monopoly? The only reason we have ISP monopolies is because the government would not allow more than one cable company to compete in an area when cable was first being installed.
The problem with both sectors is not deregulation, but regulatory agencies that are not in fact actually inspecting to see if existing regulations are being followed (or to be more precise, ignoring violations of existing regulations).
I think government may be the only organization that when it fails to fulfill its responsibilities people seem to think the answer is to give it more responsibility.
Studies (the one's I have seen were not specific to IT) have shown that women tend to work fewer hours a week than men in the same field. Additionally, those same or similar studies have shown that women often trade increases in salary for other perks (such as flexible schedules). Those same studies point out other problems with the standard reports you hear about woman's pay being less than that of men.
"Comparable experience" generally means similar education and similar number of years in the field, not "works the same number of hours".
Fascism is a political system where the government controls the means of production, Capitalism is an economic system where individuals control the means of production. China does not have a free market system, they have merely moved from having something that was more or less Communism to something that is essentially Fascism.
Telling people you are a homophobe is an intimidation tactic?
Ok, so you believe that someone thinks homosexuals are severely misguided individuals who are harming themselves is afraid of homosexuals?
Telling people that someone supported this petition is not harrassment, but five or more people standing outside someone's place of business getting in the face of everyone entering the building because they do business with a "homophobe" is.
Um, this research was eligible for federal funding under President Bush and I assume it is still eligible for federal funding under Obama. The thing you seem to not have noticed is that this procedure works with adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.
Why would you think that? Or are you one of those idiots who don't know that Christians do not oppose the use of adult stem cells only embryonic stem cells that are harvested by killing the embryo?
I agree with you about the man up and stand for your beliefs, however history has shown that standing for something unpopular had a nasty tendency to get you dead or injured.
It doesn't even have to be unpopular if the issue is one where those who oppose your position are willing to use intimidation tactics (which is the case with this petition). It will be interesting to see how those who went to court to get the names on this position react when it is a petition favoring one of their causes that receives this treatment. The interesting thing about this case is that before this particular petition, the state had found that these petitions did not fall under the Public records Act. So, the people who signed this petition had reason to believe that their identities would not become general knowledge.
Those who sued to get the names of the people who signed the petition did so so that they could harrass the more prominent people who signed it.
I am not convinced that natural monopolies exist. And even if they do, you should study the history of telephony and cable. Both the cable and telephone monopolies exist because of government regulation, not because of some "natural" monopoly.
You say that you need government regulation to protect you because there is close to a monopoly for High Speed Internet service providers. Of course, that near monopoly exists because of government regulations in the first place. When the government uses its power to create problems, people seem to think that the best solution is to give the government more power. I think that the best solution to the problems created by the government is to take power away from the government.
Yes, but you want it made into a law. I would be willing to accept that if any of the bills which claim to make it a law were short and stuck to the principle that Ultranova claims is what Ultranova stands for (but most of the other people who replied to my comments seem to believe is less than what Net Neutrality is).
Slashdot Mirror
For example, laws against telling others to commit violent crimes against other people of a certain social group.
That is the problem with the concept of "hate" laws (whether it is "hate crime" or "hate speech"), they take laws that are not about hate and lump them in with laws they would like to pass in order to make those laws more palatable. The example you gave is not about hate, it makes it illegal to incite violence whether the target is a social or ethnic group, or "people that work for BP", or "that guy over there".
Inciting violence should be a crime. Attempting to incite violence should not be.
Have you read up on the political campaigns that went on while the men who wrote the Constitution were still alive? Ones which some of those same men took part in? The problem with restricting "hate speech" is that it is very hard to define what that is.
I'm confused as to what rights that those who are LGBT don't have that everyone else has. I'm pretty sure that they have all of these rights:
Right to equal protection under the law [1][2]
Right to freedom of thought[3]]
Right to freedom of speech and press (cf. freedom of expression)]
Right to freedom of association[4]]
Right to freedom of movement within the country[5]]
Right to vote in general election]
Right to procreate irrespective of marital status or other classifications]
Right to direct a child's upbringing [6]]
Right to marry the person of any race (although not of any sex, but then no one esle has that right either)
Right to privacy[7]
Right to property
Right to freedom of contract by parties with proportional bargaining power[citation needed]]
Right to keep and bear arms[8]]
If this comment was attacking Bush a few years ago, calling him a fascist, it might very well have been modded up (it also would've been true...). If we want a truly open forum here, we really shouldn't so quickly silence those who disagree with us.
Sorry, but Bush was very clearly not a fascist as not only is he no longer President, but neither are any of his political allies. The key reason I always opposed the labeling of Bush as a fascist was that he never took any steps that would have allowed him to control who his successor would be.
Obama has taken some steps that are reminiscent of fascism (the takeover of GM and Chrysler, his interaction with BP, plus a few other things), but it is certainly too early to label him as clearly a fascist. As we approach the 2012 elections we will have opportunity to see if he attempts to set things up to avoid the established electoral process. I do not believe that he is truly a fascist because most fascist leaders are control freaks and want to approve all aspects of every action and law, and Obama has demonstrated a willingness to pass off most of the detail work to others.
Unfortunately, too often, it is up to citizens to read all the sources and attempt to extract the truth from the pile of bias.
We used to have an institution that would do that for you, present all sides, including sections that are fact only, plus separate editorial pieces, all in once convenient package. I think they used to call it "the press".
When did the "press" ever do that? I remember when people thought that the "press" did that, but now that there are more sources of information available to the general public directly anyone who looks into it discovers that the "press" just suppressed that information that disagreed with their "narrative".
Actually, I usually insert an R into that. I'll leave it to you to figure out where.
Actually, we are not sure how much Socrates used what we know as the "Socratic Method" since most of our examples are from the writings of Plato (where he uses Socrates as a character in dialogues designed to present a point that Plato wanted to make). Socrates left no writings and for the most part all we know about him is what was said about him in the writings of his students works on philosophy.
As someone here said to me (with a very good reason), the ISP business is a natural monopoly. How do you fix that without regulation?
How do you know that the ISP business is a natural monopoly? The only reason we have ISP monopolies is because the government would not allow more than one cable company to compete in an area when cable was first being installed.
The problem with both sectors is not deregulation, but regulatory agencies that are not in fact actually inspecting to see if existing regulations are being followed (or to be more precise, ignoring violations of existing regulations).
I think government may be the only organization that when it fails to fulfill its responsibilities people seem to think the answer is to give it more responsibility.
Studies (the one's I have seen were not specific to IT) have shown that women tend to work fewer hours a week than men in the same field. Additionally, those same or similar studies have shown that women often trade increases in salary for other perks (such as flexible schedules). Those same studies point out other problems with the standard reports you hear about woman's pay being less than that of men.
"Comparable experience" generally means similar education and similar number of years in the field, not "works the same number of hours".
Fascism is a political system where the government controls the means of production, Capitalism is an economic system where individuals control the means of production. China does not have a free market system, they have merely moved from having something that was more or less Communism to something that is essentially Fascism.
Telling people you are a homophobe is an intimidation tactic?
Ok, so you believe that someone thinks homosexuals are severely misguided individuals who are harming themselves is afraid of homosexuals?
Telling people that someone supported this petition is not harrassment, but five or more people standing outside someone's place of business getting in the face of everyone entering the building because they do business with a "homophobe" is.
So, I take it you oppose anonymous voting?
Really, you have seen large numbers of people who oppose gay marriage picketing the jobs and homes and businesses of those who support gay marriage?
How does it ban any class of people from doing something another class can?
Um, this research was eligible for federal funding under President Bush and I assume it is still eligible for federal funding under Obama. The thing you seem to not have noticed is that this procedure works with adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.
Jesus is not going to be happy.
Why would you think that? Or are you one of those idiots who don't know that Christians do not oppose the use of adult stem cells only embryonic stem cells that are harvested by killing the embryo?
There is no such thing as a capitalist fascist. It has as much meaning as capitalist communist.
I agree with you about the man up and stand for your beliefs, however history has shown that standing for something unpopular had a nasty tendency to get you dead or injured.
It doesn't even have to be unpopular if the issue is one where those who oppose your position are willing to use intimidation tactics (which is the case with this petition). It will be interesting to see how those who went to court to get the names on this position react when it is a petition favoring one of their causes that receives this treatment. The interesting thing about this case is that before this particular petition, the state had found that these petitions did not fall under the Public records Act. So, the people who signed this petition had reason to believe that their identities would not become general knowledge.
Those who sued to get the names of the people who signed the petition did so so that they could harrass the more prominent people who signed it.
How do you get the idea that Amazon does not pay postage (support the service that the post office provides them)?
Delivery of mail is defined as a function of the Federal government in the U.S. Constitution.
Eliminating the national post office would require a Constitutional amendment. Delivering the mail is in the U.S. Constitution.
I am not convinced that natural monopolies exist. And even if they do, you should study the history of telephony and cable. Both the cable and telephone monopolies exist because of government regulation, not because of some "natural" monopoly.
You say that you need government regulation to protect you because there is close to a monopoly for High Speed Internet service providers. Of course, that near monopoly exists because of government regulations in the first place. When the government uses its power to create problems, people seem to think that the best solution is to give the government more power. I think that the best solution to the problems created by the government is to take power away from the government.
Yes, but you want it made into a law. I would be willing to accept that if any of the bills which claim to make it a law were short and stuck to the principle that Ultranova claims is what Ultranova stands for (but most of the other people who replied to my comments seem to believe is less than what Net Neutrality is).