In other words, you either either have to hang with Organized Designated Drivers, the Public Transport Cartel (some of it literally underground), or be constantly bombarded with mind altering messages from the Association of Birds and Flowers?? Excuse me while I roll up into a fetal position and whimper:/ Speaking of that, don't even get me started on spacetime! Yeah, it's pretty much a scam all the way to the bottom, and then some; these mandatory breathalyzers just add another layer of cynical, cruel exploitation. Just think about it (before they make it illegal): why do we (think we) have to move from A to B, why are A and B considered separate entitites? I don't know, I don't understand any of it, but I'm sure that someone, somewhere, is making a huge profit from it.
You can't "just remove" people from the roadway, when we live in a nation where a large percentage of the population REQUIRES a vehicle just to survive.
Then the decision to not drink should come very easy to them.
Also, everybody (100% of the population) REQUIRES to not be run over by a drunk driver just to survive. Suddenly, "livelihood" doesn't seem like such an awesome argument anymore, does it.
If you drink and drive that often, you might as well invest in a slightly more expensive model that can be reused. And I doubt one dollar a day would be your main problem either way, that's just noise.
So, you're saying that if we legalize it, then we can tax it, which will drive up the price of the drugs, which will make junkies more desperate to get money, which increases the incentive for them to commit crimes? That's a terrible strategy.
what an interesting interpretation of "Once legal, it can be taxed to fund addiction clinics and other support services that users can now turn to without fear of legal punishment. So, that naturally helps to control the problem and further reduce crime." !
What drug did this to you? Or was it the lack of drugs?
Your line of thinking is common among those who haven't thought things through.
It's nice to know that China and other such countries are such great proponents of freedom of speech, then. After all, they're only banning certain actions (words combined in the right way for the right purpose). Am I seriously misinterpreting you here or something?
Misinterpreting what, exactly? That I approve of specific laws in specific by understanding some basics about reality/law? Yeah, kinda ^^
But it does. It's punishing people for certain speech. If that's not circumventing freedom of speech, then I doubt anything is.
Try not punishing them then... Whenever little Claudia wants to say something in school, the bullies start blabbering, so nobody can hear her. She dies like a little flower, and sad music plays. I really hope you're happy now.
Seriously though, I agree that in this case it's kinda bollocks (I mean making the guy seem like a murderer because the other guy killed himself, that's more hysteria than justice). But I agree in principle that minorities have to be protected from the whims of the majority (a big function of any state really; it's all about giving up power so it can be theoretically used for the greater good (I know it's fucked up in practice, but the theory is somewhat sound IMHO)), and sometimes restrictions of individual freedom kinda increase the greater freedom that way.. it decreases the freedom of bored or mean people to say stuff they could perfectly well without saying, and increases the freedom of others to live as a member of the human race, which they are.
That's a mighty fine trade-off to me, kinda like the fact that your doctor isn't supposed to chat about your health problems with everybody in the village. You make "circumventing freedom of speech" sound so bad, but it really isn't hard? If your actions decrease the freedom of others beyond a certain degree, they're trumped. Yes, the law is crude, the nations are corrupt, ladi-blah. I'm not even being sarcastic, they are. And I know you can separate humanity into a billion "minorities" and be none the wiser, and still have left out ten billion more minorities. But the basic concept is still valid to me. (Though I don't think it can or should be completely legislated, because that just means we're fucked and need to be forced to be decent - but that's kinda besides the point here.)
And you know what, just because China or others abuse that insight, doesn't make it a bad insight per se. They're breathing air as well, doesn't mean I'm gonna stop doing that just out of spite. It's just that I'm a hypocrite, because when I really think about it, calling someone a dumb fuck is every bit as dehumanizing and vile as calling someone a faggot or whatever. But I do accept the principles by which I am a hypocrite.
That's not "my logic", that's reality. To utter or write a word is an action. To not do so, is an inaction. There are no "illegal words", but if you combine them the right way for the right (or wrong) purpose -- and doing that is an action -- you might be commiting a crime.
you could use your logic to completely circumvent the first amendment's protection of freedom of speech for any type of speech.
How so? Since when are actions restricted just because they're actions? They're not, just like words aren't magically untouchable because "they're just words, man!" (see how that works both ways haha?).
You're free to move around to where you like in your own home and public spaces for example, and in a similar way you're free to voice your opinion. But you're not allowed to slander or defraud, for example, or wander into private property and sing at the top of your lungs. That doesn't circumvent freedom of speech -- it's just that the concept (and the legality surrounding it) is a bit more subtle (and sane) than you make it out to be.
Words are never "actions."
No, but uttering words is. I'll go you one further, that is not ever NOT an action.
But hey, seeing how this is the THIRD time I simply repeat that very basic fact, and you keep twisting it around, that will just have to be lost on you.
Wow. You could use this logic to ban any word ("It's an action, man!").
The word is a word, instantiating a word is an action, it doesn't just happen by itself. Sorry if that comes as news to you.
So what's the point of freedom of speech in the first amendment, then?
Well? It doesn't mean "you can say whatever you want whenever you want". If you know for sure there is a lethal dose of poison in a glass of water, and someone asks you if it's safe to drink, and you say "sure, go ahead", you're a murderer. If you tell a little child that running into the street makes candy rain from the sky, the same applies.
If you can't understand that, just strap on a helmet and give up.
Right. And they are just words. The words aren't sentient beings that force you to lose your job and friends. Do you know who does that? Idiotic people who believe everything they hear and consequently fire you and/or other such nonsense.
Right. It's clearly the fault of a 4 year old if it believes you something you tell it, and you cannot be held accountable at all.
By kicking your ass because you're a homosexual, I intended to kick you ass just the same as if you had pissed me off in any other number of ways.
Orly? What number of ways? If they are ways that are unrelated to the individual and their actions, like being gay is, then what the fuck are you on about? It's not the same, one is an individual instance of shit happening, the other is something that's likely to happen again, since the individual doesn't matter, but the prejudice does, or let's call it the agenda of the hater... When you said "if you had pissed me off" that was bullshit pure and simple: try "if *I* had pissed off *myself*, using you as a scapegoat". And that's the point. It's unrelated to the victims, it's all about the sickness of the perpetrator, and I can see why dealing with that harshly is preferable. It's not about justice, it's about sending a very clear signal even a dumb person who only speaks violence understands: "cut that right out". It's not like homosexuals haven't been murdered enough, or aren't still being murdered in wide parts of the world, or "just" treated as less than human by many -- and you don't get progress by making a friendly suggestion, or by explaining how the world works, not with the crowd this stuff is aimed at.
The reason I was willing to bring about such outcome should not be taken into account
And before you ask, neither would have been stacking three crates of melons on a motorbike, or whatever unrelated bullshit you might come up with next.
You mean if someone who has no problem calling out hellfire for all sorts of people, for basically "everybody but us", gets *some* of what they have coming, people aren't as outraged as when someone who doesn't harm anyone gets abused for that? You don't say.
To put it bluntly: to hate Nazis isn't hate, it's the self-defense of life, and ultimately an expression of love towards those the Nazis would have a go at otherwise. So go tell your imaginary ultra-christian friend to cry Jesus a fucking river.
Nobody is criminalizing words. Instead, the action of uttering some of them sometimes is a crime.
So?
The fantasy that words and actions are two totally different and separate things is just that, a fantasy. You can with words alone get someone to lose their job and friends and have them starve to death. But hey, it's just words! That guy who threw those Kool-Aid parties? Just words! And even the scrawniest geek could have knocked out Adolf Hitler, that joke of a man. Yea, verily, I speaketh unto you: when it came to physical action, Adolf Hitler did zero. Zilch. He petted his dog and raised his arm, so how come people call him murderer for that?
I guess it's just a fucking mystery.
You say it's unacceptable to be "overly" offended by mere words, and I guess you're the judge what constitutes "overly". If so, do you also have a standard of being "underly offended" by something? How much is to little?
Still though, Clementi obviously believed that what he was doing was shameful and wrong, and he killed himself for it. If anybody "shares blame" for Clementi's suicide, it's the "gay rights" advocates.
The same goes for "planned murder" and "accidental manslaughter". Sure, call it thoughtcrime if it makes you happy. Now what? Taking the mind into a account is perfectly valid, actually necessary, and standard practice for as long as we have codes of law. So what's your point? You seem to say "thoughtcrime" like it's a bad thing, yet you have zero leg to stand on, how come?
I'd say it simply means any and all people involved in this, and knowingly approving of it, are simply not fit to do ANY sort of governing in any democracy. This also goes for those who cover them.
Until you followed those vectors you don't even know how much of the conservative party is left (and what exist cannot govern period). If those vectors aren't followed, what does it say about Canada's claim to being a democracy?
'Bottom of the barrel' would be the ignorant preachy people who don't realize any of the above.
That's a false dichotomy and a strawman to boot, since I am very well aware of that. But it doesn't change anything: let professionals control the population of those animals -- but if you're telling me that people hunt because they "*sigh* gotta keep those deers in check, even though I'd rather do something else *sigh*", I can only laugh. What a lame try, really.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, you either either have to hang with Organized Designated Drivers, the Public Transport Cartel (some of it literally underground), or be constantly bombarded with mind altering messages from the Association of Birds and Flowers?? Excuse me while I roll up into a fetal position and whimper :/ Speaking of that, don't even get me started on spacetime! Yeah, it's pretty much a scam all the way to the bottom, and then some; these mandatory breathalyzers just add another layer of cynical, cruel exploitation. Just think about it (before they make it illegal): why do we (think we) have to move from A to B, why are A and B considered separate entitites? I don't know, I don't understand any of it, but I'm sure that someone, somewhere, is making a huge profit from it.
"That's not going to stop someone driving drunk."
If "someone" means "everyone", you're right. If someone means "someone", you're wrong. It will stop more than zero people from driving drunk.
Maybe there is shit everywhere and all the time. Or maybe (just maybe) you have a turd up your nose.
Then the decision to not drink should come very easy to them.
Also, everybody (100% of the population) REQUIRES to not be run over by a drunk driver just to survive. Suddenly, "livelihood" doesn't seem like such an awesome argument anymore, does it.
Looks like the taxi driver mafia now has competition from the breathalyzer mafia? No, wait, maybe you're just seeing things.
If you drink and drive that often, you might as well invest in a slightly more expensive model that can be reused. And I doubt one dollar a day would be your main problem either way, that's just noise.
what an interesting interpretation of "Once legal, it can be taxed to fund addiction clinics and other support services that users can now turn to without fear of legal punishment. So, that naturally helps to control the problem and further reduce crime." !
What drug did this to you? Or was it the lack of drugs?
What would you know about thinking haha?
Does Ground Zero Coke have what plants crave?
"take out China's attack on Taiwan"? Is that code for "establish autocracy in mineshafts"?
Misinterpreting what, exactly? That I approve of specific laws in specific by understanding some basics about reality/law? Yeah, kinda ^^
Try not punishing them then... Whenever little Claudia wants to say something in school, the bullies start blabbering, so nobody can hear her. She dies like a little flower, and sad music plays. I really hope you're happy now.
Seriously though, I agree that in this case it's kinda bollocks (I mean making the guy seem like a murderer because the other guy killed himself, that's more hysteria than justice). But I agree in principle that minorities have to be protected from the whims of the majority (a big function of any state really; it's all about giving up power so it can be theoretically used for the greater good (I know it's fucked up in practice, but the theory is somewhat sound IMHO)), and sometimes restrictions of individual freedom kinda increase the greater freedom that way.. it decreases the freedom of bored or mean people to say stuff they could perfectly well without saying, and increases the freedom of others to live as a member of the human race, which they are.
That's a mighty fine trade-off to me, kinda like the fact that your doctor isn't supposed to chat about your health problems with everybody in the village. You make "circumventing freedom of speech" sound so bad, but it really isn't hard? If your actions decrease the freedom of others beyond a certain degree, they're trumped. Yes, the law is crude, the nations are corrupt, ladi-blah. I'm not even being sarcastic, they are. And I know you can separate humanity into a billion "minorities" and be none the wiser, and still have left out ten billion more minorities. But the basic concept is still valid to me. (Though I don't think it can or should be completely legislated, because that just means we're fucked and need to be forced to be decent - but that's kinda besides the point here.)
And you know what, just because China or others abuse that insight, doesn't make it a bad insight per se. They're breathing air as well, doesn't mean I'm gonna stop doing that just out of spite. It's just that I'm a hypocrite, because when I really think about it, calling someone a dumb fuck is every bit as dehumanizing and vile as calling someone a faggot or whatever. But I do accept the principles by which I am a hypocrite.
That's not "my logic", that's reality. To utter or write a word is an action. To not do so, is an inaction. There are no "illegal words", but if you combine them the right way for the right (or wrong) purpose -- and doing that is an action -- you might be commiting a crime.
How so? Since when are actions restricted just because they're actions? They're not, just like words aren't magically untouchable because "they're just words, man!" (see how that works both ways haha?).
You're free to move around to where you like in your own home and public spaces for example, and in a similar way you're free to voice your opinion. But you're not allowed to slander or defraud, for example, or wander into private property and sing at the top of your lungs. That doesn't circumvent freedom of speech -- it's just that the concept (and the legality surrounding it) is a bit more subtle (and sane) than you make it out to be.
No, but uttering words is. I'll go you one further, that is not ever NOT an action.
But hey, seeing how this is the THIRD time I simply repeat that very basic fact, and you keep twisting it around, that will just have to be lost on you.
The word is a word, instantiating a word is an action, it doesn't just happen by itself. Sorry if that comes as news to you.
Well? It doesn't mean "you can say whatever you want whenever you want". If you know for sure there is a lethal dose of poison in a glass of water, and someone asks you if it's safe to drink, and you say "sure, go ahead", you're a murderer. If you tell a little child that running into the street makes candy rain from the sky, the same applies.
If you can't understand that, just strap on a helmet and give up.
Right. It's clearly the fault of a 4 year old if it believes you something you tell it, and you cannot be held accountable at all.
Orly? What number of ways? If they are ways that are unrelated to the individual and their actions, like being gay is, then what the fuck are you on about? It's not the same, one is an individual instance of shit happening, the other is something that's likely to happen again, since the individual doesn't matter, but the prejudice does, or let's call it the agenda of the hater... When you said "if you had pissed me off" that was bullshit pure and simple: try "if *I* had pissed off *myself*, using you as a scapegoat". And that's the point. It's unrelated to the victims, it's all about the sickness of the perpetrator, and I can see why dealing with that harshly is preferable. It's not about justice, it's about sending a very clear signal even a dumb person who only speaks violence understands: "cut that right out". It's not like homosexuals haven't been murdered enough, or aren't still being murdered in wide parts of the world, or "just" treated as less than human by many -- and you don't get progress by making a friendly suggestion, or by explaining how the world works, not with the crowd this stuff is aimed at.
Why? Because you say so?
No.
And before you ask, neither would have been stacking three crates of melons on a motorbike, or whatever unrelated bullshit you might come up with next.
You mean if someone who has no problem calling out hellfire for all sorts of people, for basically "everybody but us", gets *some* of what they have coming, people aren't as outraged as when someone who doesn't harm anyone gets abused for that? You don't say.
To put it bluntly: to hate Nazis isn't hate, it's the self-defense of life, and ultimately an expression of love towards those the Nazis would have a go at otherwise. So go tell your imaginary ultra-christian friend to cry Jesus a fucking river.
Nobody is criminalizing words. Instead, the action of uttering some of them sometimes is a crime.
So?
The fantasy that words and actions are two totally different and separate things is just that, a fantasy. You can with words alone get someone to lose their job and friends and have them starve to death. But hey, it's just words! That guy who threw those Kool-Aid parties? Just words! And even the scrawniest geek could have knocked out Adolf Hitler, that joke of a man. Yea, verily, I speaketh unto you: when it came to physical action, Adolf Hitler did zero. Zilch. He petted his dog and raised his arm, so how come people call him murderer for that?
I guess it's just a fucking mystery.
You say it's unacceptable to be "overly" offended by mere words, and I guess you're the judge what constitutes "overly". If so, do you also have a standard of being "underly offended" by something? How much is to little?
why don't you tell us? it's your strawman after all.
Bullshit. Moron. NEXT.
irony? that's not irony, that's just you not knowing what irony is.
The same goes for "planned murder" and "accidental manslaughter". Sure, call it thoughtcrime if it makes you happy. Now what? Taking the mind into a account is perfectly valid, actually necessary, and standard practice for as long as we have codes of law. So what's your point? You seem to say "thoughtcrime" like it's a bad thing, yet you have zero leg to stand on, how come?
not it doesn't, not really.
Capitalism IS despotism. The hierarchy in a corporation is usually very fucking clear, and perfectly totalitarian.
I'd say it simply means any and all people involved in this, and knowingly approving of it, are simply not fit to do ANY sort of governing in any democracy. This also goes for those who cover them.
Until you followed those vectors you don't even know how much of the conservative party is left (and what exist cannot govern period). If those vectors aren't followed, what does it say about Canada's claim to being a democracy?
Thunderbird (on the desktop) happily does that with my IMAP accounts... huh? What am I missing??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAP_IDLE
That's a false dichotomy and a strawman to boot, since I am very well aware of that. But it doesn't change anything: let professionals control the population of those animals -- but if you're telling me that people hunt because they "*sigh* gotta keep those deers in check, even though I'd rather do something else *sigh*", I can only laugh. What a lame try, really.