True; but how much 'being bad' for you matters is very subjective. Drinking is very bad for you also; so is gross obesity. But in a free and civilized society, we let individuals make their own value judgements whenever possible.
The harm cigarettes do is objective; the importance of that harm is subjective.
There's been a general adoption of the belief that cigarettes are incredibly addictive, as part of the campaign against smoking, and I think that has had a very detrimental effect. When somebody is told everyday that quitting smoking is nearly impossible, it becomes harder. After all, stopping smoking is, in great portion, a psychological struggle, and preconceptions will color that strongly.
If people had been raised with the idea that any idiot can quite smoking if they want, it would be much easier to stop. In fairness, though, that might lead to more people taking up the habit in the first place. Regardless, the psychological arena is the one area where perception can become truth.
That may be true; but there's a disconnect between that kind of sociopath, and the typical usage of the word as bandied about here. On slashdot, 'socialpath' is nearly synonymous with 'jerk'. You can't identify sociopaths with the loose definition, and then treat them according to the stringent definition. Logic error.
No; defenses of free speech in this thread haven't gone too far. Same rule applies. If a violent act occurs because of speech, a nonviolent act, then all blame goes to the person doing the violent act. No idea is so evil or virulent it can't be communicated. Only actions.
People advocating censorship are as evil as people advocating racism.
I don't think speech should be banned because it might transfer a harmful idea. I care more about the global application of free speech than about a small likelihood of additional suicides. It is not a person's duty to censor themselves out of fear of potential harm to a disturbed person who reacts incorrectly to their speech.
Besides, it's very possible that the increased likelihood of suicide is just a temporal fluke; it may simply trigger suicides that were going to happen eventually anyway. That sort of statistical error is hard to account for.
Bull. Some people are just psychologically strong enough not to be bothered. We know suicide happens; it is only a shock if you haven't really understood and reconciled that fact. That fact that you've observed it doesn't increase or decrease how bad the suicide is, so why should it be traumatic?
Thank you. That line of attack against Fox is normally taken far out of context by people who consider themselves, incorrectly, to be intellectually honest.
Most likely the author wrote "an internet connection" and then revised it to add the word "constant". Not a typo, not a spelling error, but an editing error. Happens to us all, to one degree or another, so it's not worth getting too upset about. You must be insecure; probably European.
(Actually, that last sentence was a demonstration of coming to a unwarranted conclusion because of a bigotry. Did you recognize the flawed logic? It's easier to see it in a stranger than in yourself.)
Doing something good is only a virtue when it entails suffering, right? If it benefits you, it's obviously a sin.
What a medieval way of thinking.
Re:Not "Going out of Business," Persay...
on
Trouble At OnLive
·
· Score: 1
So, if something does disastrously wrong and Valve folds, it's too bad for buying rental games? Seriously, how fucked up is that.
The people shopping with Steam have been warned, over and over, that their purchases may go away. They don't care. That's their right. Good for them if it doesn't happen, too bad for them if it does. It's just a known consequence of the business model.
You've been corrected at least seven times. If a company is purchased, obligations are assumed. Do you think all the contracts they signed are nullified? Do you think all their debtors don't have to pay them any more? Think about the implications of what you're saying, and you'll find it can't be true.
Remember the global recession caused by our housing and banking crisis?
Triggered by our crisis is probably more correct. The root causes of Europe's economic crisis is entirely their own doing; it was going to crash sooner or later. The banking crisis in the US just pushed it over the line.
Slashdot Mirror
How are the developer tools for Opera? If they're close to firebug-level, I'll switch today. If I wasn't developing, I'd have switched yesterday.
In some societies, the concept that we are our brothers' keeper is very strong.
In these societies, if something is bad for someone then that's enough justification to outlaw it.
Those societies are dystopias.
True; but how much 'being bad' for you matters is very subjective. Drinking is very bad for you also; so is gross obesity. But in a free and civilized society, we let individuals make their own value judgements whenever possible.
The harm cigarettes do is objective; the importance of that harm is subjective.
There's been a general adoption of the belief that cigarettes are incredibly addictive, as part of the campaign against smoking, and I think that has had a very detrimental effect. When somebody is told everyday that quitting smoking is nearly impossible, it becomes harder. After all, stopping smoking is, in great portion, a psychological struggle, and preconceptions will color that strongly.
If people had been raised with the idea that any idiot can quite smoking if they want, it would be much easier to stop. In fairness, though, that might lead to more people taking up the habit in the first place. Regardless, the psychological arena is the one area where perception can become truth.
Yes it does, assuming you believe children are human beings.
Incidentally, the example with abortion breaks down if you believe unborn babies are human.
Exactly. It's called 'freedom'.
Sorry; accidentally modded 'redundant', so I'm posting to undo. (... was aiming for 'interesting'...)
That may be true; but there's a disconnect between that kind of sociopath, and the typical usage of the word as bandied about here. On slashdot, 'socialpath' is nearly synonymous with 'jerk'. You can't identify sociopaths with the loose definition, and then treat them according to the stringent definition. Logic error.
So? Should all ideas be held up to the same standard?
Beer commercials have killed more people than all televised suicides and murders, if that's the case. Shouldn't they be censored too?
I haven't watched any Babylon 5... so I'm curious. Did Captain Sheridan die, or did his risky plan work?
No; defenses of free speech in this thread haven't gone too far. Same rule applies. If a violent act occurs because of speech, a nonviolent act, then all blame goes to the person doing the violent act. No idea is so evil or virulent it can't be communicated. Only actions.
People advocating censorship are as evil as people advocating racism.
I don't think speech should be banned because it might transfer a harmful idea. I care more about the global application of free speech than about a small likelihood of additional suicides. It is not a person's duty to censor themselves out of fear of potential harm to a disturbed person who reacts incorrectly to their speech. Besides, it's very possible that the increased likelihood of suicide is just a temporal fluke; it may simply trigger suicides that were going to happen eventually anyway. That sort of statistical error is hard to account for.
Bull. Some people are just psychologically strong enough not to be bothered. We know suicide happens; it is only a shock if you haven't really understood and reconciled that fact. That fact that you've observed it doesn't increase or decrease how bad the suicide is, so why should it be traumatic?
Wow. You have no substantial argument, do you? If this was an argument in person, is this the point where your cheeks get red and you throw a punch?
And, it's probably a very good thing that we DO have the right to lie. The alternative is far more dangerous.
Thank you. That line of attack against Fox is normally taken far out of context by people who consider themselves, incorrectly, to be intellectually honest.
You're arguing about irrelevancies. You aren't addressing the point. That makes it likely you are incorrect.
Most likely the author wrote "an internet connection" and then revised it to add the word "constant". Not a typo, not a spelling error, but an editing error. Happens to us all, to one degree or another, so it's not worth getting too upset about. You must be insecure; probably European.
(Actually, that last sentence was a demonstration of coming to a unwarranted conclusion because of a bigotry. Did you recognize the flawed logic? It's easier to see it in a stranger than in yourself.)
And, there is not anything necessarily wrong with taking sides. One would hope they would, in fact.
However, censorship is a stupid and ineffective way to do it.
Terrible.
Doing something good is only a virtue when it entails suffering, right? If it benefits you, it's obviously a sin.
What a medieval way of thinking.
So, if something does disastrously wrong and Valve folds, it's too bad for buying rental games? Seriously, how fucked up is that.
The people shopping with Steam have been warned, over and over, that their purchases may go away. They don't care. That's their right. Good for them if it doesn't happen, too bad for them if it does. It's just a known consequence of the business model.
Because libertarians are known for thinking contracts shouldn't need to be honored, right?
You've been corrected at least seven times. If a company is purchased, obligations are assumed. Do you think all the contracts they signed are nullified? Do you think all their debtors don't have to pay them any more? Think about the implications of what you're saying, and you'll find it can't be true.
No, that's how it works in the US. This is a pretty clear win for the customer if he wishes to pursue it.
Remember the global recession caused by our housing and banking crisis?
Triggered by our crisis is probably more correct. The root causes of Europe's economic crisis is entirely their own doing; it was going to crash sooner or later. The banking crisis in the US just pushed it over the line.