$700 for an apartment is awesome in the midwest I live in the midwest, and $700 is crap for an apartment here. An average, one-bedroom apartment should run you like $400-$500.
He wasn't saying he supports any of this, merely that plenty of people in the US do. And I don't know if you've paid any attention lately, but he's right. There are metric ass-tons of morons in the US (there are also smart people, but we seem to be vastly outnumbered).
Silly internet troll, flaming is for people with reading comprehension.
Bingo. The Iraq war isn't a self-defensive war, which is the only kind of war I support. I believe it's ok to kill someone in only a very small handful of scenarios: either ones where you must choose between two lives (for instance, an abortion would be ok if it was necessary to save the mother's life, since you have to choose between killing the child or killing his mom), or where it might be merited as punishment for truly heinous crimes (a mass-murderer may deserve to be killed, because he has violated so many others' right to life, for example).
If Iraq were a self-defensive war (we have to choose between their lives, or the lives of our citizens), it'd be acceptable... but it isn't.
Therefore, they are not "distorting the issue" by stating that anti-abortionists want to prevent women from controlling their own bodies, they are simply describing exactly what anti-abortionists are doing in their view. Except they aren't putting it in those terms. Every time I hear someone who's pro-abortion use the "body control" argument, they paint it as "those evil anti-abortion people don't want women to control their bodies, the nerve!". They act as if being against abortion is a misogynist position, when it's really completely neutral towards women, and centers on the belief that the fetus is human life and should be respected as such.
Exactly! People refuse to get this through their heads for some reason. Microsoft has a lot of pull in some circles, but that doesn't include Hollywood. When it comes to content delivery, the studios don't need Microsoft, Microsoft needs them. It's no different in this case than it is for smaller companies.
Check it out, I can make nonsensical arguments too.
those who think they love freedom really want to push rules onto other people. Like those who support murder laws?
How'd I do?? Seriously... all laws involve a loss of freedom. That's something we accept, because we don't want people to run around hurting others. If you disagree with IP laws, fine, but claiming that it's just "really wanting to push rules onto other people" is fscking asinine.
That's the whole issue at hand, of course. That's an entire debate by itself, my point was just that pro-abortion people need to stop flinging this bs of "they don't want to let women control their bodies", because it just isn't true.
You also have Christians who are against allowing women to control... their own bodies. I'm assuming you're talking about abortion here, since that's a typical thing said by abortion proponents. If that's not what you meant, carry on.
That has NOTHING to do with being against abortion. I'm passionately against abortion (also IANAC), because it's the taking of a human life. Women happen to be unfortunate in that they are specially restricted in what they can do to their bodies, because they have another human life inside them. Is it fair? No, but we can't change it. However, I cannot and will not condone the killing of an innocent, whether it's what you want to do to your body or not. Your right to swing your fist ends where that little guy's nose begins. Those who say "they don't want women to control their bodies" are horribly distorting the issue.
"brown people" is the absolute broadest description you could give to security when they ask "who should i keep an eye on?" like i said before this is not racism, this is filtering. No, it's racism.
Not only that, but it's horrible security to boot. There are plenty of crazy white people to go around, all some terrorist group would have to do would be to recruit some crazy white dudes and they're set, because security doesn't pay any real attention.
Al Qaeda and their ilk don't obey the rules, so they are unlawful combatants, and don't qualify for the protections and privileges of the Geneva Conventions. Bull. That means that we aren't obligated to follow those protections and privileges. It does not mean, however, that we shouldn't. Just because they've sunk to a certain level, doesn't mean we have to.
If someone closes their fork of a BSD project, that doesn't reflect on the BSD license. You can still fork the original project just as much as you could before, what you can't do is fork the new, closed-source project. BSD-licensed code never becomes less forkable than the GPL. If they change the license, then it isn't exactly BSD-licensed code any more, and thus doesn't apply to a judgement of the BSD license.
That's not "OSS zealotry", and you should know it. OSS zealotry is the refusal to use anything except OSS, even when the closed-source alternatives are superior/more cost-effective/whatever. That sort of thinking is the thinking of fools.
There are no natural freedoms. The word 'freedom' would be as meaningless to a lone individual as the concept of water is to a fish. Individuals decide on what freedoms they want and form societies to help uphold those freedoms. You may consider anything you like to be a basic freedom, but if no one else agrees, your definition is only as meaningful as your individual ability to defend that freedom.
In order for a freedom to be real and meaningful, a group of people all must agree to defend it. People do not want to defend the rights of someone to own a slave, or the rights of someone else to sell themselves into slavery, so tough luck. So if (fdisk forbid) one day, the vast majority of people in the US say that we don't have the right to freedom of expression, we no longer have that right? Forgive me, but I can hardly call that a reasonable idea.
The thing is, you claim that taking advantage of someone in desperate straights is coercion, and therefore no allowed, who would ever do this? If it isn't coercive, then there is no way that one could make it permanent. You're confusing two different forms of coercion. Coercion to stick to an agreement you made happens today all the time, more or less. No one shoots you if you don't pay off a loan, but there are definite serious consequences for not doing so. In effect, you are being coerced into holding up your end of the bargain. That's a good thing, of course, since we can't have people breaking their agreements if we want to have a decent society. Coercion at the time of making the agreement is what's unacceptable, and is also outlawed today. You can't be forced to sign a contract at gunpoint, and even if you do sign it, the contract isn't binding. Similarly, you wouldn't be able to make someone your slave if they were in dire straits, because no matter what your terms were, they'd be unlikely to refuse... can't be worse than their current situation, and all that.
More or less, I envision a modern form of slavery as being basically like lifelong guaranteed employment: you make an agreement that extends to yourself, and only yourself, to work for your owner in some capacity, in return for some form of compensation, for the rest of your life. The details of the agreement (including duties and compensation) would be settled upon by both parties at the outset, with failure of either party to uphold their obligations making the contract null and void. Slavery doesn't necessarily need to imply mass exploitation of a group of people. Hell, many people work at jobs that are tantamount to slavery already: they need the money to eat, and if they don't like their job, they can't quit, because they'll starve, or be homeless, etc.
Informed consent does not indicate lack of coercion. Sometimes, a person doesn't have any other options, and they don't really have a choice. Disallowing slavery removes that option. If they don't have other options, and don't really have a choice, then without slavery, they'll die. I'm failing to see how death is better than slavery, but that's just me.
And besides, I'll say for the third time, taking advantage of someone in desperate straits is coercion, just as surely as holding a gun to their head is.
Freedom does not mean the freedom to harm others. Quite so.
When you sell yourself into slavery, you are allowing the sick and despicable to profit unfairly. It's no more unfair to competitors than any exclusive business deal made today. If it's unfair to yourself, or to your new owner, then you shouldn't have entered the deal.
You are destroying the very ties that bind us together into a community. How so?
You are committing unfair labor practices. Again, it isn't unfair if it was made with the informed consent of both parties.
And the whole thing is just too open to abuse. Every system is wide-open to abuse. I don't know if you've noticed, but we don't have a single system in our society which isn't undergoing some degree of abuse, from occasional to rampant. The fact that this system, too, would be open to abuse isn't exactly a compelling argument.
You are hurting more than just yourself by selling yourself into slavery. I fail to see where you're drawing this conclusion from.
We give up the freedom to sell ourselves into slavery in order to gain more important freedoms. What freedoms, exactly, do I gain from my inability to become a slave? I have yet to see any benefit from it... not that I'd become a slave if given the option, of course, so either way I get no benefit here.
It is very dangerous to base an ethical system or philosophy on black and white principles. The world is a complex place, and all actions have unintended consequences. If you try to create a philosophy that is dedicated to never placing restrictions on others, you will see the impossible paradoxes quite soon, if you are actually thinking about it and not just using your black and white system to avoid having to think about the complexities of the real world. Yes, it's impossible to have true and unrestricted freedom. There are things which we aren't free to do, and they all are for a good reason. But I don't think this one is for a good reason at all, I think it's an overreaction to the slavery that was practiced in our history. That slavery was immoral, because it was done in a climate of extortion, and enslaved the descendants of the slaves. But slavery itself need not be that way, it can be a purely individual choice... which is why we should allow it on that basis.
You could economically ruin a whole neighborhood, though. One would think that we'd have laws against deliberately ruining people.
Profiting off of other's desperation is sick and despicable and has no place in civilized society. It disgusts me that you are defending the idea. Is that really what freedom means to you? I agree that profiting from others' desperation is sick, despicable, and has no place in civilized society. I am not defending it in the least. However, I am of the firm belief that freedom must necessarily mean the freedom to do whatever you want to yourself, no matter how bad of an idea it is, as long as you're aware of the consequences.
Further, I originally said that you should be able to sell yourself into slavery, unless you were under duress. I'm pretty sure that economically ruining someone, then coming along, and just happening to have a solution to their woes, at a steep price is duress by any reasonable definition of the term.
Well, firstly, we don't have absolute property rights. You can't imprison people by buying the land around them. Right. So, why is that going to change if I can sell myself into slavery? One thing does not necessitate another.
I know how the fuck these things work, one of my best friends is in the Navy, and is more than happy to educate all those he knows on how the military is run. The fact remains that the UCMJ does not provide you with the same rights as the civilian law does. For example, you can be punished under the UCMJ, and under civilian law for the same offense.
Absolutly NO rights of mine were "signed away" thats just a misconception by those who are to stupid to educate themselves about something so important in America. Believe what you wish. If you want to delude yourself into thinking that "being held to a higher standard" isn't giving away any rights (namely, your right to be judged equally to your fellow men), that's your loss. Not to mention the scenario I mentioned earlier, which would normally be double jeopardy, but is allowed in this case because the two cases aren't both in civilian court; one is in civilian and one is in military.
The government that you love so much didnt make America, the military did. The government that I "love so much"? I'll give you a hint: I love democracy, but our current government gets no love from me. They're (by and large) corrupt, incompetent, and have no regard for the freedom that this nation should stand for. At any rate, you're again deluding yourself if you think that the government didn't "make" (more accurately: help make) this country. The military has done its part at times, the government has also done its part at times. Guess what? The military doesn't get to claim any more glory for establishing our nation than the members of the Philadelphia Convention would (they wrote the Constitution, for those of you mindlessly flaming along at home).
the majority of soldiers aren't as stupid as you. Sure, I'll buy that the majority of soldiers are smarter than me, if only because I have no evidence to the contrary. Given that, I can definitely say you're in the minority, then.
No, but neither does it make it wrong. Obviously not. I'm just saying that, when we're discussing whether something should be permissible, saying that the current law allows it is not a valid defense.
Exactly. But I wasn't talking about these people, I was talking about US soldiers. The OP was something to the effect of: "So, US soldiers have less rights than terrorists?"
Slashdot Mirror
Silly internet troll, flaming is for people with reading comprehension.
If Iraq were a self-defensive war (we have to choose between their lives, or the lives of our citizens), it'd be acceptable... but it isn't.
What does that do? A cursory google search got me nothing of any use in explaining what that does.
Exactly! People refuse to get this through their heads for some reason. Microsoft has a lot of pull in some circles, but that doesn't include Hollywood. When it comes to content delivery, the studios don't need Microsoft, Microsoft needs them. It's no different in this case than it is for smaller companies.
How'd I do?? Seriously... all laws involve a loss of freedom. That's something we accept, because we don't want people to run around hurting others. If you disagree with IP laws, fine, but claiming that it's just "really wanting to push rules onto other people" is fscking asinine.
That's the whole issue at hand, of course. That's an entire debate by itself, my point was just that pro-abortion people need to stop flinging this bs of "they don't want to let women control their bodies", because it just isn't true.
That has NOTHING to do with being against abortion. I'm passionately against abortion (also IANAC), because it's the taking of a human life. Women happen to be unfortunate in that they are specially restricted in what they can do to their bodies, because they have another human life inside them. Is it fair? No, but we can't change it. However, I cannot and will not condone the killing of an innocent, whether it's what you want to do to your body or not. Your right to swing your fist ends where that little guy's nose begins. Those who say "they don't want women to control their bodies" are horribly distorting the issue.
Not only that, but it's horrible security to boot. There are plenty of crazy white people to go around, all some terrorist group would have to do would be to recruit some crazy white dudes and they're set, because security doesn't pay any real attention.
If someone closes their fork of a BSD project, that doesn't reflect on the BSD license. You can still fork the original project just as much as you could before, what you can't do is fork the new, closed-source project. BSD-licensed code never becomes less forkable than the GPL. If they change the license, then it isn't exactly BSD-licensed code any more, and thus doesn't apply to a judgement of the BSD license.
That's not "OSS zealotry", and you should know it. OSS zealotry is the refusal to use anything except OSS, even when the closed-source alternatives are superior/more cost-effective/whatever. That sort of thinking is the thinking of fools.
Well said! OSS zealotry is one of the most retarded trends I've ever seen in the geek community, and hurts us all greatly.
More or less, I envision a modern form of slavery as being basically like lifelong guaranteed employment: you make an agreement that extends to yourself, and only yourself, to work for your owner in some capacity, in return for some form of compensation, for the rest of your life. The details of the agreement (including duties and compensation) would be settled upon by both parties at the outset, with failure of either party to uphold their obligations making the contract null and void. Slavery doesn't necessarily need to imply mass exploitation of a group of people. Hell, many people work at jobs that are tantamount to slavery already: they need the money to eat, and if they don't like their job, they can't quit, because they'll starve, or be homeless, etc.
And besides, I'll say for the third time, taking advantage of someone in desperate straits is coercion, just as surely as holding a gun to their head is.
Further, I originally said that you should be able to sell yourself into slavery, unless you were under duress. I'm pretty sure that economically ruining someone, then coming along, and just happening to have a solution to their woes, at a steep price is duress by any reasonable definition of the term.
Exactly. But I wasn't talking about these people, I was talking about US soldiers. The OP was something to the effect of: "So, US soldiers have less rights than terrorists?"
And again, how is this scenario not possible under the current system?