if a wedding photographer doesn't want to sell services for a gay wedding, who are YOU to force them? oh, we take a vote then? how about we vote to take all YOUR shit and hand it out to the rest of us? labeling this "anti-gay legislation" is total bullshit. a law calling for the arrest of gays, now THAT would be anti-gay legislation. gays should have a right to get maried. photographers should have a right to pick which jobs to do. you can have your abortion, i won't be forced to help you.
I'm imagining emailing the "abuse" contact for a electronics manufacturer about thier abusive light-bulbs, them opening a ticket, emailing you back a month later only to claim that they looked into it and they can't find any abuse coming from thier line of toasters. Maybe a few links to an FAQ about protecting yourself from abusive fridges.
Ahh. So with Google safe-browsing in Firefox and Chrome, and MS whateverthefuck filter, clearly there are no successful phishing attacks involving websites.
No, I've reported phishing domains that stayed up for over 48 hours. Google (stopbadware, opendns anti-phishing) and Netcraft respond pretty quickly to phishing reports but people still end up at the sites trying their damnest to log in.
Maybe hosting providers should be the same way when you report one of their servers as hacked and being used for a botnet check-in or malware hoster. Do nothing until a court order. That should work well!
In Ramadi we used to see these Iraqis straight up monstertrucking their pretty nice black Beamers and Mercedes across the desert floor. Like it was normal.
Pursuit of happiness, because it is inalienable. And you are confusing the catch-phrase with the ideal it was supposed to embody.
Life, liberty, and property; government as a social contract instead of a magical machine that exists because it wants to; those are the enlightenment ideals that the founders were basing everything off.
Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau and they weren't slave owners.
That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Virginia Declaration of Rights
The US wasn't founded on property rights, it was founded on a government that could only do certain things. Taking your property just for the lulz is NOT on the list. Constantly bringing up slavery serves one purpose exactly: push a government that can do anything it wants, including taking your property for the lulz.
The US was founded on the enlightenment ideals were that a government was a social contract among free people in a state of nature to secure life, liberty, and property.
Free people in a state of nature are free "to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature."
Why would people come together and voluntarily surrender part of their sovereignty? To secure life, liberty, and property.
Slavery existed before and after the US, the US didn't invent it, the US helped end the global slave trade, and slavery was NOT a founding principal. The ideas that Jefferson et al were following were from Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau and they weren't slave owners. In a time when the global sentiment was "government is here because we said so, subjects do what we tell you to do", these guys placed their personal fortunes and lives at risk to create what WAS the freest nation on earth. Having to bring slavery up in every discussion about liberty shows how people pine for the good-old-days when everyone but royalty really were slaves.
Oh, yeah in those cases they are helpful. Or in cases where people's habits leave certain vitamins and minerals out. But never mind that. Just pay attention to my edgy new study and talk-show appearances.
The problem with dismissing the slippery slope argument is that you purposely ignore incrementalism.
People pushing any agenda, drugs (start with something innocuous like medical marijuana), gun bans (start with sensible-sounding registration), complete communism (start with a little socialism and maybe a "free" obamaphone), they start small and move the football a few yards at a time.
This is nothing new. What is new is suddenly we aren't supposed to talk about it because bitches want to mistake jumps-in-logic (non-sequitur) with simply pointing out what is actually happening.
If someone can ban *any* speech, then *no* speech is safe.
Easy. You don't. Because the people never gave YOU the right to draw lines for them. And if you think, well, this one time I'll delegate line-drawing authority on this subject, to these people... you just set the precedent and people you never expected will inherit powers to draw lines you never wanted.
I know it's fun to bitch about corporate power, but corporations won't be shooting a pregnant wife in her own house (ruby ridge), putting you in a cage for taking pictures, or forcibly taking everything you own because they decided they have the power.
What YOU are talking about is the antithesis of free agency and liberty.
I think Thomas Jefferson would shoot a legislator in the chest with a musket if he were here to see how modern police, lawyers, legislators, judges, and presidents are "interpreting" The US Constitution.
But above it all, the American public, who for some goddamn reason, simply vote away liberty after liberty. Either in exchange for an Obamaphone,religeous theology in public schools, increased profits, or to protect their safe and liesurly lives... it seems that almost NO ONE is interesting saying no more.
Oh... sure you've got the Libretarians. But they've got so many people who confuse the Enlightenmen ideals of life, liberty, property and social contract with being a douchy loudmouth piece of shit who's only concern is getting high that they fairly well marginalize theselves.
Slashdot Mirror
if a wedding photographer doesn't want to sell services for a gay wedding, who are YOU to force them?
oh, we take a vote then?
how about we vote to take all YOUR shit and hand it out to the rest of us?
labeling this "anti-gay legislation" is total bullshit. a law calling for the arrest of gays, now THAT would be anti-gay legislation.
gays should have a right to get maried. photographers should have a right to pick which jobs to do. you can have your abortion, i won't be forced to help you.
I'm imagining emailing the "abuse" contact for a electronics manufacturer about thier abusive light-bulbs, them opening a ticket, emailing you back a month later only to claim that they looked into it and they can't find any abuse coming from thier line of toasters. Maybe a few links to an FAQ about protecting yourself from abusive fridges.
hand over all your evidence of malicious activity to the registrar, they can decide if the domain should be deleted or not.
but they shouldn't get an easy "my hands are tied" excuse to do nothing.
Ahh. So with Google safe-browsing in Firefox and Chrome, and MS whateverthefuck filter, clearly there are no successful phishing attacks involving websites.
No, I've reported phishing domains that stayed up for over 48 hours. Google (stopbadware, opendns anti-phishing) and Netcraft respond pretty quickly to phishing reports but people still end up at the sites trying their damnest to log in.
Maybe hosting providers should be the same way when you report one of their servers as hacked and being used for a botnet check-in or malware hoster. Do nothing until a court order. That should work well!
As opposed to something like Pravda?
inb4 badbios + Maximum Overdrive + skynet + our new overlords mashup.
In Ramadi we used to see these Iraqis straight up monstertrucking their pretty nice black Beamers and Mercedes across the desert floor. Like it was normal.
Because the demands of an audi chassis have WHAT exactly to do with the demands of a work truck chassis?
No one hauls a half ton of cinder bocks in a land rover.
The F150 is for work.
Because without constant refreshing, this article would disappear!
Pursuit of happiness, because it is inalienable. And you are confusing the catch-phrase with the ideal it was supposed to embody.
Life, liberty, and property; government as a social contract instead of a magical machine that exists because it wants to; those are the enlightenment ideals that the founders were basing everything off.
The US Navy involvement in counter-slave commerce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol
Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau and they weren't slave owners.
That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Virginia Declaration of Rights
The US wasn't founded on property rights, it was founded on a government that could only do certain things. Taking your property just for the lulz is NOT on the list. Constantly bringing up slavery serves one purpose exactly: push a government that can do anything it wants, including taking your property for the lulz.
Gandhi II
UHF, Weird Al's greatest cinematographic achievement.
The real M.K. Gandhi?
"All Jews should commit mass suicide!"
-- an actual quote from Gandhi.
[Apple Logo here]
"Think different!"
The US was founded on the enlightenment ideals were that a government was a social contract among free people in a state of nature to secure life, liberty, and property.
Free people in a state of nature are free "to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature."
Why would people come together and voluntarily surrender part of their sovereignty? To secure life, liberty, and property.
Slavery existed before and after the US, the US didn't invent it, the US helped end the global slave trade, and slavery was NOT a founding principal. The ideas that Jefferson et al were following were from Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau and they weren't slave owners. In a time when the global sentiment was "government is here because we said so, subjects do what we tell you to do", these guys placed their personal fortunes and lives at risk to create what WAS the freest nation on earth. Having to bring slavery up in every discussion about liberty shows how people pine for the good-old-days when everyone but royalty really were slaves.
You want some depressing shit?
Read this for a while:
http://fear.org/
A nation FOUNDED on the principle of personal property, and you get this?
Your average person, that's who, For the safeties and For the childrens.
The best part? That was YOUR $50 they gave away. Suckit, taxpayer!
Those who ignore sci-fi canon are doomed to live it.
The robot revolution will not be televised.
Oh, yeah in those cases they are helpful. Or in cases where people's habits leave certain vitamins and minerals out. But never mind that. Just pay attention to my edgy new study and talk-show appearances.
The problem with dismissing the slippery slope argument is that you purposely ignore incrementalism.
People pushing any agenda, drugs (start with something innocuous like medical marijuana), gun bans (start with sensible-sounding registration), complete communism (start with a little socialism and maybe a "free" obamaphone), they start small and move the football a few yards at a time.
This is nothing new. What is new is suddenly we aren't supposed to talk about it because bitches want to mistake jumps-in-logic (non-sequitur) with simply pointing out what is actually happening.
If someone can ban *any* speech, then *no* speech is safe.
Easy. You don't. Because the people never gave YOU the right to draw lines for them. And if you think, well, this one time I'll delegate line-drawing authority on this subject, to these people... you just set the precedent and people you never expected will inherit powers to draw lines you never wanted.
So to each according to his needs?
I know it's fun to bitch about corporate power, but corporations won't be shooting a pregnant wife in her own house (ruby ridge), putting you in a cage for taking pictures, or forcibly taking everything you own because they decided they have the power.
What YOU are talking about is the antithesis of free agency and liberty.
It's got 18 thousand word, but a 'bit' ain't one.
These guys wouldn't hesitate to shoot you or your family in the face for the chance to steal a truckload of something.
They put their hands into the blender of life.
Fixed that for you.
I think Thomas Jefferson would shoot a legislator in the chest with a musket if he were here to see how modern police, lawyers, legislators, judges, and presidents are "interpreting" The US Constitution.
But above it all, the American public, who for some goddamn reason, simply vote away liberty after liberty. Either in exchange for an Obamaphone,religeous theology in public schools, increased profits, or to protect their safe and liesurly lives... it seems that almost NO ONE is interesting saying no more.
Oh... sure you've got the Libretarians. But they've got so many people who confuse the Enlightenmen ideals of life, liberty, property and social contract with being a douchy loudmouth piece of shit who's only concern is getting high that they fairly well marginalize theselves.