Usually they're considered opinions with justifications and reasons, not merely beliefs based upon your own emotional reactions with no explanation or clarification for even the barest minimum of though process that brought you to your conclusions.
By your logic we and other animals aren't universally more important than any plant, or bacteria, or even a rock.
In fact, no matter or energy in the universe is "important" in the first place, because for importance to be assigned there needs to be a self-aware observer assigning it.
Producing no suffering is ethics? Sounds like a line that a super villain would use to justify cleansing the earth of pain by killing all life, or reminiscent of something Dr. Who cybermen use to justify their conversions.
Not saying that this Peter Singer is a secret plant by an alien race determined to dominate this planet and its people, just saying that he hasn't denied being the forerunner of an interstellar invasion fleet, or an army of cyborgs.
I agree that there are many, many artist created record labels in this day and age, but I believe that the majority of the music market is still dominated by the corporate and not the creative.
But...if you're not under a criminal investigation is it obstruction of justice? I mean, they're a law firm yes, but can they order you to do, or not to do things without a court order?
Whoa, slow down there Dagney Taggart. You talk about a lack of understanding of reality, but then appear to attribute the creative force behind music products as the record labels themselves which in most cases isn't true. Yes, artists get help from producers and sound engineers to help make their albums but those artists are charged for that production time and the services of those specialists. The primary work of record labels is the manufacture, marketing and distribution of the artist's product, as well as the defense of copyrights that the label usually owns of the artist's product in exchange for distributing that product.
Now this is a general description of how the industry works and a gross oversimplification, and I don't mean to imply that running a record company doesn't take skill and a lot of hard work. But they do essentially buy someone else's stuff and then sell it themselves.
Once again, I am not trying to attack your argument, just trying to get you from accidentally insinuating that the record companies are the creative force in the music industry.
You're right that I did mean file sharing copyrighted work without permission, I had hoped that the context would take care of the lack of technical accuracy in my writing. Also addressing moral vs. legal, I was trying to aim for the moral side of things rather than the legal. I know people will never stop file sharing copyrighted work without permission, but I figure trying to change people's minds and how they feel about the subject by taking the moral high ground is a better use of energies than trying to frighten the kiddies away by fining them for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Why shouldn't the presumption of innocence go both ways. In a situation without evidence, both are accusing the other of lying, so shouldn't they both be presumed honest and innocent in their statements until evidence supports one side?
So the argument "it is very hard to stop because of a primal instinct or sex drive" isn't the same as "it is very hard to stop because I was so horny I couldn't think straight" how isn't it?
And yes, I can stop and have stopped when a girl has said no during sex, just like I can stop if a half dozen police offers break down my door while I'm having sex.
And it becomes rape when she says stop (or the safeword if you practice BDSM) and you don't immediately stop what you're doing.
I'm sorry if I'm being short and snarky, it's just that I can't believe I'm actually having to argue about this with intelligent and educated people in 2010.
Not trying to indicate that baseless allegations should ever make someone be presumed guilty. In this thread I'm reacting to what appears to be someone who believes that it's okay to keep having sex even after a girl says stop. I am hoping that they'll realize that yes, it is wrong to keep going, and yes it is rape.
Couldn't one justify killing someone in a fit of rage by the same logic? I refuse to accept the "I was so horny I couldn't stop" defense no matter how well phrased. It's still wrong to make someone experience what they do when they want you to stop and you refuse to.
As someone else said, in the BDSM community there's always a safe word, for the rest of us that word is "stop".
I'm expecting everyone to take an accusation seriously, and not to pretend that because you can't prove it, it's impossible for it to have happened. I expect both the presumption of innocence of the accused and in the same vein I expect the accuser to be presumed innocent and not malicious. If there's actual proof to either side it'll decide the matter, if not you shouldn't treat someone like a rapist because they were accused, or treat someone like a liar because they didn't have proof.
Too often it seems that we do both, assume someone is a rapist because of an accusation...and also assume a girl was lying because there wasn't enough proof.
Did that make sense? I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself very clearly.
I'm not disagreeing that it is a slippery grey area, especially in the law. I'm just trying to point out that it happens, and that pretending it doesn't happen or that it is alright is just as dangerous as believing every accusation hurled.
If you felt violated and that it was something you truly believe you didn't want to consent to, yes, you could claim rape. And the reason why it is rarely reported by men is because they believe as you would, that no one would believe them or would laugh at them.
That's what's so difficult about rape in general and why so many cases never get reported. Because most victims even in the "gun against their head" scenario, don't believe they could prove it, and usually they blame themselves for the entire thing.
And I agree, it's slippery when things get to he said/she said, I had a friend falsely accused in college and he was booted from campus even when her story didn't check out. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. I wish there was a better way to examine the whole situation with all the context, but I can't honestly think of any way to do so.
Actually, I'd probably consider it be more emotionally and mentally damaging if you had consented initially and more so if you know the person. Already most rape victims blame themselves when there's no grounds for it in the "stranger with a gun to their head" scenario, in the instances where you actually consented and are betrayed in such a way it not only makes you feel just as violated, but you'll likely never stop blaming yourself for feeling that way. It makes it much harder to move on with your life. It's this sense of self guilt that even in clear cut cases of rape (gun to the head again), keep the victim from even reporting it.
As for Assange, I doubt the charges are true. I'm just responding to try to make people think a little bit more about the subject in general.
I gain the impression that you don't know or haven't talked with many battered women or rape victims. I also find our definition to be not only far more narrow and constricting in accounting for complicated relationship dynamics, but also far more black and white and ideological.
Despite you stating your beliefs, I still contend that your definition of rape is too narrow for most feminists and woman's rights advocates to agree with those beliefs.
There are instances where contributing factors make it less "he said/she said". For instance, if someone is so blindingly drunk that they can't stand on their own, it becomes fairly obvious to onlookers. And even if they say yes, when they're that drunk, they're too drunk to give consent.
Now, I don't know enough to form a firm opinion about the Assange accusations, and think they're pretty shaky in the first place. But in a general general discussion about rape, if a condom breaks I think it's pretty reasonable of a girl to say,"Whoa wait stop!" and for her to expect you to stop. If you ignore her, now it turns from something consensual to you doing something to her that she doesn't want. In that situation if someone kept going, wouldn't you call that rape?
Slashdot Mirror
Usually they're considered opinions with justifications and reasons, not merely beliefs based upon your own emotional reactions with no explanation or clarification for even the barest minimum of though process that brought you to your conclusions.
By your logic we and other animals aren't universally more important than any plant, or bacteria, or even a rock.
In fact, no matter or energy in the universe is "important" in the first place, because for importance to be assigned there needs to be a self-aware observer assigning it.
Producing no suffering is ethics? Sounds like a line that a super villain would use to justify cleansing the earth of pain by killing all life, or reminiscent of something Dr. Who cybermen use to justify their conversions.
Not saying that this Peter Singer is a secret plant by an alien race determined to dominate this planet and its people, just saying that he hasn't denied being the forerunner of an interstellar invasion fleet, or an army of cyborgs.
I agree that there are many, many artist created record labels in this day and age, but I believe that the majority of the music market is still dominated by the corporate and not the creative.
http://routenote.com/blog/2010-quarter-1-marketshare-for-major-music-labels/
Ok, is there a time limit to destroying evidence?
If someone is putting a Uwe Boll movie up on the internet for anyone out there to download...isn't that unethical and well...just cruel?
But...if you're not under a criminal investigation is it obstruction of justice? I mean, they're a law firm yes, but can they order you to do, or not to do things without a court order?
Whoa, slow down there Dagney Taggart. You talk about a lack of understanding of reality, but then appear to attribute the creative force behind music products as the record labels themselves which in most cases isn't true. Yes, artists get help from producers and sound engineers to help make their albums but those artists are charged for that production time and the services of those specialists. The primary work of record labels is the manufacture, marketing and distribution of the artist's product, as well as the defense of copyrights that the label usually owns of the artist's product in exchange for distributing that product.
Now this is a general description of how the industry works and a gross oversimplification, and I don't mean to imply that running a record company doesn't take skill and a lot of hard work. But they do essentially buy someone else's stuff and then sell it themselves.
Once again, I am not trying to attack your argument, just trying to get you from accidentally insinuating that the record companies are the creative force in the music industry.
You're right that I did mean file sharing copyrighted work without permission, I had hoped that the context would take care of the lack of technical accuracy in my writing. Also addressing moral vs. legal, I was trying to aim for the moral side of things rather than the legal. I know people will never stop file sharing copyrighted work without permission, but I figure trying to change people's minds and how they feel about the subject by taking the moral high ground is a better use of energies than trying to frighten the kiddies away by fining them for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
But what do I know, I'm just an office monkey.
I do not believe that Mike Ditka gave Jesus permission to do anything of the sort.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32OeqbYbHg
Maybe they were genetically engineered fish?
Why shouldn't the presumption of innocence go both ways. In a situation without evidence, both are accusing the other of lying, so shouldn't they both be presumed honest and innocent in their statements until evidence supports one side?
So the argument "it is very hard to stop because of a primal instinct or sex drive" isn't the same as "it is very hard to stop because I was so horny I couldn't think straight" how isn't it?
And yes, I can stop and have stopped when a girl has said no during sex, just like I can stop if a half dozen police offers break down my door while I'm having sex.
And it becomes rape when she says stop (or the safeword if you practice BDSM) and you don't immediately stop what you're doing.
I'm sorry if I'm being short and snarky, it's just that I can't believe I'm actually having to argue about this with intelligent and educated people in 2010.
Not trying to indicate that baseless allegations should ever make someone be presumed guilty. In this thread I'm reacting to what appears to be someone who believes that it's okay to keep having sex even after a girl says stop. I am hoping that they'll realize that yes, it is wrong to keep going, and yes it is rape.
Couldn't one justify killing someone in a fit of rage by the same logic? I refuse to accept the "I was so horny I couldn't stop" defense no matter how well phrased. It's still wrong to make someone experience what they do when they want you to stop and you refuse to.
As someone else said, in the BDSM community there's always a safe word, for the rest of us that word is "stop".
I'm expecting everyone to take an accusation seriously, and not to pretend that because you can't prove it, it's impossible for it to have happened. I expect both the presumption of innocence of the accused and in the same vein I expect the accuser to be presumed innocent and not malicious. If there's actual proof to either side it'll decide the matter, if not you shouldn't treat someone like a rapist because they were accused, or treat someone like a liar because they didn't have proof.
Too often it seems that we do both, assume someone is a rapist because of an accusation...and also assume a girl was lying because there wasn't enough proof.
Did that make sense? I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself very clearly.
I'm not disagreeing that it is a slippery grey area, especially in the law. I'm just trying to point out that it happens, and that pretending it doesn't happen or that it is alright is just as dangerous as believing every accusation hurled.
If you felt violated and that it was something you truly believe you didn't want to consent to, yes, you could claim rape. And the reason why it is rarely reported by men is because they believe as you would, that no one would believe them or would laugh at them.
And I am implying nothing of the sort.
That's what's so difficult about rape in general and why so many cases never get reported. Because most victims even in the "gun against their head" scenario, don't believe they could prove it, and usually they blame themselves for the entire thing.
And I agree, it's slippery when things get to he said/she said, I had a friend falsely accused in college and he was booted from campus even when her story didn't check out. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. I wish there was a better way to examine the whole situation with all the context, but I can't honestly think of any way to do so.
Actually, I'd probably consider it be more emotionally and mentally damaging if you had consented initially and more so if you know the person. Already most rape victims blame themselves when there's no grounds for it in the "stranger with a gun to their head" scenario, in the instances where you actually consented and are betrayed in such a way it not only makes you feel just as violated, but you'll likely never stop blaming yourself for feeling that way. It makes it much harder to move on with your life. It's this sense of self guilt that even in clear cut cases of rape (gun to the head again), keep the victim from even reporting it.
As for Assange, I doubt the charges are true. I'm just responding to try to make people think a little bit more about the subject in general.
I gain the impression that you don't know or haven't talked with many battered women or rape victims. I also find our definition to be not only far more narrow and constricting in accounting for complicated relationship dynamics, but also far more black and white and ideological.
Do you really believe that or is that just a morbid sense of humor that you have?
Despite you stating your beliefs, I still contend that your definition of rape is too narrow for most feminists and woman's rights advocates to agree with those beliefs.
There are instances where contributing factors make it less "he said/she said". For instance, if someone is so blindingly drunk that they can't stand on their own, it becomes fairly obvious to onlookers. And even if they say yes, when they're that drunk, they're too drunk to give consent.
Now, I don't know enough to form a firm opinion about the Assange accusations, and think they're pretty shaky in the first place. But in a general general discussion about rape, if a condom breaks I think it's pretty reasonable of a girl to say,"Whoa wait stop!" and for her to expect you to stop. If you ignore her, now it turns from something consensual to you doing something to her that she doesn't want. In that situation if someone kept going, wouldn't you call that rape?
I disagree with you, and I am under the firm impression that most feminists and woman's rights advocates would disagree with you too.