Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies? I mean, I know many Americans like to believe the US invented absolutely everything and are ahead of everyone else technologically, but in fact they really didn't and aren't.
I think you'll find that technologies commonly found outside the U.S. don't see a lot of demand for smugglers to sneak them out of the U.S. illegally.
Not by everybody, obviously. You haven't forgotten them.
Yes, because it can ensure that those in need get at least a bare minimum necessary for a dignified life, and do so free of prejudice.
Really? Government bureaucracies can ensure this? They can guarantee this for you, better than you can for yourself?
Private charity relies on personal whim and is subject to prejudice (racial, religious, political discrimination). It guarantees nothing, and is often done to assuage personal guilt when the donor is faced with a particular situation (e.g. unwashed beggar in the street, Salvation Army collector at the door).
Really? You're honestly telling me that you're some kind of bigoted, guilt-ridden jerk, who cares about the needy so little that you need good-hearted charity worker to shame you, and a government bureaucracy to force you, to do the good things you wish you had the strength to do on your own (say, the way that Salvation Army collector does)?
What about the young, the old, the poor, the sick and the crippled who have nothing you want (goods, services, money) but need food, shelter and medicine?
Ah, but they do have something I want, and that you want, too: Human dignity worth preserving.
Which brings us right back to the original question: What's a better way of getting what you want? Finding someone who needs your help, and helping them? Or referring them to a government bureaucracy that decides who needs help and how much, and takes your money for that purpose? Are you really convinced that the government does a better job of spending your charity dollars than you would?
But last I checked, you were speaking mainly in America, to Americans.
Last I checked, America didn't really have a problem with sedition or sedition laws. It's not like your Internet slap-fights actually "threaten the established order", or "disrupt the public peace", or whatever you want to call it. And it's not like the government is going to persecute you for anything you've posted here.
So I'm doing quite fine.
Meanwhile, people in Malaysia aren't doing fine at all. Malaysia needs you a lot more than America does, but for them you have nothing.
Look. I have no problem with "sedition" in principle. I don't even know if the Malaysian government is justified in cracking down on it. I can imagine hypothetical contexts in which sedition might actually be a problem. I can also imagine hypothetical scenarios in which a government--for whatever reason, right or wrong--might see value in cracking down on "sedition". And in none of those scenarios does blogging vs. not-blogging make any difference to the definition of "sedition" or to the value of cracking down on it, as far as I can tell.
That's been my point--my only point--from the start, and your opinions on the definition of sedition and the appropriate treatment of it by society, are squarely beside it.
Now, if you want to discuss whether or not "blogging" is a special case of sedition, or dissent, or free speech, or Malaysian get-out-of-jail-free cards, be my guest.
It "works" for me because so what if he's a blogger? It "works" for me the same way a Slashdot article about Your Rights On the Street Corner: Malaysian Orator On Trial For Sedition works for me. The story is the sedition, and the government crackdown, not the blogging. Except, of course, on Slashdot, the story is always about the blogging, even when the blogging actually contributes nothing at all to the story except a feeble excuse to put it on the front page.
"Oh, but this man is a blogger! His trials and tribulations must be special!" No, they're not. He's a blogger? Okay, fine. He's on trial for sedition? Sure, whatever. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it isn't. Any reason why his being a blogger should make a difference one way or the other? No? Works for me.
Or, the policeman can act on disturbance of the peace.
Or a policeman can act on an attempt to disturb the peace, before the disturbance has taken place. Just like the policeman can act on a conspiracy to rob a bank, before the robbery (or attempted robbery) has taken place.
But I think "attempting to disturb the peace", while a perfectly real and valid form of crime, is probably not one of the more clear-cut or universally applicable examples of criminal behavior.
Which is why I've been saying from the beginning that the thing will vary from society to society, based on local priorities, values, etc. Some societies, having a very real problem with the frequency of rabble-rousing and the likelihood of extremely violent results, may see a very real need to crack down on such activities, at least long enough for them to sort out some of the underlying issues without having to worry about violent flare-ups every few days.
Other societies, with a long tradition of vocal but peaceful dissent, where everybody is generally calm and content enough to consider agitators in a peaceable manner, may find it totally unnecessary (and probably even ethically repellent) to restrict such attempts at rabble-rousing in any way.
And of course this is still beside my point: Sedition is sedition, whether it's a "blogger" or not. If you don't have a problem with it, then a seditious blog is no more of a problem than a seditious handbill. If you do have a problem with it, the it's just as much a problem on a streetcorner as on a webserver.
My response remains the same. The fact that it happened to a blogger doesn't change the fact that it's unacceptable.
Which is, in fact, exactly my point: Blogger, schmogger, dum-diddly-ogger. If you think sedition is a problem, it's a problem in whatever form it happens to take. If you don't think it's a problem, it's not a problem regardless of the form it happens to take.
If the Malaysian govenrment wants to crack down on "sedition", being a "blogger" is completely irrelevant to the crackdown question. The operative factor is the sedition, not the blogging.
I have no problem criminalizing attempted robbery, or attempted murder, or attempted incitement to riot. I also have no problem criminalizing conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.
Waiting until after the lynching has actually taken place is usaully not a good method for preventing the harm that a lynching causes.
Actually, the propaganda side-effects of martyrdom were well understood and commonly experienced long before the Internet came around. Blogs are a different form of communication, sure, but they're not magical. They may change the values of some of the variables of the propaganda equation, but they don't actually replace the propaganda equation itself.
Sedition aims to disrupt the public peace. Most societies, I imagine are quite capable of surviving disruption of the public peace, but that doesn't mean all--or even any--such disruptions should be permitted.
But of course the specifics will vary from society to society. What may be good-naturedly tolerated as peaceful dissent in one society may be quite rightly suppressed as an unacceptable threat to the public peace in another society.
And of course none of this (while covered quite clearly in my original post) has anything at all to do with my point.
While I can't speak to the specifics of this particular government, or this particular implementation of the policy, I don't see any reason why sedition on a blog should be treated any differently from sedition on a streetcorner or a radio program or a billboard or a secret revolutionary committee meeting (for some definition of "sedition"; and obviously your mileage will vary based on local customs, values, and priorities).
rebuilding radiated industrial and metropolitan areas
I doubt that Russia would escalate immediately to nuking major Chinese population centers. The censure of the world would be too great for such a thing, unless their homeland was in serious danger of being totally overrun and annexed by China.
But China has no interest in conquering Russia, they'd simply be interested in carving a path through Siberia to the arctic resource deposits. Russia would probably use some nukes, on the battlefield, to blunt the Chinese assault. But China has the manpower to absorb such losses. And, strictly speaking, they aren't afraid of rebuilding ruined industrial bases; e.g. the recovery currently underway from the recent earthquakes. Such rebuilding might be strategically necessary, since if they let Russia control access to their resources, they end up being Russia's bitch, much the way Ukraine and other breakway provinces are currently being treated. Controlling the resources yourself is always cheaper than paying extortion money to someone else.
...more important than St. Nick is 'an area thought to contain one-fifth of the world's undiscovered and recoverable oil and gas resources,' and from this map, Russia has a huge claim in that.
And that, boys and girls, is why the next world war will be fought between Russia and China.
Listen for their screams and sobs, after the turnover next year, when they suddenly rediscover that U.S. government is, indeed, of the people, by the people, for the people.
That's funny; mostly I find that neocons and their allies generally approve of our system of government regardless of which faction is in power. Their actual "screaming and sobbing" is reserved for the jackassery of the people, who do not always exercise their democratic privilege wisely.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'll find that technologies commonly found outside the U.S. don't see a lot of demand for smugglers to sneak them out of the U.S. illegally.
Fair enough. See you at the polls!
Not by everybody, obviously. You haven't forgotten them.
Really? Government bureaucracies can ensure this? They can guarantee this for you, better than you can for yourself?
Really? You're honestly telling me that you're some kind of bigoted, guilt-ridden jerk, who cares about the needy so little that you need good-hearted charity worker to shame you, and a government bureaucracy to force you, to do the good things you wish you had the strength to do on your own (say, the way that Salvation Army collector does)?
Ah, but they do have something I want, and that you want, too: Human dignity worth preserving.
Which brings us right back to the original question: What's a better way of getting what you want? Finding someone who needs your help, and helping them? Or referring them to a government bureaucracy that decides who needs help and how much, and takes your money for that purpose? Are you really convinced that the government does a better job of spending your charity dollars than you would?
Last I checked, America didn't really have a problem with sedition or sedition laws. It's not like your Internet slap-fights actually "threaten the established order", or "disrupt the public peace", or whatever you want to call it. And it's not like the government is going to persecute you for anything you've posted here.
Meanwhile, people in Malaysia aren't doing fine at all. Malaysia needs you a lot more than America does, but for them you have nothing.
I think that some sedition laws, in some circumstances, might be legitimate.
How's your Malaysian audience doing? Are they hearing you loud and clear? Will you be sending me a postcard from Kuala Lumpur anytime soon?
Nope, I don't think you're unreasonable at all. I can see how you might be confused. I'm sorry it didn't work for you :)
Look. I have no problem with "sedition" in principle. I don't even know if the Malaysian government is justified in cracking down on it. I can imagine hypothetical contexts in which sedition might actually be a problem. I can also imagine hypothetical scenarios in which a government--for whatever reason, right or wrong--might see value in cracking down on "sedition". And in none of those scenarios does blogging vs. not-blogging make any difference to the definition of "sedition" or to the value of cracking down on it, as far as I can tell.
That's been my point--my only point--from the start, and your opinions on the definition of sedition and the appropriate treatment of it by society, are squarely beside it.
Now, if you want to discuss whether or not "blogging" is a special case of sedition, or dissent, or free speech, or Malaysian get-out-of-jail-free cards, be my guest.
HTH. HAND.
Depends on your dictionary and the spin you want to put on it, I guess. I've given the definition with which I've been working further up the thread.
An overt act like going out on a streetcorner and inciting people, for example?
Neither does blogging.
Agreed. It's also not about blogging.
It "works" for me because so what if he's a blogger? It "works" for me the same way a Slashdot article about Your Rights On the Street Corner: Malaysian Orator On Trial For Sedition works for me. The story is the sedition, and the government crackdown, not the blogging. Except, of course, on Slashdot, the story is always about the blogging, even when the blogging actually contributes nothing at all to the story except a feeble excuse to put it on the front page.
"Oh, but this man is a blogger! His trials and tribulations must be special!" No, they're not. He's a blogger? Okay, fine. He's on trial for sedition? Sure, whatever. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it isn't. Any reason why his being a blogger should make a difference one way or the other? No? Works for me.
Or a policeman can act on an attempt to disturb the peace, before the disturbance has taken place. Just like the policeman can act on a conspiracy to rob a bank, before the robbery (or attempted robbery) has taken place.
But I think "attempting to disturb the peace", while a perfectly real and valid form of crime, is probably not one of the more clear-cut or universally applicable examples of criminal behavior.
Which is why I've been saying from the beginning that the thing will vary from society to society, based on local priorities, values, etc. Some societies, having a very real problem with the frequency of rabble-rousing and the likelihood of extremely violent results, may see a very real need to crack down on such activities, at least long enough for them to sort out some of the underlying issues without having to worry about violent flare-ups every few days.
Other societies, with a long tradition of vocal but peaceful dissent, where everybody is generally calm and content enough to consider agitators in a peaceable manner, may find it totally unnecessary (and probably even ethically repellent) to restrict such attempts at rabble-rousing in any way.
And of course this is still beside my point: Sedition is sedition, whether it's a "blogger" or not. If you don't have a problem with it, then a seditious blog is no more of a problem than a seditious handbill. If you do have a problem with it, the it's just as much a problem on a streetcorner as on a webserver.
Which is, in fact, exactly my point: Blogger, schmogger, dum-diddly-ogger. If you think sedition is a problem, it's a problem in whatever form it happens to take. If you don't think it's a problem, it's not a problem regardless of the form it happens to take.
If the Malaysian govenrment wants to crack down on "sedition", being a "blogger" is completely irrelevant to the crackdown question. The operative factor is the sedition, not the blogging.
And sometimes it isn't. What's your point?
I have no problem criminalizing attempted robbery, or attempted murder, or attempted incitement to riot. I also have no problem criminalizing conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.
Waiting until after the lynching has actually taken place is usaully not a good method for preventing the harm that a lynching causes.
I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm inciting your neighbors to riot, or urging them to lynch you, or advocating election fraud.
Actually, the propaganda side-effects of martyrdom were well understood and commonly experienced long before the Internet came around. Blogs are a different form of communication, sure, but they're not magical. They may change the values of some of the variables of the propaganda equation, but they don't actually replace the propaganda equation itself.
Dissent and sedition are two separate things.
Sedition aims to disrupt the public peace. Most societies, I imagine are quite capable of surviving disruption of the public peace, but that doesn't mean all--or even any--such disruptions should be permitted.
But of course the specifics will vary from society to society. What may be good-naturedly tolerated as peaceful dissent in one society may be quite rightly suppressed as an unacceptable threat to the public peace in another society.
And of course none of this (while covered quite clearly in my original post) has anything at all to do with my point.
While I can't speak to the specifics of this particular government, or this particular implementation of the policy, I don't see any reason why sedition on a blog should be treated any differently from sedition on a streetcorner or a radio program or a billboard or a secret revolutionary committee meeting (for some definition of "sedition"; and obviously your mileage will vary based on local customs, values, and priorities).
Need them for what?
I doubt that Russia would escalate immediately to nuking major Chinese population centers. The censure of the world would be too great for such a thing, unless their homeland was in serious danger of being totally overrun and annexed by China.
But China has no interest in conquering Russia, they'd simply be interested in carving a path through Siberia to the arctic resource deposits. Russia would probably use some nukes, on the battlefield, to blunt the Chinese assault. But China has the manpower to absorb such losses. And, strictly speaking, they aren't afraid of rebuilding ruined industrial bases; e.g. the recovery currently underway from the recent earthquakes. Such rebuilding might be strategically necessary, since if they let Russia control access to their resources, they end up being Russia's bitch, much the way Ukraine and other breakway provinces are currently being treated. Controlling the resources yourself is always cheaper than paying extortion money to someone else.
And that, boys and girls, is why the next world war will be fought between Russia and China.
Which is, obviously, another problem with vigilante justice: zero oversight regarding who gets the authority to shoot people.
That's funny; mostly I find that neocons and their allies generally approve of our system of government regardless of which faction is in power. Their actual "screaming and sobbing" is reserved for the jackassery of the people, who do not always exercise their democratic privilege wisely.
I'm pretty sure ground effect is an aerodynamic phenomenon that requires a substantial atmosphere... which the moon does not have.
Can you cite a source for your claim that ground effect was a factor in landing on the Moon?
What if they're taking their coal plants offline and running their diesel plants at full capacity to make up the difference?