Smoking cigarettes does so impact me. I'm a smoker.
I'm pro legalization of all drugs. If it's really dangerous, require people to take a class and get a license. And I say that mostly as a sop to the whiners who think drugs will destroy society, I personally think non-mandatory education would do the trick nearly as well.
Not all wrong and evil things are or should be forbidden by law.
Correct. If the available methods of preventing an evil will in fact produce greater evil, we should leave it alone until we can come up with a better method.
Well, I'll accept that for the sake of argument, but it still doesn't answer the real question: is it right or wrong? You see, nearly everybody agrees censorship is wrong. However, nearly everybody agrees that forcing someone to publish something against their will and at their expense is also wrong. And you have to pick one or the other. So which is it? Right now, it is against the law to force someone to publish something against their will. Are you saying you'd like that changed?
Wrong. Drinking beer does not impact me. Thus, we don't outlaw liquor anymore. Drinking and driving, on the other hand, can impact me, and so that is not legal. Thanks for helping support my argument with more examples, I do appreciate it.
Wrong, it does not answer the question. And you did not answer my question, so I will: It is not censorship when someone refuses to publish someone else's work. Otherwise, the word censorship becomes meaningless. To equate people suffering under oppressive regimes, who truly are censored, with some developer who can't get his app published by Apple, is monstrously insulting to all people who have suffered under such regimes.
We do make social decisions about the nose, that's exactly my point. Without the social decision, we do not have rights. We either have, or lack, power. We either have the power to stop our nose form being hit, or we don't. To speak of rights without society is meaningless. Rights derive from contracts agreed to by individuals who collectively form society. Interdependence does not mean one person giving another orders. That is called dependence, and is a childish way to look at relationships. Society, and relationships are about acceptable compromises. Your reductio ad absurdum is actually a poorly constructed straw man that has nothing to do with my original argument, but thanks for trying.
I'll say it again: freedom is more complicated than "you're not the boss of me." See my sig.
That does not address the argument that was presented to you: if this is a case of censorship, then every single case where someone refuses to publish someone else's work is also censorship.
Answer the question: is it censorship whenever someone refuses to publish someone else's work? Give a yes or no answer, please, don't hem and haw, just address the argument that was presented to you.
The only difference is that Apple is a private corporation and not a government (somewhat ironic for Libertarians, one would suppose).
A corporation does not have the power to forbid you to express yourself. They only have the same power any of us have: the power to forbid you to express yourself on our property. A government can compel censorship with force. That's a HUGE difference.
That being said, does Apple deserve to be made fun of for this? Hell yes. But let's not overblow our case and invite ridicule. Pretending Apple's actions are the same as those of a repressive state is just silly.
"It is basically a battle between the Puritan ideal that all pleasures of the flesh are bad, wrong, and evil, and the not so crazy idea that harm is bad while pleasure is good."
Where did this belief come from that the Puritans thought that all pleasures of the flesh are "bad, wrong and evil"? I would think that that is much more a Catholic doctrine, a religious group whom Puritans thought were more or less satanic.
As a side note -- did you know that the poet you quote in your signature was a fervent Puritan?
More importantly, can we stop pretending that this sort of censorship is what 'freedom of speech' protects against? If you honestly think that everyone should be required to publish the opinions of anyone who asks, tell me your address so I can come and paper over your house with my crazy rants, on your dime.
Some people seem to have no problem with big corporations controlling almost every aspect of their lives, but take offense at mere suggestions from people trying to look out for them. It's almost as if they identify with the corporations and the owning class CEOs and board members who run them, and anything that limits the powers of said fat cats is a personal affront.
Straw man arguments are lies.
Are they now? I thought they were true, but irrelevant. In any case, if you see one, do be a dear and point it out, okay?
Everybody loves the commerce clause when it is used in a cause they like, and hate it when it is used otherwise, but the fact is, for good or for bad, the question of its constitutionality was decided generations ago. It's not 'ever increasing.' If you want to make an assertion like that, it should be easy to back it up with cold hard facts.
I think you are giving people far too little credit. Most people who use drugs do not become addicted to them, while conversely, some people have addictive personalities and will find something, anything, to become addicted to. Your doomsday scenario is not backed up by modern science. Addictions don't work the way you suppose they do. In fact, even most people who do become addicted to something will eventually gain control over their addiction without outside help. I'm not even sure what you are basing your hypothesis on, certainly not any science done in the last fifty years.
Living in a society requires compromise. Freedom, in fact, is always a trade off. We trade a freedom we don't desire, like the freedom to punch someone in the nose, for a freedom we do desire, like freedom from being punched.
A Mormon telling you what beer to drink is not, in fact, impacted by your decision. But I am impacted by your decision to waste a scarce natural resource, or to pollute. I should have a say when people's actions impact me, and people should take responsibility for their actions, such as polluting, or wasting water.
Freedom is far more complicated than asserting "You're not the boss of me!" We have an interdependent society. We aren't hunter-gatherers anymore, we require society in order to function. Living with others in an interdependent relationship is complicated, as any married person knows, but it is necessary these days, and so it is necessary to let others tell us what to do. In exchange, we get a say in what they do.
If you don't want people telling you what to do, there is a simple solution: don't live in a society. Go be a hermit somewhere. That's the only legitimate way to not be told what to do. Otherwise, you are essentially saying that you want to make demands on others, but refuse to let them make demands on you.
And that is a problem, how, exactly? It's not like people are becoming addicted to nicotine through second hand inhalation, even with regular cigarettes.
Overall, I agree with you. The real question is: how do we get there from here without ending up dominated by wealthy interests that thrive by playing one small power against another? No political seems to have a workable answer to that question.
That's true for most medicine. I heard a doctor say that 90% of people he sees are going to get better anyway, while five percent will not, not matter what. It's only five percent where he can make a difference.
As I said, chiropractic works for back pain. Claiming it will cure other things is plain hogwash.
This is a philosophical battle. Some people believe abstinence is the only answer to addiction, while others think addiction isn't the problem, it is the harm addiction causes that is the problem. To the first group, devices like this are insidious evils which corrupt the innocent with the promise of harm free drug use. To which the second group usually responds with something along the lines of, "LOLwhat? Without harm, what's the fucking problem, you tightass sonsabitches?" It is basically a battle between the Puritan ideal that all pleasures of the flesh are bad, wrong, and evil, and the not so crazy idea that harm is bad while pleasure is good.
It's funny. Some people seem to have no problem with big corporations controlling almost every aspect of their lives, but take offense at mere suggestions from people trying to look out for them. It's almost as if they identify with the corporations and the owning class CEOs and board members who run them, and anything that limits the powers of said fat cats is a personal affront. News Flash, you idiots: you are not owning class fat cats and you never will be so stop siding with them all the time. They are laughing at you as they rape you and steal your wallet, while you sit there like the abused spouse who defends their own oppressor.
good point, however I was refering to airborn chemicals.
What airborne chemicals? You need combustion to produce combustion products. These produce nothing but nicotine, and that gets absorbed into the user's lungs.
Massage has always worked better for me than chiropractic. Start going to a good masseuse or masseur. Not the 'happy ending' kind, a legitimate one. Or Yoga, that's the best if you have the self discipline needed.
Cool, thanks for the cites. So, is that an argument for regulation at the Federal level? Or should we just let the states that refuse to regulate get sick and die?
We'll see, won't we? I think you're going to be surprised by how badly the Republicans fail in the next election. Americans are sick of them. Heck, bookmark this post so you can come back with an "I told you so" if you are right. I won't be holding my breath.
Slashdot Mirror
Smoking cigarettes does so impact me. I'm a smoker.
I'm pro legalization of all drugs. If it's really dangerous, require people to take a class and get a license. And I say that mostly as a sop to the whiners who think drugs will destroy society, I personally think non-mandatory education would do the trick nearly as well.
Did you miss the part where the ALA is not part of the government?
Good point, and exactly how I feel, actually.
Not all wrong and evil things are or should be forbidden by law.
Correct. If the available methods of preventing an evil will in fact produce greater evil, we should leave it alone until we can come up with a better method.
Well, I'll accept that for the sake of argument, but it still doesn't answer the real question: is it right or wrong? You see, nearly everybody agrees censorship is wrong. However, nearly everybody agrees that forcing someone to publish something against their will and at their expense is also wrong. And you have to pick one or the other. So which is it? Right now, it is against the law to force someone to publish something against their will. Are you saying you'd like that changed?
Wrong. Drinking beer does not impact me. Thus, we don't outlaw liquor anymore. Drinking and driving, on the other hand, can impact me, and so that is not legal. Thanks for helping support my argument with more examples, I do appreciate it.
Wrong, it does not answer the question. And you did not answer my question, so I will: It is not censorship when someone refuses to publish someone else's work. Otherwise, the word censorship becomes meaningless. To equate people suffering under oppressive regimes, who truly are censored, with some developer who can't get his app published by Apple, is monstrously insulting to all people who have suffered under such regimes.
We do make social decisions about the nose, that's exactly my point. Without the social decision, we do not have rights. We either have, or lack, power. We either have the power to stop our nose form being hit, or we don't. To speak of rights without society is meaningless. Rights derive from contracts agreed to by individuals who collectively form society. Interdependence does not mean one person giving another orders. That is called dependence, and is a childish way to look at relationships. Society, and relationships are about acceptable compromises. Your reductio ad absurdum is actually a poorly constructed straw man that has nothing to do with my original argument, but thanks for trying.
I'll say it again: freedom is more complicated than "you're not the boss of me." See my sig.
That does not address the argument that was presented to you: if this is a case of censorship, then every single case where someone refuses to publish someone else's work is also censorship.
Answer the question: is it censorship whenever someone refuses to publish someone else's work? Give a yes or no answer, please, don't hem and haw, just address the argument that was presented to you.
The only difference is that Apple is a private corporation and not a government (somewhat ironic for Libertarians, one would suppose).
A corporation does not have the power to forbid you to express yourself. They only have the same power any of us have: the power to forbid you to express yourself on our property. A government can compel censorship with force. That's a HUGE difference.
That being said, does Apple deserve to be made fun of for this? Hell yes. But let's not overblow our case and invite ridicule. Pretending Apple's actions are the same as those of a repressive state is just silly.
Have you addressed his argument?
"It is basically a battle between the Puritan ideal that all pleasures of the flesh are bad, wrong, and evil, and the not so crazy idea that harm is bad while pleasure is good."
Where did this belief come from that the Puritans thought that all pleasures of the flesh are "bad, wrong and evil"? I would think that that is much more a Catholic doctrine, a religious group whom Puritans thought were more or less satanic.
As a side note -- did you know that the poet you quote in your signature was a fervent Puritan?
I did know that. And I'm not trying to badmouth Puritans as a group, but please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan_recreation
More importantly, can we stop pretending that this sort of censorship is what 'freedom of speech' protects against? If you honestly think that everyone should be required to publish the opinions of anyone who asks, tell me your address so I can come and paper over your house with my crazy rants, on your dime.
Straw man arguments are lies.
Are they now? I thought they were true, but irrelevant. In any case, if you see one, do be a dear and point it out, okay?
Everybody loves the commerce clause when it is used in a cause they like, and hate it when it is used otherwise, but the fact is, for good or for bad, the question of its constitutionality was decided generations ago. It's not 'ever increasing.' If you want to make an assertion like that, it should be easy to back it up with cold hard facts.
I think you are giving people far too little credit. Most people who use drugs do not become addicted to them, while conversely, some people have addictive personalities and will find something, anything, to become addicted to. Your doomsday scenario is not backed up by modern science. Addictions don't work the way you suppose they do. In fact, even most people who do become addicted to something will eventually gain control over their addiction without outside help. I'm not even sure what you are basing your hypothesis on, certainly not any science done in the last fifty years.
Living in a society requires compromise. Freedom, in fact, is always a trade off. We trade a freedom we don't desire, like the freedom to punch someone in the nose, for a freedom we do desire, like freedom from being punched.
A Mormon telling you what beer to drink is not, in fact, impacted by your decision. But I am impacted by your decision to waste a scarce natural resource, or to pollute. I should have a say when people's actions impact me, and people should take responsibility for their actions, such as polluting, or wasting water.
Freedom is far more complicated than asserting "You're not the boss of me!" We have an interdependent society. We aren't hunter-gatherers anymore, we require society in order to function. Living with others in an interdependent relationship is complicated, as any married person knows, but it is necessary these days, and so it is necessary to let others tell us what to do. In exchange, we get a say in what they do.
If you don't want people telling you what to do, there is a simple solution: don't live in a society. Go be a hermit somewhere. That's the only legitimate way to not be told what to do. Otherwise, you are essentially saying that you want to make demands on others, but refuse to let them make demands on you.
And that is a problem, how, exactly? It's not like people are becoming addicted to nicotine through second hand inhalation, even with regular cigarettes.
Overall, I agree with you. The real question is: how do we get there from here without ending up dominated by wealthy interests that thrive by playing one small power against another? No political seems to have a workable answer to that question.
That's true for most medicine. I heard a doctor say that 90% of people he sees are going to get better anyway, while five percent will not, not matter what. It's only five percent where he can make a difference.
As I said, chiropractic works for back pain. Claiming it will cure other things is plain hogwash.
This is a philosophical battle. Some people believe abstinence is the only answer to addiction, while others think addiction isn't the problem, it is the harm addiction causes that is the problem. To the first group, devices like this are insidious evils which corrupt the innocent with the promise of harm free drug use. To which the second group usually responds with something along the lines of, "LOLwhat? Without harm, what's the fucking problem, you tightass sonsabitches?" It is basically a battle between the Puritan ideal that all pleasures of the flesh are bad, wrong, and evil, and the not so crazy idea that harm is bad while pleasure is good.
It's funny. Some people seem to have no problem with big corporations controlling almost every aspect of their lives, but take offense at mere suggestions from people trying to look out for them. It's almost as if they identify with the corporations and the owning class CEOs and board members who run them, and anything that limits the powers of said fat cats is a personal affront. News Flash, you idiots: you are not owning class fat cats and you never will be so stop siding with them all the time. They are laughing at you as they rape you and steal your wallet, while you sit there like the abused spouse who defends their own oppressor.
good point, however I was refering to airborn chemicals.
What airborne chemicals? You need combustion to produce combustion products. These produce nothing but nicotine, and that gets absorbed into the user's lungs.
Massage has always worked better for me than chiropractic. Start going to a good masseuse or masseur. Not the 'happy ending' kind, a legitimate one. Or Yoga, that's the best if you have the self discipline needed.
Cool, thanks for the cites. So, is that an argument for regulation at the Federal level? Or should we just let the states that refuse to regulate get sick and die?
We'll see, won't we? I think you're going to be surprised by how badly the Republicans fail in the next election. Americans are sick of them. Heck, bookmark this post so you can come back with an "I told you so" if you are right. I won't be holding my breath.