Here you were contended that the quoted parent was incorrect. You said one ought not feel antipathy towards Uber for ignoring the regulations. Given that the antipathy was moral in nature, you are implicitly making a case that Uber was in the right. This interpretation is reinforced by your explanation of why you thing the regulations are immoral and ignorable.
No, I did not. See that word "assuming"? I thought people would be able to figure out that my meaning was:
Assuming the regulations are actually halfway reasonable[, your point of view sounds like a reasonable conclusion. If the regulations are in fact not halfway reasonable, as I have heard from some other posters on, ] <the entire rest of my points>.
As usual of us here on Slashdot a lot of the time, I'm not overly knowledgeable about the topic. Seeing not much of anybody taking the Uber side, I suggested some reasoning to explain their actions and circumstances which might serve to justify them from an ethical standpoint. It's called "being a devil's advocate."
No, I have a mobile phone, which also means I live in a country that has reasonably adequate consumer protection.
What is this, "we're English so we have to have crazy words for everything instead"? Pray tell what the difference between a "cell phone" and a "mobile phone" is.
I need to just change my signature to "Slashdot is a U.S. company with servers in the U.S. largely concerned with U.S. problems so stop bitching about the natural U.S.-centric viewpoint." Maybe then people could just mod me down without reading my comments and apparently we'd all be happier.
I guess my question is whether it's fair to say that Uber is unethical for associating with a group which, as you say, are not to a man* unethical. Surely the possibility exists that Uber is only associating with the ethical members of the group (it's a mathematical possibility, anyway. I'm not saying it's likely or even practically speaking possible). I'll admit I'm splitting hairs, which is why I said I wasn't sure about the issue.
Linking Uber to escorts feels a bit like a convenient connection. Okay, so I won't argue it's an ethical thing to do...but what exactly does it have to do with Uber's business other than casting their leadership/policymakers in a certain light? It's the low-hanging fruit to get everybody to scowl at and boo them, like calling politicians communists or people not of your a/religious persuasion Satanists.
From what I've heard third-hand the porn industry is hardly a shining example either.
* You know what I mean. It's a saying. A lot of the people we're talking about are women; I know.
And as an engineer, you are clearly able to determine the far reaching implications of policy changes, know which regulations are "stupid" and therefore ignorable, but unable to communicate that to your fellow citizens in order to get the regulations modified?
Look, you want to change the law, we have a process for that.
Or is changing regulations via democracy one of those "regulations" you feel exempt from?
What the hell? What did I say that gave you the impression I was advocating extrajudicial resolution?
To steer your nose directly into the point, if a regulation is dumb (I am allowed to have an opinion, and allowed to attempt to convince others to share it), I'm in favor of reforming or eliminating the regulation via whatever agency is in charge of handling it.
If "totally irrelevant" is a member of set A, the least relevant member of set A is "totally irrelevant." Therefore set A has only one member, or it's a multiset with multiple values of "totally irrelevant" present.
I play an RPG called Kingdom of Loathing that has something labelled a "donation" but that has always given you an in-game item, so pragmatically speaking, it's a purchase, since the reward is reliable.
After this, and the Oculus Rift sale, I can see why it's rather dangerous to take this stuff at face value.
Just because their targets are unethical, does not give journalists excuse to be unethical themselves in how they cover it.
I'm not sure whether I understand the "associated with escort service therefore sexist" argument either. Is that predicated on the "there's no such thing as an unabused prostitute" idea?
So when you give them money and don't know whether you'll get anything in return, is it a donation at that point? Or is this some sort of Schrödinger transaction where we can only say whether it's a purchase or a donation in retrospect after we've observed the finished process?
I've seen some of the news coverage about them trying to move into a couple of cities. The cities are saying "OK, you need a license, the proper insurance, and you must do these things".
Uber says "Yarg, we're not a taxi company, we're teh interweb company, we won't play by the rules".
At which point you think, "wow, so these guys figure they're exempt from regulations". And then you don't have a lot of sympathy for them.
Assuming the regulations are actually halfway reasonable. People were saying they were obviously set up to protect the existing taxi system which has already "bought into" the exorbitant fees.
As an engineer-type mindset, if there's an easy way to do something more efficiently and regulations are standing in the way, I blame the regulations, not the new solution for sufficiently stupid values of regulation (obviously safety regs are a different matter).
Fighting fire with fire. If there's no way to get them to back off professionally, it would appear Uber does not want to take it lying down.
Not really sure how one goes about fighting the media in the first place. Or do you just assume that if the media is running with some story on you, you're already fucked?
Interestingly, only 1 of the 7 top-level replies can be even remotely labelled as arguing the morality of the NSA. Then a significant portion of the rest is us arguing about whether we're arguing about it.
You're outnumbered, dude. If 86% of the conversation is "irrelevant" I think we should flip that definition on its head and declare the argument you're having with nobody in particular irrelevant.
Anyway, this circle-jerk has been fun but good day.
I was responding to the AC. And actually agreeing with you...
"Just don't do anything wrong" doesn't work when the definition of "wrong" is insane.
Sorry that came off snippy, but this is definitely slippery slope territory. Sometimes the only way to get through people's (not saying yours) thick skulls is to say, "Fuck that, and fuck you, go off and die."
"Nuclear Arms" are, by definition, "Arms", and the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed.
Which was my exact point. Nobody calls them nuclear arms. They're called nuclear armaments. Go look up the definition of "arms." In a nutshell, they at least have to be usable by a single person. If a single person can launch a nuke...we have problems. Can the President launch any nukes without at least the physical assistance of other operators?
The second amendment is not about self-defense against individuals, it is about self-defense against larger groups, either foreign armies (at the time, there was no national army, and even if there was it was weeks or even months before news of an attack would reach them and months more before they'd be able to respond), or roving bands of bandits and such.
A model I kind of wish we'd go back to, at this point.* Military-Industrial Complex--Eisenhower was right.
*Although I have no idea whether a halfway-plausible argument can be made for that. Would it be survivable? Discuss.
Hey, the original poster says that spying isn't innately bad. You've basically spent the replies since then obtusely saying "I disagree." Fine.
I've specifically pointed out multiple times that I'm not having an argument about whether spying in the first place is wrong. Apparently we're not in the same argument, in which case I would appreciate it if you would stop calling me wrong in a context which I'm not addressing.
According to Wikipedia, Animal Farm is a book that's anti-Stalin and in favor of democratic socialism.
Animal Farm is an allegorical and dystopian novel by George Orwell, published in England on 17 August 1945. According to Orwell, the book reflects events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and then on into the Stalin era in the Soviet Union.[1] Orwell, a democratic socialist,[2] was a critic of Joseph Stalin and hostile to Moscow-directed Stalinism, an attitude that was critically shaped by his experiences during the Spanish Civil War.[3] The Soviet Union, he believed, had become a brutal dictatorship, built upon a cult of personality and enforced by a reign of terror.
Slashdot Mirror
Because "totally" and "completely" definitely aren't synonyms and redundant.
Here you were contended that the quoted parent was incorrect. You said one ought not feel antipathy towards Uber for ignoring the regulations. Given that the antipathy was moral in nature, you are implicitly making a case that Uber was in the right. This interpretation is reinforced by your explanation of why you thing the regulations are immoral and ignorable.
No, I did not. See that word "assuming"? I thought people would be able to figure out that my meaning was:
Assuming the regulations are actually halfway reasonable[, your point of view sounds like a reasonable conclusion. If the regulations are in fact not halfway reasonable, as I have heard from some other posters on, ] <the entire rest of my points>.
As usual of us here on Slashdot a lot of the time, I'm not overly knowledgeable about the topic. Seeing not much of anybody taking the Uber side, I suggested some reasoning to explain their actions and circumstances which might serve to justify them from an ethical standpoint. It's called "being a devil's advocate."
Somebody needs to learn about hypothetical case.
No, I have a mobile phone, which also means I live in a country that has reasonably adequate consumer protection.
What is this, "we're English so we have to have crazy words for everything instead"? Pray tell what the difference between a "cell phone" and a "mobile phone" is.
I need to just change my signature to "Slashdot is a U.S. company with servers in the U.S. largely concerned with U.S. problems so stop bitching about the natural U.S.-centric viewpoint." Maybe then people could just mod me down without reading my comments and apparently we'd all be happier.
What is this, "Pick A Random Person To Be Butthurt About" Day or something?
No.
I guess my question is whether it's fair to say that Uber is unethical for associating with a group which, as you say, are not to a man* unethical. Surely the possibility exists that Uber is only associating with the ethical members of the group (it's a mathematical possibility, anyway. I'm not saying it's likely or even practically speaking possible). I'll admit I'm splitting hairs, which is why I said I wasn't sure about the issue.
Linking Uber to escorts feels a bit like a convenient connection. Okay, so I won't argue it's an ethical thing to do...but what exactly does it have to do with Uber's business other than casting their leadership/policymakers in a certain light? It's the low-hanging fruit to get everybody to scowl at and boo them, like calling politicians communists or people not of your a/religious persuasion Satanists.
From what I've heard third-hand the porn industry is hardly a shining example either.
* You know what I mean. It's a saying. A lot of the people we're talking about are women; I know.
And as an engineer, you are clearly able to determine the far reaching implications of policy changes, know which regulations are "stupid" and therefore ignorable, but unable to communicate that to your fellow citizens in order to get the regulations modified?
Look, you want to change the law, we have a process for that.
Or is changing regulations via democracy one of those "regulations" you feel exempt from?
What the hell? What did I say that gave you the impression I was advocating extrajudicial resolution?
To steer your nose directly into the point, if a regulation is dumb (I am allowed to have an opinion, and allowed to attempt to convince others to share it), I'm in favor of reforming or eliminating the regulation via whatever agency is in charge of handling it.
If "totally irrelevant" is a member of set A, the least relevant member of set A is "totally irrelevant."
Therefore set A has only one member, or it's a multiset with multiple values of "totally irrelevant" present.
Not trying to nip pick
Oh the irony...
*nitpick
I play an RPG called Kingdom of Loathing that has something labelled a "donation" but that has always given you an in-game item, so pragmatically speaking, it's a purchase, since the reward is reliable.
After this, and the Oculus Rift sale, I can see why it's rather dangerous to take this stuff at face value.
When you put it like that, yeah, sounds reasonable. I'm not anti-regulation in general; I just want them to make sense and not be obviously corrupt.
Just because their targets are unethical, does not give journalists excuse to be unethical themselves in how they cover it.
I'm not sure whether I understand the "associated with escort service therefore sexist" argument either. Is that predicated on the "there's no such thing as an unabused prostitute" idea?
Except for all those ones that do.
Do you have a cell phone?
So when you give them money and don't know whether you'll get anything in return, is it a donation at that point? Or is this some sort of Schrödinger transaction where we can only say whether it's a purchase or a donation in retrospect after we've observed the finished process?
But...but...one side has to be the good guys! One side is good, the other is evil! Somebody get me a black and a white hat.
I've seen some of the news coverage about them trying to move into a couple of cities. The cities are saying "OK, you need a license, the proper insurance, and you must do these things".
Uber says "Yarg, we're not a taxi company, we're teh interweb company, we won't play by the rules".
At which point you think, "wow, so these guys figure they're exempt from regulations". And then you don't have a lot of sympathy for them.
Assuming the regulations are actually halfway reasonable. People were saying they were obviously set up to protect the existing taxi system which has already "bought into" the exorbitant fees.
As an engineer-type mindset, if there's an easy way to do something more efficiently and regulations are standing in the way, I blame the regulations, not the new solution for sufficiently stupid values of regulation (obviously safety regs are a different matter).
Fighting fire with fire. If there's no way to get them to back off professionally, it would appear Uber does not want to take it lying down.
Not really sure how one goes about fighting the media in the first place. Or do you just assume that if the media is running with some story on you, you're already fucked?
Many sources like FOX and MSNBC have been willing to try truth for eyeballs.
Do you mean *trade* truth for eyeballs, or are you implying the normal mode of operation is for news sources to lie all the time?
Interestingly, only 1 of the 7 top-level replies can be even remotely labelled as arguing the morality of the NSA. Then a significant portion of the rest is us arguing about whether we're arguing about it.
You're outnumbered, dude. If 86% of the conversation is "irrelevant" I think we should flip that definition on its head and declare the argument you're having with nobody in particular irrelevant.
Anyway, this circle-jerk has been fun but good day.
I'll point out that said (O)OP is currently at +2 Informative while the reply pointing out their mandate is at +4 Insightful.
cough cough
and your criteria was "at least one space ship at some point"
You raise a fair point. And technically correct is the best kind. :)
I was responding to the AC. And actually agreeing with you...
"Just don't do anything wrong" doesn't work when the definition of "wrong" is insane.
Sorry that came off snippy, but this is definitely slippery slope territory. Sometimes the only way to get through people's (not saying yours) thick skulls is to say, "Fuck that, and fuck you, go off and die."
"Nuclear Arms" are, by definition, "Arms", and the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed.
Which was my exact point. Nobody calls them nuclear arms. They're called nuclear armaments. Go look up the definition of "arms." In a nutshell, they at least have to be usable by a single person. If a single person can launch a nuke...we have problems. Can the President launch any nukes without at least the physical assistance of other operators?
The second amendment is not about self-defense against individuals, it is about self-defense against larger groups, either foreign armies (at the time, there was no national army, and even if there was it was weeks or even months before news of an attack would reach them and months more before they'd be able to respond), or roving bands of bandits and such.
A model I kind of wish we'd go back to, at this point.* Military-Industrial Complex--Eisenhower was right.
*Although I have no idea whether a halfway-plausible argument can be made for that. Would it be survivable? Discuss.
A lot like the "if everyone in the world was pacifists, they would be really easy to take over" argument, yes :)
Hey, the original poster says that spying isn't innately bad. You've basically spent the replies since then obtusely saying "I disagree." Fine.
I've specifically pointed out multiple times that I'm not having an argument about whether spying in the first place is wrong. Apparently we're not in the same argument, in which case I would appreciate it if you would stop calling me wrong in a context which I'm not addressing.
According to Wikipedia, Animal Farm is a book that's anti-Stalin and in favor of democratic socialism.
Animal Farm is an allegorical and dystopian novel by George Orwell, published in England on 17 August 1945. According to Orwell, the book reflects events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and then on into the Stalin era in the Soviet Union.[1] Orwell, a democratic socialist,[2] was a critic of Joseph Stalin and hostile to Moscow-directed Stalinism, an attitude that was critically shaped by his experiences during the Spanish Civil War.[3] The Soviet Union, he believed, had become a brutal dictatorship, built upon a cult of personality and enforced by a reign of terror.
-1 Socialism Is Not The Same As Stalinism