The correct answer is that the Constitution rightly endows the Supreme Court with the power to interpret and explain its provisions
Yes, interpret and explain. Based on their expertise in the law. The way the court has ruled in recent years has been extremely partisan, and has quite frankly jeopardized respect for the rule of law. After seeing how it works I frankly have none anymore. The social compact that made law worth respecting is broken.
that Ron Paul's reading of settled law as "unconstitutional" is simply a method of pandering to his supporters.
Your reading of facially incorrect decisions as "settled law" is simply a method of denying that there's a serious problem with our democratic republic.
And furthermore, that the US Constitution is itself a flawed document, containing provisions which are no longer supportable or even ethical in the modern age (most notably, the three-fifths of a man compromise).
Indicating that we haven't had a Constitutional Convention in far too long.
Some of us have better things to do than sit around watching TV all night. What the government really should do is set up an emergency server, which we can then poll in whatever way works best for us. Whether that's a facebook app, an OS X widget, or an IRC bot.
What the government definitely should not do is set up a vendor specific emergency alert system. If I have to use Facebook to get an internet EAS, that's an undue advantage given to Facebook by the government.
They're going to have to do something to modernize the EAS. You really can't count on people sitting in front of the TV all the time anymore.
No, you have it all wrong. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. You should never have faith in your government and should demand accountability at every turn. Any power that can be abused will be abused. No exceptions.
Thus, anything which doesn't fall under R18 classification falls instead under "Refused Classification". As there's no X rating available, it's simply not saleable.
That's because Australia is simply not a free country. Free speech is a fundamental human right. Requiring classification violates that right.
You seem to overestimate the self-regulation abilities of your fellow man.
You seem to overestimate the self-regulation abilities of your regulators. People in government are not any better than the rest of us. They are in no better position to decide what we watch than we are.
If it wasn't illegal to buy snuff films, they'd be widely purchased and a market created for such - even though people know they're creating a market for it by buying it.
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
If you can think of a way to remove all censorship, and at the same time not create a market for snuff or child porn, please let me know.
There is no need to engage in prior restraint to eliminate markets for CP.
Apparently you don't know about the problems with video games down under.
That's not a problem with video games down under. It's a problem with free speech down under. Namely, the lack of it. The Australian government may be giving its subjects a little more chain, but they're still not free.
Shouldn't R18+ simply be a catch all for anything that's not covered by the existing guidelines? What happens to games that don't fall under the definition of R18+?
The very thought that content would have to be approved before getting sold to adults is chilling. This doesn't seem to address that.
Of course there's an f(x), but it isn't necessarily a formula founded on more fundamental principles.
Of course it wouldn't be, or those more fundamental principles would be the laws we're looking for. Are there fundamental principles behind the FSC as we understand it today? Personally I don't find a look up table of arbitrary values to be any less satisfying than a single arbitrary value.
Truth is not necessarily empirical. Consider mathematical proofs. These are a demonstrable example of "higher" truth beyond experimental investigation.
Empricism applies to math too. You can experimentally verify any mathematical law to an arbitrary degree of confidence. The truth or falsehood of a mathematical proposition has consequences that we can verify. Just run through the numbers.
Even mathematical proof itself is a form of empiricism. The experiment is when you try to write a proof. If you are able to write a proof, that is experimental evidence that the conclusions follow from the propositions. Otherwise, the experiment is inconclusive.
It is easy - you simply acknowledge that empiricism is not always applicable
Still sounds to me like a rejection if empiricism. I'd argue that anything that is beyond the scope of empiricism is also beyond the scope of truth. It's not meaningful to say something is true or false when no possible experiment could distinguish between the two. If you disagree, please explain what truth means in such a context.
And besides all this, if empiricism doesn't apply what does? It's the only method we've seen for obtaining truth that actually works.
If the fine structure constant changes depending on your location, there must be some y=f(x) where x is your location and y is the fine structure constant. That's your new universal law.
Yes. And USENET was just like web fora, except with all your forums under one powerful interface. And IRC was just like IM, except, well no IRC is exactly like IM.
Why did we need to invent twitter, web fora, and IM when we had Listserv, USENET, and IRC?
Indeed. And operating systems are moving in that direction with more and more emphasis on sandboxing. Full virtualization is really overkill for privilege separation.
Some churches would like us to believe that there is no conflict between science and faith. Doesn't mean that it's true. Churches say lots of things that aren't true.
Out of curiosity, what sort of non-scientific truth do you propose exists?
I've been racking my brain trying to come up with things that are true, but have no consequences in reality. I keep coming back to the idea that if there are no consequences to truth, there must also be no consequences to falsehood. If truth is indistinguishable from falsehood, what does truth actually mean?
As far as I can tell the assertion that scientific truth is the only truth there is is practically tautological.
When one says that one shouldn't expect things to be the same in different places, this is trivial when "things" are conditions and thus effects, and a vastly deeper meaning when "things" are the laws that cause different conditions to result in different effects. It isn't obvious that this is a natural extension or expectation.
If the "laws" change, they're not really laws. All this really implies is that there's some deeper law that governs the fine structure constant.
Like you said, every philosophy rests on some unprovable axiom. However not all philosophies that rest on unprovable axioms are equivalent. Empiricism is useful, mysticism is not.
Slashdot Mirror
The correct answer is that the Constitution rightly endows the Supreme Court with the power to interpret and explain its provisions
Yes, interpret and explain. Based on their expertise in the law. The way the court has ruled in recent years has been extremely partisan, and has quite frankly jeopardized respect for the rule of law. After seeing how it works I frankly have none anymore. The social compact that made law worth respecting is broken.
that Ron Paul's reading of settled law as "unconstitutional" is simply a method of pandering to his supporters.
Your reading of facially incorrect decisions as "settled law" is simply a method of denying that there's a serious problem with our democratic republic.
And furthermore, that the US Constitution is itself a flawed document, containing provisions which are no longer supportable or even ethical in the modern age (most notably, the three-fifths of a man compromise).
Indicating that we haven't had a Constitutional Convention in far too long.
I bet he's recording some sick jams with his unsigned iOS apps.
Here, go vote on some more important petitions:
Meta-petition
99declaration.org
Snarky petition
E-Parasite
Marijuana petition Part II.
Reverse marijuana petition
YAMP
I like this one. Bet it doesn't last long.
Some of us have better things to do than sit around watching TV all night. What the government really should do is set up an emergency server, which we can then poll in whatever way works best for us. Whether that's a facebook app, an OS X widget, or an IRC bot.
What the government definitely should not do is set up a vendor specific emergency alert system. If I have to use Facebook to get an internet EAS, that's an undue advantage given to Facebook by the government.
They're going to have to do something to modernize the EAS. You really can't count on people sitting in front of the TV all the time anymore.
I'd still be out of luck. I watch about 1 hour combined TV/Radio a day. I don't own a cell phone, and don't have a facebook account.
No, you have it all wrong. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. You should never have faith in your government and should demand accountability at every turn. Any power that can be abused will be abused. No exceptions.
The FLACs you ripped from them will remain playable forever.
"For example, parents of babies could cover them in connected clothing to check on their children when they were out of the house ..."
Don't worry, I'll get a text if he starts bleeding.
Thus, anything which doesn't fall under R18 classification falls instead under "Refused Classification". As there's no X rating available, it's simply not saleable.
That's because Australia is simply not a free country. Free speech is a fundamental human right. Requiring classification violates that right.
You seem to overestimate the self-regulation abilities of your fellow man.
You seem to overestimate the self-regulation abilities of your regulators. People in government are not any better than the rest of us. They are in no better position to decide what we watch than we are.
If it wasn't illegal to buy snuff films, they'd be widely purchased and a market created for such - even though people know they're creating a market for it by buying it.
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
If you can think of a way to remove all censorship, and at the same time not create a market for snuff or child porn, please let me know.
There is no need to engage in prior restraint to eliminate markets for CP.
Apparently you don't know about the problems with video games down under.
That's not a problem with video games down under. It's a problem with free speech down under. Namely, the lack of it. The Australian government may be giving its subjects a little more chain, but they're still not free.
Shouldn't R18+ simply be a catch all for anything that's not covered by the existing guidelines? What happens to games that don't fall under the definition of R18+?
The very thought that content would have to be approved before getting sold to adults is chilling. This doesn't seem to address that.
Of course there's an f(x), but it isn't necessarily a formula founded on more fundamental principles.
Of course it wouldn't be, or those more fundamental principles would be the laws we're looking for. Are there fundamental principles behind the FSC as we understand it today? Personally I don't find a look up table of arbitrary values to be any less satisfying than a single arbitrary value.
Truth is not necessarily empirical. Consider mathematical proofs. These are a demonstrable example of "higher" truth beyond experimental investigation.
Empricism applies to math too. You can experimentally verify any mathematical law to an arbitrary degree of confidence. The truth or falsehood of a mathematical proposition has consequences that we can verify. Just run through the numbers.
Even mathematical proof itself is a form of empiricism. The experiment is when you try to write a proof. If you are able to write a proof, that is experimental evidence that the conclusions follow from the propositions. Otherwise, the experiment is inconclusive.
It is easy - you simply acknowledge that empiricism is not always applicable
Still sounds to me like a rejection if empiricism. I'd argue that anything that is beyond the scope of empiricism is also beyond the scope of truth. It's not meaningful to say something is true or false when no possible experiment could distinguish between the two. If you disagree, please explain what truth means in such a context.
And besides all this, if empiricism doesn't apply what does? It's the only method we've seen for obtaining truth that actually works.
If the fine structure constant changes depending on your location, there must be some y=f(x) where x is your location and y is the fine structure constant. That's your new universal law.
and let's be honest, IRC is just terrible
What's wrong with IRC?
You can't.
Yes. And USENET was just like web fora, except with all your forums under one powerful interface. And IRC was just like IM, except, well no IRC is exactly like IM.
Why did we need to invent twitter, web fora, and IM when we had Listserv, USENET, and IRC?
Since such enquiries are covered under a Statutory Instrument
Public officials already take an oath of office. We should amend this oath to make any lies whatsoever perjury.
Indeed. And operating systems are moving in that direction with more and more emphasis on sandboxing. Full virtualization is really overkill for privilege separation.
Some churches would like us to believe that there is no conflict between science and faith. Doesn't mean that it's true. Churches say lots of things that aren't true.
Sorry to keep at this, but it's interesting.
To bring this discussion back to what started it, isn't the assertion that there is non-scientific truth a rejection of empiricism?
Out of curiosity, what sort of non-scientific truth do you propose exists?
I've been racking my brain trying to come up with things that are true, but have no consequences in reality. I keep coming back to the idea that if there are no consequences to truth, there must also be no consequences to falsehood. If truth is indistinguishable from falsehood, what does truth actually mean?
As far as I can tell the assertion that scientific truth is the only truth there is is practically tautological.
When one says that one shouldn't expect things to be the same in different places, this is trivial when "things" are conditions and thus effects, and a vastly deeper meaning when "things" are the laws that cause different conditions to result in different effects. It isn't obvious that this is a natural extension or expectation.
If the "laws" change, they're not really laws. All this really implies is that there's some deeper law that governs the fine structure constant.
If you're observing Africa through a telescope and using those observations to make predictions about Antarctica, then yes it does matter.
Like you said, every philosophy rests on some unprovable axiom. However not all philosophies that rest on unprovable axioms are equivalent. Empiricism is useful, mysticism is not.