Somewhere, somehow, someone either is or already has proven you wrong.
* Pornographic videos and literature are not human, so its distribution cannot be human trafficking.
There is little to no human trafficking in places with legal prostitution, especially compared to places where it is not legal. They say the same thing about drugs: "Dur, using drugs supports criminals!" completely ignoring the fact that if the drugs in question were legal, one would not have to deal with criminals in order to acquire them. Catch-22.
* If your wife catches you watching a bunch of porn, she is unlikely to divorce you.
1) You have never met my wife. 2) That's not really a rationale for the criminalization of prostitution, especially when you consider the divorce rate.
* Porn rarely gets beaten up by pimps and johns.
Maybe not, but if you think there's not any physical, emotional, or mental abuse that occurs in the porn industry then you've succeeded in proving your ignorance on the topic.
* Almost everyone openly or secretly loves porn, criminalising it would be too hard.
Yup, far cheaper and easier to just make everyone feel like scum for enjoying an activity everyone else enjoys. Fucked up, is what that is.
Why would one lose ones credibility because of that?
Because politics, that's why.
You hear the talking heads squawk about a political entity getting "busted" for having a more-interesting-than-missionary sexual preference, and, regardless of how innocuous it may be, the next thing you know their career in politics is over.
Sexual preference is ideal blackmail for politicians who spend the majority of their professional lives trying to convince the public that they're more moral than the next guy. Which is pretty much all of them.
Seems to me the only real defense would be to campaign on a platform of "Porn is teh Shiznit!", although you might have a bit of trouble getting on the ballot here in the Bible Belt.
I would prefer a non-car analogy please. It's been a while since the last good one.
In any case, if the event you described did happen, I would feel VERY bad about it, and would be very careful not to leave the keys in the car again. If one of my servers was hijacked to do bad things, be it DDOS or spamming, I would feel bad about that also.
As far as car analogies go, I'd say this is one of the rare ones that actually makes sense and is in context to the general point.
Feeling bad is good - showing remorse is a sign that you're not a sociopath. But feeling guilty doesn't make a person legally culpable for another person's actions, which is my position on the matter.
The oligarchs have accounted for this, which is why many large corporations are now replacing non-direct-deposit paychecks with what are essentially pre-paid VISA cards.
Sometimes being able to buy stuff without being fucking tracked is not only perfectly reasonable, it's a damn good idea.
Like elections.
Except that several websites keep a running tally of who has donated to whom, and how much.
Sadly, the people buying elections have so much money and power that fear of discovery doesn't even cross their minds; hell, some of them are proud to be subverting the democratic process.
Seriously, isn't it mainly being used to support criminal and terrorist activites? Aren't the rest of you, who aren't criminals and terrorists, just "Useful Idiots", unwittingly facilitating crime and terrorism?
You realize the same argument has been used by proponents of abolishing cash, right? Oh, and the anti-oil types, although in their case they're actually correct.
Sometimes being able to buy stuff without being fucking tracked is not only perfectly reasonable, it's a damn good idea.
The price may go up a little more, but all indications are sell now to kickstart the crash.
FTFY.
Most market crashes are triggered by large sell-offs; by imploring people to sell, sell, sell, you're doing your part to make the prophecy self-fulfilling.
This is just a guess, because it has never happened to me before. However, I imagine that after being on a receiving end of a massive DDOS I would no longer think of not patching your servers as a form of free speech. Instead, I would think of it as negligence.
So... if you left the keys in your car, and some sociopath took said car and ran over a few people with it, you think you should be charged with negligence?
I think if it did happen to you, you might feel differently. People are funny that way.
True, but free speech has always had limitations when it comes to the speech having specific impacts, esp when that speech is part of a crime.
You'll have to be more specific.
I know that speech which directly causes harm (like yelling 'fire' in a crowded, not-on-fire place) is patently illegal; I also know that knowingly providing information or services to individuals in the commission of a crime is not protected speech.
But this isn't one of those situations; nobody's handing the car keys to the bank robber, they've just left the keys in the ignition with the doors unlocked. Pretty sure that's not illegal.
In other words, the world can have liberty so long as it doesn't inconvenience you by virtue of a number of factors no individual has any control over.
When I put it like that, can you see how insane your ideology sounds? Hell, you might as well be arguing against free speech, since the wrong person saying the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time can run afoul of all the criteria you've set forth here.
because its not waiting 5 minutes it could be waiting 30 minutes or and hour depending on how long your trip is.
Well, gee, Wally, what kind of car do you drive that is incapable of pulling the fuck over? What's that? There's no car that's incapable of pulling the fuck over? Oh, I see, you're just a selfish jackass. Good to know.
Because driving is boring and texting gives you something to do.
An extremely selfish jackass who shouldn't be put in charge of anything more important than a pudding cup. Gotcha.
Yes, this goes for the person you're replying to as well.
LOTS of things have happened since 1981 that would lead to more seatbelt use/less car crash fatalities. Education, better equipment, cars that ding at you constantly until you belt up...
Actually, were I a betting man, my money'd be on that last one as the most likely cause.
Most cops can barely drive, and then when off duty they drive like complete and utter assholes.
Some of them can't even tell when they're off duty; about a year ago an Iraq War vet was killed when a local, off-duty cop took it upon himself to engage his personal, vehicle in a high-speed chase through the center of town at mid-day. The LEO chased the suspect right into the driver's door of the vet's truck, not a week after he got back from an 18 month deployment.
The cop was, of course, found innocent of any wrongdoing.
Follow the money -- it is another ticket-writing profit vector. This will fuel the drive with which they pursue this, not safety.
Yea, that's what my local municipality thought about red-light cameras.
Turns out, with the monitoring contracts it ended up costing $20,000/mo just to keep the damn things turned on. Thank goodness the state supreme court declared them unconstitutional, otherwise we taxpayers would still be on the hook for almost a quarter million per year.
I'd be curious to know how much the NYPD paid/is paying for these new leases, and compare that to their ticket revenues over the next 12 months.
If things like public defecation, nudity, and pan-handling can be successfully argued as free speech (which they all have, at some point, somewhere), I think it would be a pretty simple affair to claim that running open, unsecured internet infrastructure is also a form of free expression.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels."
Nor does it preclude them; The fact that helping others makes me feel good about myself doesn't make the acts selfish, because that good feeling isn't why I do it - I help people because they need it and I can give it.
Joy and self-satisfaction are just pleasant side effects.
Just because you've never done something nice for someone else while expecting nothing in return doesn't mean altruism doesn't exist; it means you're selfish.
To wit, the other night my wife told me a homeless guy helped her carry and load her groceries in the car; all he got out of the deal was a pleasant conversation, and still went away smiling.
Dropping the atomic bomb on civilian populations in 1945 didn't stop the USA from leading the world toward outlawing "nuclear proliferation" decades later; why should this issue be handled differently?
Lead time - how long was the timespan between developing the nuke and firing up all those non-proliferation treaties? A couple decades?
This time, we have the chance to nip a tyrannical tool in the bud* before it becomes an issue.
* My preferred method? Open-source everything, so that any jackass with $50 and some free time can build themselves an automated, airborne weapons platform. We'll level the playing field manually, with ordnance:)
"Your Master" is trying to imply that because the 4th definition of the term isn't one he finds acceptable, it shouldn't be considered a valid definition.
If we were to allow every individual to determine the standard by which each word were defined, there'd be no such thing as dictionary, because everyone would have their own, personal definition of each word.
So, it's not "stretching" to say a word means one of the things that the dictionary says it means.
Here is an example: ! Using "literally" to mean figuratively, to the point that Websters now lists "literally" as a term that means "virtually"! "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally" - If that isn't a sufficiently obvious case (for you) of an accepted definition of a word that stretches it to the point of losing it's meaning then perhaps vocabulary lessons in English are in order?
That's just a consequence of rampant stupidity combined with that whole "PC" notion that you're not allowed to offend anyone. It's fucking moronic, and in no way has any bearing on or reflects the conversation we're having here. "Violence" has meant "to cause harm" for a long, long, long time.
Harm is not hurt.
Every thesaurus, ever, disagrees with that assertion, including this one
Financial loss is not pain. A business is not a person.
OK, subjectively? I completely agree. However, our system of law is not based on my subjective opinion, and the system of law says that yes, they are people, and yes, financial loss is harm.
A sit-in is not violence.
Depends on which definition you're going by.
Hey, would you look at that! We just went full circle!
Slashdot Mirror
* You can't get STDs from porn.
Somewhere, somehow, someone either is or already has proven you wrong.
Like this? :-)
While I'm certain literary boffins would argue with referring to 50 Shades as porn.. yea, something exactly like that.
I also would have accepted an article about porn-watchers sharing sex toys.
* You can't get STDs from porn.
Somewhere, somehow, someone either is or already has proven you wrong.
* Pornographic videos and literature are not human, so its distribution cannot be human trafficking.
There is little to no human trafficking in places with legal prostitution, especially compared to places where it is not legal. They say the same thing about drugs: "Dur, using drugs supports criminals!" completely ignoring the fact that if the drugs in question were legal, one would not have to deal with criminals in order to acquire them. Catch-22.
* If your wife catches you watching a bunch of porn, she is unlikely to divorce you.
1) You have never met my wife.
2) That's not really a rationale for the criminalization of prostitution, especially when you consider the divorce rate.
* Porn rarely gets beaten up by pimps and johns.
Maybe not, but if you think there's not any physical, emotional, or mental abuse that occurs in the porn industry then you've succeeded in proving your ignorance on the topic.
* Almost everyone openly or secretly loves porn, criminalising it would be too hard.
Yup, far cheaper and easier to just make everyone feel like scum for enjoying an activity everyone else enjoys. Fucked up, is what that is.
Why would one lose ones credibility because of that?
Because politics, that's why.
You hear the talking heads squawk about a political entity getting "busted" for having a more-interesting-than-missionary sexual preference, and, regardless of how innocuous it may be, the next thing you know their career in politics is over.
Sexual preference is ideal blackmail for politicians who spend the majority of their professional lives trying to convince the public that they're more moral than the next guy. Which is pretty much all of them.
Seems to me the only real defense would be to campaign on a platform of "Porn is teh Shiznit!", although you might have a bit of trouble getting on the ballot here in the Bible Belt.
I would prefer a non-car analogy please. It's been a while since the last good one.
In any case, if the event you described did happen, I would feel VERY bad about it, and would be very careful not to leave the keys in the car again. If one of my servers was hijacked to do bad things, be it DDOS or spamming, I would feel bad about that also.
As far as car analogies go, I'd say this is one of the rare ones that actually makes sense and is in context to the general point.
Feeling bad is good - showing remorse is a sign that you're not a sociopath. But feeling guilty doesn't make a person legally culpable for another person's actions, which is my position on the matter.
What about people who don't have bank accounts?
The oligarchs have accounted for this, which is why many large corporations are now replacing non-direct-deposit paychecks with what are essentially pre-paid VISA cards.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/business/as-pay-cards-replace-paychecks-bank-fees-hurt-workers.html?_r=0
http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2013/07/23/are-hourly-workers-being-short-changed-the-truth-about-payroll-cards/
http://consumerist.com/2013/07/01/here-is-why-employers-and-banks-love-putting-wages-on-prepaid-debit-cards-and-why-employees-are-keeping-their-money-in-shoeboxes/
You might not be able to get blood from a turnip, but that little fact won't stop those in power from trying.
Sometimes being able to buy stuff without being fucking tracked is not only perfectly reasonable, it's a damn good idea.
Like elections.
Except that several websites keep a running tally of who has donated to whom, and how much.
Sadly, the people buying elections have so much money and power that fear of discovery doesn't even cross their minds; hell, some of them are proud to be subverting the democratic process.
Hey, shut up, man, I'm trying to give myself an edge over these suckers!
Er, I mean... Ah... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Sell bad!
Seriously, isn't it mainly being used to support criminal and terrorist activites? Aren't the rest of you, who aren't criminals and terrorists, just "Useful Idiots", unwittingly facilitating crime and terrorism?
You realize the same argument has been used by proponents of abolishing cash, right? Oh, and the anti-oil types, although in their case they're actually correct.
Sometimes being able to buy stuff without being fucking tracked is not only perfectly reasonable, it's a damn good idea.
The price may go up a little more, but all indications are sell now to kickstart the crash.
FTFY.
Most market crashes are triggered by large sell-offs; by imploring people to sell, sell, sell, you're doing your part to make the prophecy self-fulfilling.
This is just a guess, because it has never happened to me before. However, I imagine that after being on a receiving end of a massive DDOS I would no longer think of not patching your servers as a form of free speech. Instead, I would think of it as negligence.
So... if you left the keys in your car, and some sociopath took said car and ran over a few people with it, you think you should be charged with negligence?
I think if it did happen to you, you might feel differently. People are funny that way.
True, but free speech has always had limitations when it comes to the speech having specific impacts, esp when that speech is part of a crime.
You'll have to be more specific.
I know that speech which directly causes harm (like yelling 'fire' in a crowded, not-on-fire place) is patently illegal; I also know that knowingly providing information or services to individuals in the commission of a crime is not protected speech.
But this isn't one of those situations; nobody's handing the car keys to the bank robber, they've just left the keys in the ignition with the doors unlocked. Pretty sure that's not illegal.
In other words, the world can have liberty so long as it doesn't inconvenience you by virtue of a number of factors no individual has any control over.
When I put it like that, can you see how insane your ideology sounds? Hell, you might as well be arguing against free speech, since the wrong person saying the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time can run afoul of all the criteria you've set forth here.
because its not waiting 5 minutes it could be waiting 30 minutes or and hour depending on how long your trip is.
Well, gee, Wally, what kind of car do you drive that is incapable of pulling the fuck over? What's that? There's no car that's incapable of pulling the fuck over? Oh, I see, you're just a selfish jackass. Good to know.
Because driving is boring and texting gives you something to do.
An extremely selfish jackass who shouldn't be put in charge of anything more important than a pudding cup. Gotcha.
correlation != causation.
Yes, this goes for the person you're replying to as well.
LOTS of things have happened since 1981 that would lead to more seatbelt use/less car crash fatalities. Education, better equipment, cars that ding at you constantly until you belt up...
Actually, were I a betting man, my money'd be on that last one as the most likely cause.
Hyperbole aside, you obviously didn't read the post he was replying to.
Nor have you considered that ubiquitous surveillance equipment might have purposes other than "saving lives;" spying on people, for instance.
Most cops can barely drive, and then when off duty they drive like complete and utter assholes.
Some of them can't even tell when they're off duty; about a year ago an Iraq War vet was killed when a local, off-duty cop took it upon himself to engage his personal, vehicle in a high-speed chase through the center of town at mid-day. The LEO chased the suspect right into the driver's door of the vet's truck, not a week after he got back from an 18 month deployment.
The cop was, of course, found innocent of any wrongdoing.
Follow the money -- it is another ticket-writing profit vector. This will fuel the drive with which they pursue this, not safety.
Yea, that's what my local municipality thought about red-light cameras.
Turns out, with the monitoring contracts it ended up costing $20,000/mo just to keep the damn things turned on. Thank goodness the state supreme court declared them unconstitutional, otherwise we taxpayers would still be on the hook for almost a quarter million per year.
I'd be curious to know how much the NYPD paid/is paying for these new leases, and compare that to their ticket revenues over the next 12 months.
Sadly that is a repercussion of having liberties. Free speech means the right for people to say things you don't agree with.
That's not sad, it's what makes life interesting.
I think living in an echo chamber would be unbelievably boring.
If things like public defecation, nudity, and pan-handling can be successfully argued as free speech (which they all have, at some point, somewhere), I think it would be a pretty simple affair to claim that running open, unsecured internet infrastructure is also a form of free expression.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels."
Altruism does not imply joy or self-satisfaction.
Nor does it preclude them; The fact that helping others makes me feel good about myself doesn't make the acts selfish, because that good feeling isn't why I do it - I help people because they need it and I can give it.
Joy and self-satisfaction are just pleasant side effects.
Just because you've never done something nice for someone else while expecting nothing in return doesn't mean altruism doesn't exist; it means you're selfish.
To wit, the other night my wife told me a homeless guy helped her carry and load her groceries in the car; all he got out of the deal was a pleasant conversation, and still went away smiling.
Yea, because the other possibility is that you're not nearly as clever as you think you are, and that just can't be the case, now can it?
That elephantine chip on your shoulder is causing your judgement to list, I think.
Dropping the atomic bomb on civilian populations in 1945 didn't stop the USA from leading the world toward outlawing "nuclear proliferation" decades later; why should this issue be handled differently?
Lead time - how long was the timespan between developing the nuke and firing up all those non-proliferation treaties? A couple decades?
This time, we have the chance to nip a tyrannical tool in the bud* before it becomes an issue.
* My preferred method? Open-source everything, so that any jackass with $50 and some free time can build themselves an automated, airborne weapons platform. We'll level the playing field manually, with ordnance :)
"Your Master" is trying to imply that because the 4th definition of the term isn't one he finds acceptable, it shouldn't be considered a valid definition.
If we were to allow every individual to determine the standard by which each word were defined, there'd be no such thing as dictionary, because everyone would have their own, personal definition of each word.
So, it's not "stretching" to say a word means one of the things that the dictionary says it means.
Here is an example: ! Using "literally" to mean figuratively, to the point that Websters now lists "literally" as a term that means "virtually"! "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally" - If that isn't a sufficiently obvious case (for you) of an accepted definition of a word that stretches it to the point of losing it's meaning then perhaps vocabulary lessons in English are in order?
That's just a consequence of rampant stupidity combined with that whole "PC" notion that you're not allowed to offend anyone. It's fucking moronic, and in no way has any bearing on or reflects the conversation we're having here. "Violence" has meant "to cause harm" for a long, long, long time.
Harm is not hurt.
Every thesaurus, ever, disagrees with that assertion, including this one
Financial loss is not pain. A business is not a person.
OK, subjectively? I completely agree. However, our system of law is not based on my subjective opinion, and the system of law says that yes, they are people, and yes, financial loss is harm.
A sit-in is not violence.
Depends on which definition you're going by.
Hey, would you look at that! We just went full circle!
It doesn't negate my point, it's contrary evidence.
I do not think that means what you think it means.
Those aren't the same in a subjective world.
Yea, well, I try to look at the world objectively. Keeps me from sounding like a narcissistic prick most of the time.
Most of the time.