It assumes not only that the person making such an argument is correct, but that the person in question actually will agree when they're older (cannot be known unless someone can see into the future), that they don't understand now but simply disagree, and that there are no adults or people older than yourself that disagree.
Ah... I also forgot to mention: even if it's true that the person will understand when they're older, the fact that their beliefs will change in the future is not an indication that their current beliefs are wrong. Their future beliefs might be the wrong ones.
but back then I was a teenager posting on slashdot, my arguments, opinions, and points were identical to the way yours currently are.
I hope you don't believe that this invalidates anything I believe. Mentioning someone's age doesn't invalidate anything that they say. It's just an ad hominem attack depending on how it's used.
I thought I had the whole world figured out
Even as an adult, I do not believe this. I do not believe this is true for anyone.
Everything is subjective
Not my claim.
copyright is evil
I do not believe in absolute morals, but it's true that I don't care for copyright.
freedom trumps all
Depends on the freedom. And it's just my opinion.
But you were probably talking about yourself, there.
Often young people don't like to be told "you'll understand when you are older", even though that is the most appropriate answer
If I had a kid, I'd teach them that this is, I believe, one of the most inappropriate non-answers that you can possibly receive. It assumes not only that the person making such an argument is correct, but that the person in question actually will agree when they're older (cannot be known unless someone can see into the future), that they don't understand now but simply disagree, and that there are no adults or people older than yourself that disagree.
And, I think worst of all, is that it proves nothing. I can literally use that argument to "prove" anything I please. "The world is flat. You'll understand that I'm right when you're older." Of course, I believe the suitable response to this would be to demonstrate that the world is indeed not flat, but that's exactly my point.
The only time I think it's valid is when you say, "Well, maybe you'll understand when you're older." That doesn't make so many assumptions. It only acknowledges a future possibility. That might be what you meant it to mean, but I've often seen the other version utilized by people who do not feel like explaining something and/or feel that ad hominem attacks prove their conclusions.
So since you insist you are not a child, just come out and state your age
Why would it matter? No matter what I say, you have no easy way to validate my claims (or invalidate them, for that matter). I could be quite easily lying.
And I try to be as vague as possible when talking about myself. Privacy is also something that I value greatly.
and give the reasons for your opinions
You do not agree with some of my opinions? I wonder how many people that's true for. There are seemingly many religious extremists, fanatics, and extremists that have seemingly no other reason for believing what they do outside of mere preference. Not all of them are children. Many of them are not.
What constitutes as a "reason"? What about the fact that it's something I prefer the most? Are preferences not a reason? If not, why? What makes your opinions any more "reasonable"?
Now I fully expect a 45 year old to reply to this pointing out how young and naive I am, but that I won't understand till I'm older:)
You'll understand why you're wrong when you're older.
However, there is a great deal of evidence to back up my point
That really depends on what qualifies as "evidence" to you. The "evidence" you've shown me so far hasn't been too convincing to me. In fact, you mentioned "life experience" earlier, but seemingly could not imagine a scenario where an adult could have never had anything other than broadband.
I could come up with some arbitrary standards to "prove" that you're a child, but unless I could actually prove you're a child (Why does it even matter?), I don't think that would accomplish much.
I do not believe that something should be banned because of what a few people do (commit suicide and other such things).
Yes, I greatly value freedom of speech. Some might even call me an extremist in that regard. I do not care. For a long time I have held those beliefs. Perhaps I'm simply too "closed-minded" to change them, depending on how you look at it. But are you trying to insinuate that there are no adult 'extremists'?
All of life is subjective. The only objective things are facts, which we can only know through our senses. And since our senses can lie, we don't know for certain that the way we see reality matches the way reality really is. Our sense are subjective. All we know is what we sense. EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, for all intense and purposes.
I've previously answered something similar to this. I feel that questioning your very existence and thoughts is a waste of time. You'd likely end up in an infinite loop. I don't expect people to do that, even if what you said holds some degree of truth. All I ask for is to mark simple things that are subjective as subjective. Even that is subjective.
"what you just said is subjective, so your argument is invalid."
Straw man. That isn't what I'm saying.
Some people truly believe that what they're saying is objective (people who believe in absolute morals, for instance). If you state something as a fact that I believe is subjective, I'll point out that I believe it's subjective.
But the pattern of your previous posts leads me to conclude that you would have the insane person euthanized
Really?
I enjoy them because they appear to be calculated to be as offensive as humanly possible
I don't find them offensive at all. I coincidentally hold viewpoints which are offensive to certain people.
as well as the polar opposite of logic
Oh? That's not too surprising to me that you'd say something like this about someone you disagree with. Most of my posts are merely stating my opinions. I do not see what is illogical about that.
common sense
Is this an appeal to popularity? I don't find it useful to listen to this "common sense." The "common" part, anyway.
basic decency
Your standards.
why is it that your reponse is to blame the victim for being sensitive
I do blame the victim even if they have no control over it. I also blame the perpetrator. But whether or not I think action should be taken against them is judged by me on a case by case basis.
Your stated reponse is that you value freedom of speech more than human life.
I do not believe that something should be banned because of what a few people do (commit suicide and other such things).
you are a preciously intelligent 14 year old who thinks his intelligence makes up for the lack of decades of life experience.
That sounds like both an assumption and a generalization. Unless you have the ability to read minds, of course.
And what do you mean by "life experience"? How is it relevant to my comments or my beliefs? And why are you bringing age into this?
But the fact that you never had an ISP prior to broadband
How did you come to such a conclusion?
is a dead giveaway that you are a young child with big ideas
Even if the above were true, do you have any idea how many technologically illiterate people there are? Of course, I do not know the exact number, but is it not possible that someone who isn't a child could have not had anything other than broadband? Is it not possible that they could have waited until much, much later to even get a computer in their homes? Some live(d) just fine without computers.
How many people have a reason for owning muratic acid?
But "legitimate" is subjective. As I said, I think it's ridiculous that they make you prove your innocence. Just about anything can be used to commit a crime.
Besides, I think all drugs should be legal, anyway.
I think it's pretty ridiculous if they just assume you're probably guilty because they spot something that you may or may not be able to use for a crime.
I don't see how you came to that conclusion. The fact that you think he doesn't have the same feelings about this matter as you doesn't mean he isn't a parent. Completely unrelated matters.
I think so, yes. You took the drugs, and if you hurt anyone, it was due to your own actions. Secondary blame can be applied to almost anyone in existence (Why didn't someone stop you from taking the drugs?).
In fact, I think absolutely all drugs should be legal.
First of all find something fun to look at while exercising, then exercise is fun.
Too distracting. If I watch something while exercising, I don't really pay attention to it or care about it.
But even if the thing was fun to look at, it would be fun to look at the thing and not exercise. Like I said, some people find some physical activities fun, but I simply don't. I do them because I get something else out of them (like not being completely out of shape).
Everyone should have a least 1 sport they like to do...
I don't. Physical activities do not appeal to me at all. I exercise, but only so that I do not get completely out of shape (at no point do I find it entertaining).
Then it would sure suck for the idiot who decided to try and "stick it to the man" by admitting to intentionally withholding knowledge.
I think the real problem is that we allow courts to hold people in contempt of court indefinitely and without any real form of oversight. That seems extremely broken.
And how exactly do you plan on protecting copyright? By censoring/removing unauthorized copies? Then it's censorship regardless of whether or not you agree with it.
and if the internet would just simply route around it then this guy has nothing to worry about.
It might be possible to route around it, but it's still a hassle. And some people will inevitably get hit in the crossfire.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing that annoys me about the anti-security theater rant, is that in fact there is a non-zero value even to security theater.
If people are aware that it's security theater, I doubt it would make much of a difference.
It's enough of a deterrent that a lot of people simply will not try who might be convinced otherwise
I have no idea how anyone could possibly know that a "lot" of people were deterred by the security theater.
It assumes not only that the person making such an argument is correct, but that the person in question actually will agree when they're older (cannot be known unless someone can see into the future), that they don't understand now but simply disagree, and that there are no adults or people older than yourself that disagree.
Ah... I also forgot to mention: even if it's true that the person will understand when they're older, the fact that their beliefs will change in the future is not an indication that their current beliefs are wrong. Their future beliefs might be the wrong ones.
but back then I was a teenager posting on slashdot, my arguments, opinions, and points were identical to the way yours currently are.
I hope you don't believe that this invalidates anything I believe. Mentioning someone's age doesn't invalidate anything that they say. It's just an ad hominem attack depending on how it's used.
I thought I had the whole world figured out
Even as an adult, I do not believe this. I do not believe this is true for anyone.
Everything is subjective
Not my claim.
copyright is evil
I do not believe in absolute morals, but it's true that I don't care for copyright.
freedom trumps all
Depends on the freedom. And it's just my opinion.
But you were probably talking about yourself, there.
Often young people don't like to be told "you'll understand when you are older", even though that is the most appropriate answer
If I had a kid, I'd teach them that this is, I believe, one of the most inappropriate non-answers that you can possibly receive. It assumes not only that the person making such an argument is correct, but that the person in question actually will agree when they're older (cannot be known unless someone can see into the future), that they don't understand now but simply disagree, and that there are no adults or people older than yourself that disagree.
And, I think worst of all, is that it proves nothing. I can literally use that argument to "prove" anything I please. "The world is flat. You'll understand that I'm right when you're older." Of course, I believe the suitable response to this would be to demonstrate that the world is indeed not flat, but that's exactly my point.
The only time I think it's valid is when you say, "Well, maybe you'll understand when you're older." That doesn't make so many assumptions. It only acknowledges a future possibility. That might be what you meant it to mean, but I've often seen the other version utilized by people who do not feel like explaining something and/or feel that ad hominem attacks prove their conclusions.
So since you insist you are not a child, just come out and state your age
Why would it matter? No matter what I say, you have no easy way to validate my claims (or invalidate them, for that matter). I could be quite easily lying.
And I try to be as vague as possible when talking about myself. Privacy is also something that I value greatly.
and give the reasons for your opinions
You do not agree with some of my opinions? I wonder how many people that's true for. There are seemingly many religious extremists, fanatics, and extremists that have seemingly no other reason for believing what they do outside of mere preference. Not all of them are children. Many of them are not.
What constitutes as a "reason"? What about the fact that it's something I prefer the most? Are preferences not a reason? If not, why? What makes your opinions any more "reasonable"?
Now I fully expect a 45 year old to reply to this pointing out how young and naive I am, but that I won't understand till I'm older :)
You'll understand why you're wrong when you're older.
However, there is a great deal of evidence to back up my point
That really depends on what qualifies as "evidence" to you. The "evidence" you've shown me so far hasn't been too convincing to me. In fact, you mentioned "life experience" earlier, but seemingly could not imagine a scenario where an adult could have never had anything other than broadband.
I could come up with some arbitrary standards to "prove" that you're a child, but unless I could actually prove you're a child (Why does it even matter?), I don't think that would accomplish much.
That sounds like a good use of taxpayer money. We'll get those game copiers! The gains we get from doing so will be immeasurably high!
I do not believe that something should be banned because of what a few people do (commit suicide and other such things).
Yes, I greatly value freedom of speech. Some might even call me an extremist in that regard. I do not care. For a long time I have held those beliefs. Perhaps I'm simply too "closed-minded" to change them, depending on how you look at it. But are you trying to insinuate that there are no adult 'extremists'?
All of life is subjective. The only objective things are facts, which we can only know through our senses. And since our senses can lie, we don't know for certain that the way we see reality matches the way reality really is. Our sense are subjective. All we know is what we sense. EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, for all intense and purposes.
I've previously answered something similar to this. I feel that questioning your very existence and thoughts is a waste of time. You'd likely end up in an infinite loop. I don't expect people to do that, even if what you said holds some degree of truth. All I ask for is to mark simple things that are subjective as subjective. Even that is subjective.
"what you just said is subjective, so your argument is invalid."
Straw man. That isn't what I'm saying.
Some people truly believe that what they're saying is objective (people who believe in absolute morals, for instance). If you state something as a fact that I believe is subjective, I'll point out that I believe it's subjective.
But the pattern of your previous posts leads me to conclude that you would have the insane person euthanized
Really?
I enjoy them because they appear to be calculated to be as offensive as humanly possible
I don't find them offensive at all. I coincidentally hold viewpoints which are offensive to certain people.
as well as the polar opposite of logic
Oh? That's not too surprising to me that you'd say something like this about someone you disagree with. Most of my posts are merely stating my opinions. I do not see what is illogical about that.
common sense
Is this an appeal to popularity? I don't find it useful to listen to this "common sense." The "common" part, anyway.
basic decency
Your standards.
why is it that your reponse is to blame the victim for being sensitive
I do blame the victim even if they have no control over it. I also blame the perpetrator. But whether or not I think action should be taken against them is judged by me on a case by case basis.
Your stated reponse is that you value freedom of speech more than human life.
I do not believe that something should be banned because of what a few people do (commit suicide and other such things).
you are a preciously intelligent 14 year old who thinks his intelligence makes up for the lack of decades of life experience.
That sounds like both an assumption and a generalization. Unless you have the ability to read minds, of course.
And what do you mean by "life experience"? How is it relevant to my comments or my beliefs? And why are you bringing age into this?
But the fact that you never had an ISP prior to broadband
How did you come to such a conclusion?
is a dead giveaway that you are a young child with big ideas
Even if the above were true, do you have any idea how many technologically illiterate people there are? Of course, I do not know the exact number, but is it not possible that someone who isn't a child could have not had anything other than broadband? Is it not possible that they could have waited until much, much later to even get a computer in their homes? Some live(d) just fine without computers.
As it damn well should be.
That's pretty subjective. As is your use of the word "crap."
How many people have a reason for owning muratic acid?
But "legitimate" is subjective. As I said, I think it's ridiculous that they make you prove your innocence. Just about anything can be used to commit a crime.
Besides, I think all drugs should be legal, anyway.
I think it's pretty ridiculous if they just assume you're probably guilty because they spot something that you may or may not be able to use for a crime.
You're not a parent obviously.
I don't see how you came to that conclusion. The fact that you think he doesn't have the same feelings about this matter as you doesn't mean he isn't a parent. Completely unrelated matters.
Otherwise there are more important things in life than listening to some freeloaders moaning about copyright.
What does being opposed to draconian laws have to do with freeloaders?
If it could be worse, then the current situation is objectively good overall...
I think so, yes. You took the drugs, and if you hurt anyone, it was due to your own actions. Secondary blame can be applied to almost anyone in existence (Why didn't someone stop you from taking the drugs?).
In fact, I think absolutely all drugs should be legal.
It's quite harmful to the user as well as the bystander.
Merely taking the drug won't hurt anyone else. Your own actions might, however. But that's your fault.
Yes. Fortunately, the gun acts of its own accord and fires a bullet at someone. A person had absolutely nothing to do with it.
First of all find something fun to look at while exercising, then exercise is fun.
Too distracting. If I watch something while exercising, I don't really pay attention to it or care about it.
But even if the thing was fun to look at, it would be fun to look at the thing and not exercise. Like I said, some people find some physical activities fun, but I simply don't. I do them because I get something else out of them (like not being completely out of shape).
Everyone should have a least 1 sport they like to do...
I don't. Physical activities do not appeal to me at all. I exercise, but only so that I do not get completely out of shape (at no point do I find it entertaining).
But it's for the children! What if a child gets hurt somehow? We mustn't allow them to do anything!
Then it would sure suck for the idiot who decided to try and "stick it to the man" by admitting to intentionally withholding knowledge.
I think the real problem is that we allow courts to hold people in contempt of court indefinitely and without any real form of oversight. That seems extremely broken.
Really what the hell is wrong with that ? name me 1 wrong thing with that ?
Some people don't like it. I know I don't.
Protecting copyright isn't censorship
And how exactly do you plan on protecting copyright? By censoring/removing unauthorized copies? Then it's censorship regardless of whether or not you agree with it.
and if the internet would just simply route around it then this guy has nothing to worry about.
It might be possible to route around it, but it's still a hassle. And some people will inevitably get hit in the crossfire.
But they sure do excel at transforming them into cold-blooded murderers.
I just meant that the only reason I replied to you is because you said it would be stupid to have no screenings at all.
But it's their connection! Therefore, they are exempt from all criticism and he should do nothing if he disagrees with their policies.
Which doesn't mean that their actions are immune from criticism.