Yes, Google is technically allowed to do this if they so wish. But they're not exempt from criticism. I don't even have an account on any social networking websites, and I still think that this decision is stupid. Were it up to me (but it's not), people would be able to do things such as this without consequence.
popped collar pink shirt wearing frat losers
Sounds like you're lumping one group (people who display the middle finger) in with an unrelated group.
most of us understand but the middle finger isn't really protected
Free speech only really applies to the government. So no, Google is allowed to do this. But the government (congress) doing it would be another story.
However, that view should also leave me the right to criticize Mr. Middle Finger for being juvenile, obtuse and crass.
Indeed. I do not believe they should be free to censor your opinions (that they're "juvenile, obtuse, and crass"), either
Whether you like it or not, societal standards do exist.
They exist, but that doesn't mean they're good. For things like this, that cause no actual harm to anyone (depending on how the other person acts), I see no problem with. I'd have absolutely no problem with everyone going around giving everyone else the middle finger in public. I'm not easily offended.
Save the junior high school language and gestures for when you're with your buddies.
Or, if I wanted to, I could use them all the time (I'd prefer not to use them at all, though). But it's just your opinion that it's unfunny, offensive, or restricted to high schoolers (or with your "buddies").
Apparently if a majority of people find something offensive, it should be banned regardless of whether or not it inflicts any tangible harm upon them. I know these are Google's servers and they can do pretty much anything they want, but that doesn't exempt them from criticism.
And they can still only give their opinions about what is and is not civil.
The real problem I see is that some people think they have a right to not be offended. So what if someone gets offended by the middle finger (or something else)? Will that bring about the apocalypse? I say let them be offended.
we being every older than an angsty teenager mentally
Yes. Anyone with a different opinion than you is just an "angsty teenager."
finger is not really going to be missed.
That's your own opinion.
Your arguing just to argue. That's not productive to anyone.
I'm sure they have a different idea of what reality is than you. As is expected, they probably believe that they're as correct as you seem to believe you are.
I'll insult them too
Even if they are getting it for free (perhaps illegally), that doesn't exempt the artists from criticism.
But I'll keep on consuming it, because I have nothing better to do with my time.
Consuming "it"? "It" is probably more than one thing. While the first movie they downloaded might be good (And they might pay for it if it is. But who knows if they actually do?), that doesn't mean the second will also be good. And so on and so forth. Their tactic of trying before buying (or trying and never buying regardless of its quality, for whatever reason) remains.
In other words the software is good enough for him to use, but he claims it's not good enough to pay for.
Right. And I see nothing wrong with that. Someone can think that something is good while at the same time believing that its price is too high and therefore not worth buying.
Basically it's the same hypocrisy as the people that justify downloading pirate torrents of Hollywood movies on the basis that Hollywood movies are crap.
I think their argument is, "I think many Hollywood movies are awful. Therefore, I'm going to download ones that look interesting to me for free so that I don't end up buying a movie that I don't like."
there's not a single sane citizen of this country who, when properly educated on the bill's impact, would vote for such a thing
I've seen people that claim that because they think that piracy is bad, and this bill's stated intention is to stop piracy, that the bill is good. And then when told that this bill is likely not going to stop piracy and is not the 'right' way to go about solving the supposed problem, they say, "Then what should we do? We have to do something to combat these little thieves!"
Of course, I'm sure you don't think these people are "educated"...
Was that intended to debunk his arguments, or was it just a general observation?
Also, I don't see where he is a hypocrite. All I see him saying (maybe I'm wrong) is that we shouldn't forcibly get rid of something free (like free software) just so that the people who make non-free goods can make money. That's quite different than saying, "Everything should be free and people should work for free."
Will you let someone away with stating something as fact when it has some evidence for it, but more evidence against it?
Depends on how much evidence something has for or against it. What is the cutoff point? I don't know. I could only see how much evidence something has for or against it and discern that for myself. At most, I could only give you random arbitrary numbers.
so if I see a light in the sky enough times
I don't see how you could reach either of those conclusions. You saw a light, but you don't know what it is. At most, I think you could say, "I saw a light in the sky. That's a fact."
I don't care about their faith. The only actual evidence that is going to convince me is scientific evidence (or a number of very powerful personal experiences that simply couldn't be anything else).
Seemingly intelligent ones. Ones that I like. And if someone doesn't need to kill something to live, I don't think it should be done (as in, I don't care for killing for fun).
You said that you would always favor someone you know personally over someone you don't
You presented "what if" scenario where I had to choose between the life of two beings. That is quite different than making laws, I think.
but an overwhelming majority of people, especially women, would save an endangered infant over a pet, no matter how beloved.
Really? How do you know that? I'm not saying that it isn't true, but I wouldn't expect that.
There are many situations in which a decision favoring the life of an animal over a person's would also be criminally negligent.
I think that's ridiculous. If you had to choose between the two, the accident (or whatever it was) wasn't your fault, and you actually tried to save one of them, I don't see why that would be.
I can definitely state that I'm against such laws.
it is wrong to kill whales for food
But I don't believe in objective rights or wrongs. Some (probably most) people might think it's wrong, though. I was just saying that I don't believe that there is some sort of magical moral fairy (or something) that has determined that it is absolutely wrong to kill whales and other such 'intelligent' animals.
But in my opinion, they shouldn't be hunting whales.
Okay. But if I see someone state something as a fact, and I think that that something has no evidence for or against it, I'm going to call them out on it.
Just my opinion.
Well, I'm more than 99.9% confident that the aforementioned chocolate teapot doesn't exist - and I suspect you are too.
It's not in his body, so yes. What should happen? Should the father's opinion override the mother's? I just think that the mother's decision should be the one that matters since she's the one carrying the parasite.
I don't know anything about that. Does the father have a say right now?
That said, I was only saying that the mother should be able to have an abortion at any time. But the baby isn't in the father's body, is it? Why should he be able to force her through the pregnancy (I don't think he should be able to)? If the father wanted a child, then I think that's just too bad for him.
Slashdot Mirror
idiotic
Subjective.
Yes, Google is technically allowed to do this if they so wish. But they're not exempt from criticism. I don't even have an account on any social networking websites, and I still think that this decision is stupid. Were it up to me (but it's not), people would be able to do things such as this without consequence.
popped collar pink shirt wearing frat losers
Sounds like you're lumping one group (people who display the middle finger) in with an unrelated group.
most of us understand but the middle finger isn't really protected
Free speech only really applies to the government. So no, Google is allowed to do this. But the government (congress) doing it would be another story.
However, that view should also leave me the right to criticize Mr. Middle Finger for being juvenile, obtuse and crass.
Indeed. I do not believe they should be free to censor your opinions (that they're "juvenile, obtuse, and crass"), either
Whether you like it or not, societal standards do exist.
They exist, but that doesn't mean they're good. For things like this, that cause no actual harm to anyone (depending on how the other person acts), I see no problem with. I'd have absolutely no problem with everyone going around giving everyone else the middle finger in public. I'm not easily offended.
Save the junior high school language and gestures for when you're with your buddies.
Or, if I wanted to, I could use them all the time (I'd prefer not to use them at all, though). But it's just your opinion that it's unfunny, offensive, or restricted to high schoolers (or with your "buddies").
Because apparently they don't care about that as much as they do about middle fingers.
Whatever the majority finds offensive should be banned.
Apparently if a majority of people find something offensive, it should be banned regardless of whether or not it inflicts any tangible harm upon them. I know these are Google's servers and they can do pretty much anything they want, but that doesn't exempt them from criticism.
The fact that they can do it doesn't mean they're exempt from criticism.
"Reasonable" is subjective.
Again, so what if people get offended?
The middle finger gesture is offensive
Certainly not to me. I don't advocate removing things that are offensive to the majority for the sole reason that they are offensive to the majority.
The population and society in general.
And they can still only give their opinions about what is and is not civil.
The real problem I see is that some people think they have a right to not be offended. So what if someone gets offended by the middle finger (or something else)? Will that bring about the apocalypse? I say let them be offended.
we being every older than an angsty teenager mentally
Yes. Anyone with a different opinion than you is just an "angsty teenager."
finger is not really going to be missed.
That's your own opinion.
Your arguing just to argue. That's not productive to anyone.
What is productive? Agreeing with you?
And the reality
I'm sure they have a different idea of what reality is than you. As is expected, they probably believe that they're as correct as you seem to believe you are.
I'll insult them too
Even if they are getting it for free (perhaps illegally), that doesn't exempt the artists from criticism.
But I'll keep on consuming it, because I have nothing better to do with my time.
Consuming "it"? "It" is probably more than one thing. While the first movie they downloaded might be good (And they might pay for it if it is. But who knows if they actually do?), that doesn't mean the second will also be good. And so on and so forth. Their tactic of trying before buying (or trying and never buying regardless of its quality, for whatever reason) remains.
In other words the software is good enough for him to use, but he claims it's not good enough to pay for.
Right. And I see nothing wrong with that. Someone can think that something is good while at the same time believing that its price is too high and therefore not worth buying.
Basically it's the same hypocrisy as the people that justify downloading pirate torrents of Hollywood movies on the basis that Hollywood movies are crap.
I think their argument is, "I think many Hollywood movies are awful. Therefore, I'm going to download ones that look interesting to me for free so that I don't end up buying a movie that I don't like."
And hypocrisy really isn't an argument.
there's not a single sane citizen of this country who, when properly educated on the bill's impact, would vote for such a thing
I've seen people that claim that because they think that piracy is bad, and this bill's stated intention is to stop piracy, that the bill is good. And then when told that this bill is likely not going to stop piracy and is not the 'right' way to go about solving the supposed problem, they say, "Then what should we do? We have to do something to combat these little thieves!"
Of course, I'm sure you don't think these people are "educated"...
neither is a sensible position
Since the entire issue seems to be based on mere preference, I'd have to say that that is subjective.
you're a hypocrite.
Was that intended to debunk his arguments, or was it just a general observation?
Also, I don't see where he is a hypocrite. All I see him saying (maybe I'm wrong) is that we shouldn't forcibly get rid of something free (like free software) just so that the people who make non-free goods can make money. That's quite different than saying, "Everything should be free and people should work for free."
Not on this earth.
Not yet, anyway.
Does anything really matter? I don't think so. If I see someone doing either, I'll probably call them out on it.
Will you let someone away with stating something as fact when it has some evidence for it, but more evidence against it?
Depends on how much evidence something has for or against it. What is the cutoff point? I don't know. I could only see how much evidence something has for or against it and discern that for myself. At most, I could only give you random arbitrary numbers.
so if I see a light in the sky enough times
I don't see how you could reach either of those conclusions. You saw a light, but you don't know what it is. At most, I think you could say, "I saw a light in the sky. That's a fact."
I don't care about their faith. The only actual evidence that is going to convince me is scientific evidence (or a number of very powerful personal experiences that simply couldn't be anything else).
What animals warrant such consideration from you?
Seemingly intelligent ones. Ones that I like. And if someone doesn't need to kill something to live, I don't think it should be done (as in, I don't care for killing for fun).
Can't I say that something is wrong
You could, but unless you state that as an opinion, I'll probably ask you for evidence of absolute morals.
Do you believe that unendangered, nonsentient animals should also not be hunted?
Depends on the animal.
You said that you would always favor someone you know personally over someone you don't
You presented "what if" scenario where I had to choose between the life of two beings. That is quite different than making laws, I think.
but an overwhelming majority of people, especially women, would save an endangered infant over a pet, no matter how beloved.
Really? How do you know that? I'm not saying that it isn't true, but I wouldn't expect that.
There are many situations in which a decision favoring the life of an animal over a person's would also be criminally negligent.
I think that's ridiculous. If you had to choose between the two, the accident (or whatever it was) wasn't your fault, and you actually tried to save one of them, I don't see why that would be.
I can definitely state that I'm against such laws.
it is wrong to kill whales for food
But I don't believe in objective rights or wrongs. Some (probably most) people might think it's wrong, though. I was just saying that I don't believe that there is some sort of magical moral fairy (or something) that has determined that it is absolutely wrong to kill whales and other such 'intelligent' animals.
But in my opinion, they shouldn't be hunting whales.
You can't disentangle evidence from expectation
Okay. But if I see someone state something as a fact, and I think that that something has no evidence for or against it, I'm going to call them out on it.
Just my opinion.
Well, I'm more than 99.9% confident that the aforementioned chocolate teapot doesn't exist - and I suspect you are too.
I don't know where these numbers come from.
Yet you seem unhappy with calling that a fact.
I don't really feel any emotion towards it.
What you observe is not facts.
I thought you'd be able to figure out what I meant. All I meant what that I don't do things like question my own existence (nothing that extreme).
It's not in his body, so yes. What should happen? Should the father's opinion override the mother's? I just think that the mother's decision should be the one that matters since she's the one carrying the parasite.
Do you refuse to state anything as fact, then?
No. Just things that have no evidence for or against them.
it seems absurd to say that nonexistence of x isn't a fact when we're 99.9% confident that x doesn't exist
99.9% sure of what? If that was a "what if" scenario, then go ahead and state it as a fact.
I don't know anything about that. Does the father have a say right now?
That said, I was only saying that the mother should be able to have an abortion at any time. But the baby isn't in the father's body, is it? Why should he be able to force her through the pregnancy (I don't think he should be able to)? If the father wanted a child, then I think that's just too bad for him.