What do you have to say to convince us that you're right and we're wrong?
I didn't know those words even applied to subjective matters.
As I said, believe me or don't. But as long as it is written properly, there will likely be no more 'harm' in interpreting it literally than we inflict by interpreting it the way we do now (it's totally ignored right now).
They were concerned with including the principle, not an enumerated list of permissible common-law exceptions which could never be complete.
I don't expect them to write a list of common laws. I expect them to, for example, write that freedom of speech as limitations if that is what they were intending. I don't expect them to just list no exceptions (or at least write what type of speech is more valuable to them) and then ignore the constitution that they just wrote. If you intended it a certain way, then write it that way.
Common law has nothing to do with this. If you meant for it to be flexible, then make it that way. "Freedom of speech" doesn't sound flexible. What does that even mean?
As you've been told several times over now. Your only response is robotic "blah blah blah Constitution must be interpreted EXACTLY, and I know what it means, EXACTLY".
Well, of course. That's my belief. Should I be restating yours?
Then you're dumb. This isn't "prediction", it's history, and the participants in that history wrote an awful lot of stuff other than the Constitution. It's not hard to find out what they thought.
Even if you have all of their writing, finding out, with 100% accuracy, what they thought while writing the constitution (all of them) as well as the final agreements (which could include compromises) that they came up with is likely extremely difficult. What made it into the constitution is what made it in.
For example, all the retarded "social conservative" assholes deny up and down that the language in that very same amendment establishes a barrier between church and state.
It looks to me like it does.
They didn't think it needed to be spelled out that literally because to them, the language they were writing was clear.
Well, if some of the amendments stand for something other than what they wrote in it, then I have to wonder about their definition of "clear."
Actually, some of the amendments are pretty clear (the 'literal' interpretation is close to what you would see if you played guessing games with the founding fathers' thoughts at the time). Ambiguous and flexible, even. That wasn't so difficult.
They weren't perfect people.
Not necessary. As I said, interpretation is fine. Just take into account only things that are actually there and interpret it using the language when it was written.
because amending just to clarify language would never fly.
It's to clarify the final meaning. And it's supposed to be difficult to amend it. It's simply too bad if the original writers failed to write what they actually meant.
As I said, writing every possible law in the constitution isn't necessary. But state what you actually mean (in the constitution).
Your are a naive fool
Yes, yes. You're 100% correct and I'm 100% wrong. I've heard it before. Seemingly not accounting for any chance that you could be wrong is quite common, in my experience (and, in my opinion, quite arrogant).
Besides, this is a subjective matter. I'm saying what I think "should" be done. And you're doing the same.
who thinks that law should work like a computer program
I don't mind a bit of ambiguity or flexibility. But if that's what you intended, write it that way.
Except you aren't even a very good geek, because you think you should be able to blindly
Everyone, if well informed would support legalization.
Not necessarily. I support legalization of all drugs, but no matter how strong you personally think the 'facts' are, I'm sure there will always be at least a few people who oppose them. Perhaps they simply don't like drugs, and that's a good enough reason for them to support banning them for everyone.
Google just has to cover themselves so they don't get shut down completely.
Then perhaps we need to scrap such laws in the first place. If they lead to automated systems (which shouldn't exist even if they can't police it themselves) that generate tons of false-positives then they're doing more harm than good (in my opinion).
So you think it's worth spending the man hours to ensure your spam block is done right too?
Yes. And a spam blocker (which I think should be voluntary) is not the same thing as a DMCA take down notice that servers must comply to by law. What kind of analogy is this?
In the one case it is worth spending the man hours to ensure that it is done right.
Really? I think both cases are worth spending the man hours to ensure that it is done right. I'd rather not inconvenient innocents merely because there might be a copyright violation (Who cares?).
You say it's not important, but that is subjective.
and do you realize that almost EVERY animal hunts and eats each other? do you REALLY think most animals live bucolic lives just frolicking in the jungle? no, they are savagely slaughtering each other for food. you would not want to be an animal in the wild, it literally IS a jungle out there for them.
Everybody's doing it! Therefore, it's objectively okay for us to do it!
Mind informing us why anyone should care about your obsession
I didn't say that anyone "should" care. And I don't care about your opinions, either. I'll keep advocating for what I believe in.
A modicum of historical investigation should reveal to you that the people who wrote the Constitution probably thought it should be left relatively vague and flexible.
Then they should have written it that way. "Freedom of speech" isn't vague to me. It's perfectly clear what it means to me. Absolute freedom of speech. No exceptions were listed.
As I said, I don't care for guessing games. Trying to predict exactly what they (all of them) were thinking at the exact time that the constitution was written is, in my opinion, near impossible (documents or not). What made it into the constitution made it into the constitution. If you think it needs to be changed, then there is a process for that. Constitutional amendments. Good luck with that.
File sharing with the consent of copyright holder isn't really stealing, but a benefit to them... but getting my information after I agree to the terms of service is stealing and provides no benefit that I like!
What makes you think he thinks it's stealing? What makes you think he thinks that copyright infringement isn't stealing?
means the person didn't read their terms of service.
I doubt anyone has the time to read ridiculously long walls of text filled with legalese every single time they want to buy a product (which might not even allow them to read it until after they've bought it) or use a service.
I'm not saying it should be field day, but it's/. hypocrisy to decry the RIAA/MPAA for defending what they clearly own
Not everyone on Slashdot believes the same things. I don't think copyright infringement is stealing, and I don't think that getting someone's information is stealing, either.
Putting people in jail doesn't restrict their freedom to speak (or lessen it)?
damage that your speech causes.
I don't believe that exists. If I say "hello" to someone and that makes them go on a bloodthirsty rampage for some reason, would you say that my speech caused any damage? It's the people that actually commit the crimes and hurt others that are doing the damage.
I see nothing in the first amendment indicating that any of them are more or less important (subjective) than the others. Judges may have interpreted that way, but that doesn't mean it's in the constitution.
The argument is equivalent to: A murderer used many cars during his escape, since it is hard to pinpoint which one is his we should give up.
Not really. It's just that the nature of the internet makes it difficult to determine if the person actually did it. The person who really did it could be (depending on the circumstances) anywhere.
And your analogy, while slightly similar, demonstrates a crime that I think is far more severe. The fact of the matter is that confiscating equipment and such greatly inconveniences people (and they might not have even done it). And for what? Because someone, somewhere may or may not have lost potential profit? That's not worth investigating, in my opinion. Unless they can magically demonstrate that it definitely was that person, I couldn't care less.
I imagine he considers your statement that "I try to interpret everything exactly as it says" to be nonsensical because there has never been a text written that can be interpreted without knowing at least some context.
"Freedom of speech" obviously means "freedom of all speech except speech that I don't like." I 'interpreted' it there. I mean, what 'reasonable' person would want people to say things that they don't like?
I didn't say I was against all interpretation. Just that I would only interpret what was there.
One can either interpret a text in the context of what one knowns about the writer's state of mind
Guessing games. As I said, it would be difficult to accurately guess exactly what they were thinking at that specific point in time (even if you had some of their writing). I'd say the most accurate way of doing it is just to interpret what was actually written (and if they didn't intend for it to mean that, then they shouldn't have wrote it that way).
or one can interpret it in the context of one's own beliefs and prejudices.
Slashdot Mirror
then no movies will be made
I doubt that. I think there would most likely be less movies. But no movies? I think people will always make things just because they can.
Somewhere along the way people decided that because they can take something then it's right to take it
Or, in this case, "copy."
and they'll fight tooth and nail to stop anyone who dares interrupt their free ride.
This sounds almost like the idea that all people who support copyright are "corporate shills." It sounds like a generalization of the opposition.
but that doesn't mean that you should feel good about taking something you didn't pay for.
And there's nothing to suggest that people shouldn't feel good. About "copying" or "taking." It's a matter of opinion.
What do you have to say to convince us that you're right and we're wrong?
I didn't know those words even applied to subjective matters.
As I said, believe me or don't. But as long as it is written properly, there will likely be no more 'harm' in interpreting it literally than we inflict by interpreting it the way we do now (it's totally ignored right now).
They were concerned with including the principle, not an enumerated list of permissible common-law exceptions which could never be complete.
I don't expect them to write a list of common laws. I expect them to, for example, write that freedom of speech as limitations if that is what they were intending. I don't expect them to just list no exceptions (or at least write what type of speech is more valuable to them) and then ignore the constitution that they just wrote. If you intended it a certain way, then write it that way.
Common law has nothing to do with this. If you meant for it to be flexible, then make it that way. "Freedom of speech" doesn't sound flexible. What does that even mean?
As you've been told several times over now. Your only response is robotic "blah blah blah Constitution must be interpreted EXACTLY, and I know what it means, EXACTLY".
Well, of course. That's my belief. Should I be restating yours?
Then you're dumb. This isn't "prediction", it's history, and the participants in that history wrote an awful lot of stuff other than the Constitution. It's not hard to find out what they thought.
Even if you have all of their writing, finding out, with 100% accuracy, what they thought while writing the constitution (all of them) as well as the final agreements (which could include compromises) that they came up with is likely extremely difficult. What made it into the constitution is what made it in.
For example, all the retarded "social conservative" assholes deny up and down that the language in that very same amendment establishes a barrier between church and state.
It looks to me like it does.
They didn't think it needed to be spelled out that literally because to them, the language they were writing was clear.
Well, if some of the amendments stand for something other than what they wrote in it, then I have to wonder about their definition of "clear."
Actually, some of the amendments are pretty clear (the 'literal' interpretation is close to what you would see if you played guessing games with the founding fathers' thoughts at the time). Ambiguous and flexible, even. That wasn't so difficult.
They weren't perfect people.
Not necessary. As I said, interpretation is fine. Just take into account only things that are actually there and interpret it using the language when it was written.
because amending just to clarify language would never fly.
It's to clarify the final meaning. And it's supposed to be difficult to amend it. It's simply too bad if the original writers failed to write what they actually meant.
As I said, writing every possible law in the constitution isn't necessary. But state what you actually mean (in the constitution).
Your are a naive fool
Yes, yes. You're 100% correct and I'm 100% wrong. I've heard it before. Seemingly not accounting for any chance that you could be wrong is quite common, in my experience (and, in my opinion, quite arrogant).
Besides, this is a subjective matter. I'm saying what I think "should" be done. And you're doing the same.
who thinks that law should work like a computer program
I don't mind a bit of ambiguity or flexibility. But if that's what you intended, write it that way.
Except you aren't even a very good geek, because you think you should be able to blindly
But what about my right to not be offended? Can't we just arrest anyone who says something that I dislike? Otherwise, they'll hurt my self-esteem!
That would only happen if he sucked at manipulating others and/or is bad at covering up lies.
Everyone, if well informed would support legalization.
Not necessarily. I support legalization of all drugs, but no matter how strong you personally think the 'facts' are, I'm sure there will always be at least a few people who oppose them. Perhaps they simply don't like drugs, and that's a good enough reason for them to support banning them for everyone.
Google just has to cover themselves so they don't get shut down completely.
Then perhaps we need to scrap such laws in the first place. If they lead to automated systems (which shouldn't exist even if they can't police it themselves) that generate tons of false-positives then they're doing more harm than good (in my opinion).
No take down notice, but you still get my point. Eventually there would be one. Youtube simply uses the automated system to simplify the process.
So you think it's worth spending the man hours to ensure your spam block is done right too?
Yes. And a spam blocker (which I think should be voluntary) is not the same thing as a DMCA take down notice that servers must comply to by law. What kind of analogy is this?
In the one case it is worth spending the man hours to ensure that it is done right.
Really? I think both cases are worth spending the man hours to ensure that it is done right. I'd rather not inconvenient innocents merely because there might be a copyright violation (Who cares?).
You say it's not important, but that is subjective.
If they don't want to do it manually, then too bad for them. I'd rather let real violations go than allow them to send take down notices at random.
This is a real country with a real populace.
And? Who said otherwise?
and do you realize that almost EVERY animal hunts and eats each other? do you REALLY think most animals live bucolic lives just frolicking in the jungle? no, they are savagely slaughtering each other for food. you would not want to be an animal in the wild, it literally IS a jungle out there for them.
Everybody's doing it! Therefore, it's objectively okay for us to do it!
I doubt Google makes much money off of me just glancing at an ad (if that) and then forgetting about it. It's free to me, anyway (money-wise).
I think you've just described a lot of people in general.
If he doesn't like the world outside, he doesn't like it. Valid attitude.
But... what if someone thinks differently than me?
Mind informing us why anyone should care about your obsession
I didn't say that anyone "should" care. And I don't care about your opinions, either. I'll keep advocating for what I believe in.
A modicum of historical investigation should reveal to you that the people who wrote the Constitution probably thought it should be left relatively vague and flexible.
Then they should have written it that way. "Freedom of speech" isn't vague to me. It's perfectly clear what it means to me. Absolute freedom of speech. No exceptions were listed.
As I said, I don't care for guessing games. Trying to predict exactly what they (all of them) were thinking at the exact time that the constitution was written is, in my opinion, near impossible (documents or not). What made it into the constitution made it into the constitution. If you think it needs to be changed, then there is a process for that. Constitutional amendments. Good luck with that.
File sharing with the consent of copyright holder isn't really stealing, but a benefit to them... but getting my information after I agree to the terms of service is stealing and provides no benefit that I like!
What makes you think he thinks it's stealing? What makes you think he thinks that copyright infringement isn't stealing?
means the person didn't read their terms of service.
I doubt anyone has the time to read ridiculously long walls of text filled with legalese every single time they want to buy a product (which might not even allow them to read it until after they've bought it) or use a service.
I'm not saying it should be field day, but it's /. hypocrisy to decry the RIAA/MPAA for defending what they clearly own
Not everyone on Slashdot believes the same things. I don't think copyright infringement is stealing, and I don't think that getting someone's information is stealing, either.
Putting people in jail doesn't restrict their freedom to speak (or lessen it)?
damage that your speech causes.
I don't believe that exists. If I say "hello" to someone and that makes them go on a bloodthirsty rampage for some reason, would you say that my speech caused any damage? It's the people that actually commit the crimes and hurt others that are doing the damage.
I see nothing in the first amendment indicating that any of them are more or less important (subjective) than the others. Judges may have interpreted that way, but that doesn't mean it's in the constitution.
So clearly, interpreting everything exactly as it says is a bad idea, since it leads to self-contradictory results.
How is that self-contradictory? Who says that I'm against newspapers publishing secrets? The "enemy" is obviously 'evil'!
And I don't agree that it's a "bad idea." That was your opinion stated as a fact.
If you do not like the fact that the press are able to publish secrets, then support an amendment to the constitution.
and arbitrarily substituting what you think is roughly equivalent is unwise.
No, no. Judges are the ones doing that.
That sounds idiotic. Why not have the same standard of evidence everywhere?
The argument is equivalent to: A murderer used many cars during his escape, since it is hard to pinpoint which one is his we should give up.
Not really. It's just that the nature of the internet makes it difficult to determine if the person actually did it. The person who really did it could be (depending on the circumstances) anywhere.
And your analogy, while slightly similar, demonstrates a crime that I think is far more severe. The fact of the matter is that confiscating equipment and such greatly inconveniences people (and they might not have even done it). And for what? Because someone, somewhere may or may not have lost potential profit? That's not worth investigating, in my opinion. Unless they can magically demonstrate that it definitely was that person, I couldn't care less.
I imagine he considers your statement that "I try to interpret everything exactly as it says" to be nonsensical because there has never been a text written that can be interpreted without knowing at least some context.
"Freedom of speech" obviously means "freedom of all speech except speech that I don't like." I 'interpreted' it there. I mean, what 'reasonable' person would want people to say things that they don't like?
I didn't say I was against all interpretation. Just that I would only interpret what was there.
One can either interpret a text in the context of what one knowns about the writer's state of mind
Guessing games. As I said, it would be difficult to accurately guess exactly what they were thinking at that specific point in time (even if you had some of their writing). I'd say the most accurate way of doing it is just to interpret what was actually written (and if they didn't intend for it to mean that, then they shouldn't have wrote it that way).
or one can interpret it in the context of one's own beliefs and prejudices.
I believe the first will lead to the second.
Exactly. No matter what examples you come up with, I support absolute freedom of speech.
And although the situation is similar, this was far from a death threat. At most, it would be speech that offended them.