It works in either case. The problem is that people are only thinking in the short-term. You just have to accept the chance that one of the major parties that you don't like will win.
If you vote a third party, then candidate you prefer from the front runners is less likely to win.
Indeed. However, if you believe that the two main parties are no good, then continuing to vote for one of them is not helping you. You must accept this as a trade off and start voting for third parties and encourage others to do the same.
The system is broken and needs to be replaced by something that can handle this problem
Why would the two main parties want that? Not much can be done until they are replaced.
I don't even know what you're talking about. I made no mention of my opinions on occupy wallstreet or anything of the sort. All I did was mention that I thought it was stupid to assume that someone 'loses' an argument merely because they insulted their opponent. That's all my post meant to imply.
Can you show where in his writing there is a logical equivalent to "I thenk that 2 + 2 = 5!" ?
Do you know what an analogy is (perhaps that wasn't the best of analogies)? That was in response to his claim that someone 'loses' an argument merely because they insulted their opponent.
Then how does one 'win' or 'lose' an argument? Do you 'win' an argument just by being you? Does your opponent 'lose' an argument because they did/said something that you don't like? How does it work, and who determines who 'wins' or 'loses'?
It is likely that people will always die no matter what measures we take.
I'm sure that installing security cameras in homes might prevent some deaths. Maybe. Perhaps banning cars, knifes, or pretty much anything would prevent some deaths. But would you say doing that is a good thing? I wouldn't. But apparently freedom if worthless if a few people are dying (perhaps not even that).
I don't believe in perfect solutions, and I'd prefer not to be recorded wherever I go merely because a tiny portion of the population happens to be criminals.
must be weighted against the right of a cab driver not to be killed.
The cab driver has never lost that right. The only ones who even infringe upon it are criminals. To me, this is no better than the "terrorism" excuse. "Some people are criminals. Therefore, privacy is not allowed!"
Would you advocate removing CCTV cameras from convenience stores?
Yes. Honestly, I think society is too obsessed with the idea of perfection. As long as it is even remotely possible that a crime could happen, cameras must be installed! Somehow we managed to do without them in the past, and the result wasn't too catastrophic (as far as I know). I don't care for the idea of being recorded wherever I go (even in public places). It's not really like being watched by another person, either. A person has to actually be there to see you, a person doesn't have eyes and ears everywhere, and a person typically doesn't have a near-perfect memory.
Of course, that is just my opinion. I also wouldn't prefer a law forbidding the use of the cameras. I think it should be a choice (although I do think using them is idiotic in most cases).
That's how it works right now. And to change that, you don't just give up and vote for one of the two main parties. The chances of changing anything might be slim right now, but they (as far as I know) aren't nonexistent.
Seems to be nearly the same thing there. The only difference is that they used a different excuse (we're currently using terrorism as an excuse). "Some people might get robbed. Therefore, these cameras are necessary!"
The only reason you don't rape and murder is because you'd be punished if you did, right?
Definitely. As I've played many violent video games, I already have the mentality of a murderer. The only thing that is keeping me from murdering people indiscriminately is my fear of being punished!
Secondly, protesting Wall Street rather than the seat of government also makes it damn clear that they're protesting the financial system and situation, not just being generic angry people.
But aren't they being seen as "generic angry people," anyway?
"I thenk that 2 + 2 = 5!" "You're an idiot. 2 + 2 = 4. Also, learn how to spell!" "You just lost the argument by calling me names and nitpicking my spelling and grammar! Therefore, 2 + 2 = 5."
Unless I just don't know what it means to "lose" an argument.
I think that they need to grow up and live in the real world.
Are they still trapped in the matrix or something? What is the "real world"? Is it whatever ideas you agree with?
barring civil and human rights issues
So because you don't think the issue is important enough, it isn't? I've always thought that simply following the majority because they are a majority is a bad idea.
So what "civil liberties" are you referring to, then? I'm confused. If Mexico makes a decision in that regard, which civil liberty would you be deprived of, exactly?
I see. So if it does not happen to me, it does not matter? What civil liberties would I lose if the government decided that all African Americans had no rights? Well, me being a white person, technically nothing. But I still would be against it. Is it so strange to be against decisions that don't affect me? I'm also against many of the decisions that China's government makes.
Your implied desire to impose your morals and standards upon other people - in this case the people of Nuevo Laredo - without their consent is what makes you wrong
You had better not impose your morals and standards upon murderers (by sending them to prison). That's just "wrong."
By the way, who told you that it is "wrong"? The magical moral fairy? Because if that is your only argument (that it is somehow "wrong"), then I'll just say that I disagree.
You know, cuz if you break your CD and then restore it from backup instead of buying it again you are robbing the publishers of their profits.
You most certainly are. You're potentially causing them to lose potential profit. That's the exact same thing as stealing money that someone already has and is legally theirs.
And they do. But that has little to do with the copies that other people possess.
What gives you the right to claim them as your own or as the public's?
Perhaps the government. Perhaps yourself. Perhaps the magical rights fairy. It really just depends on who you think grants rights. What gives you the right to do anything?
I guess I should have clarified that I was really talking about myself. A single person or a small fraction of a group shouldn't discredit an entire movement, in my opinion. You're probably right that it would in some people's eyes, though.
Maybe instead of trying to hide everything from the children (by stopping the advertising), things should be explained instead. I like that option better than pretending such things don't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Not much worse than they're doing now (depending on how you define "worse"). It's not as if we have no checks and balances whatsoever.
Or you could always keep voting in the same two parties over and over forever.
It works in either case. The problem is that people are only thinking in the short-term. You just have to accept the chance that one of the major parties that you don't like will win.
If you vote a third party, then candidate you prefer from the front runners is less likely to win.
Indeed. However, if you believe that the two main parties are no good, then continuing to vote for one of them is not helping you. You must accept this as a trade off and start voting for third parties and encourage others to do the same.
The system is broken and needs to be replaced by something that can handle this problem
Why would the two main parties want that? Not much can be done until they are replaced.
I don't even know what you're talking about. I made no mention of my opinions on occupy wallstreet or anything of the sort. All I did was mention that I thought it was stupid to assume that someone 'loses' an argument merely because they insulted their opponent. That's all my post meant to imply.
Can you show where in his writing there is a logical equivalent to "I thenk that 2 + 2 = 5!" ?
Do you know what an analogy is (perhaps that wasn't the best of analogies)? That was in response to his claim that someone 'loses' an argument merely because they insulted their opponent.
That's what I thought, too. But apparently you automatically lose an argument merely by insulting your opponent.
Then how does one 'win' or 'lose' an argument? Do you 'win' an argument just by being you? Does your opponent 'lose' an argument because they did/said something that you don't like? How does it work, and who determines who 'wins' or 'loses'?
It is likely that people will always die no matter what measures we take.
I'm sure that installing security cameras in homes might prevent some deaths. Maybe. Perhaps banning cars, knifes, or pretty much anything would prevent some deaths. But would you say doing that is a good thing? I wouldn't. But apparently freedom if worthless if a few people are dying (perhaps not even that).
I don't believe in perfect solutions, and I'd prefer not to be recorded wherever I go merely because a tiny portion of the population happens to be criminals.
must be weighted against the right of a cab driver not to be killed.
The cab driver has never lost that right. The only ones who even infringe upon it are criminals. To me, this is no better than the "terrorism" excuse. "Some people are criminals. Therefore, privacy is not allowed!"
Would you advocate removing CCTV cameras from convenience stores?
Yes. Honestly, I think society is too obsessed with the idea of perfection. As long as it is even remotely possible that a crime could happen, cameras must be installed! Somehow we managed to do without them in the past, and the result wasn't too catastrophic (as far as I know). I don't care for the idea of being recorded wherever I go (even in public places). It's not really like being watched by another person, either. A person has to actually be there to see you, a person doesn't have eyes and ears everywhere, and a person typically doesn't have a near-perfect memory.
Of course, that is just my opinion. I also wouldn't prefer a law forbidding the use of the cameras. I think it should be a choice (although I do think using them is idiotic in most cases).
That's how it works right now. And to change that, you don't just give up and vote for one of the two main parties. The chances of changing anything might be slim right now, but they (as far as I know) aren't nonexistent.
Seems to be nearly the same thing there. The only difference is that they used a different excuse (we're currently using terrorism as an excuse). "Some people might get robbed. Therefore, these cameras are necessary!"
The only reason you don't rape and murder is because you'd be punished if you did, right?
Definitely. As I've played many violent video games, I already have the mentality of a murderer. The only thing that is keeping me from murdering people indiscriminately is my fear of being punished!
Secondly, protesting Wall Street rather than the seat of government also makes it damn clear that they're protesting the financial system and situation, not just being generic angry people.
But aren't they being seen as "generic angry people," anyway?
"I thenk that 2 + 2 = 5!"
"You're an idiot. 2 + 2 = 4. Also, learn how to spell!"
"You just lost the argument by calling me names and nitpicking my spelling and grammar! Therefore, 2 + 2 = 5."
Unless I just don't know what it means to "lose" an argument.
I wonder if it's also the American Dream to make generalizations and straw men.
There are only two choices, after all...
I think that they need to grow up and live in the real world.
Are they still trapped in the matrix or something? What is the "real world"? Is it whatever ideas you agree with?
barring civil and human rights issues
So because you don't think the issue is important enough, it isn't? I've always thought that simply following the majority because they are a majority is a bad idea.
Stealing it happens because you want something that you don't have.
Or, in this case, copying.
morally
According to whose morals?
Since you brought up entitlement, people who think they are entitled to content for free are equally douchebags.
That would depend on who you ask.
So what "civil liberties" are you referring to, then? I'm confused. If Mexico makes a decision in that regard, which civil liberty would you be deprived of, exactly?
I see. So if it does not happen to me, it does not matter? What civil liberties would I lose if the government decided that all African Americans had no rights? Well, me being a white person, technically nothing. But I still would be against it. Is it so strange to be against decisions that don't affect me? I'm also against many of the decisions that China's government makes.
Your implied desire to impose your morals and standards upon other people - in this case the people of Nuevo Laredo - without their consent is what makes you wrong
You had better not impose your morals and standards upon murderers (by sending them to prison). That's just "wrong."
By the way, who told you that it is "wrong"? The magical moral fairy? Because if that is your only argument (that it is somehow "wrong"), then I'll just say that I disagree.
You know, cuz if you break your CD and then restore it from backup instead of buying it again you are robbing the publishers of their profits.
You most certainly are. You're potentially causing them to lose potential profit. That's the exact same thing as stealing money that someone already has and is legally theirs.
Should one not have the right to one's creations?
And they do. But that has little to do with the copies that other people possess.
What gives you the right to claim them as your own or as the public's?
Perhaps the government. Perhaps yourself. Perhaps the magical rights fairy. It really just depends on who you think grants rights. What gives you the right to do anything?
I guess I should have clarified that I was really talking about myself. A single person or a small fraction of a group shouldn't discredit an entire movement, in my opinion. You're probably right that it would in some people's eyes, though.
People who make outrageous claims simply discredit their own movement.
At most, they simply discredit themselves. And even then, that would only apply to the "outrageous claim" itself.
How offensive! My entire life is just... ruined.
Maybe instead of trying to hide everything from the children (by stopping the advertising), things should be explained instead. I like that option better than pretending such things don't exist.