You were offended (I magically know this). Therefore, it's true. You need to get a life.
Much like how you can tell if someone is a homosexual if you call them one and they get offended (and if they're not one already, they magically turn into one).
Stop being so greedy and entitled. Here in America (or any other country that's better than third world countries), we have it great. Therefore, you have no right to complain.
After all, things could be worse (which doesn't apply to people in, say, Africa because I said so). If things could be worse, that means your current situation is good!
I'm done arguing with people like you to whom compassion and empathy are alien.
What makes you think that compassion and empathy are alien to me, personally?
Or with people like you who think that it's arrogant to know when one is right because of overwhelming experience underpinning the facts and logic.
But that's just it. Who doesn't believe that they are correct? Why else would we be having an argument? Most people would claim to "know" something, I'm sure. I think that allowing for the possibility that you may be wrong makes you open-minded.
I've also found arguing with solipsists to be the most boring waste of time. In the end, you have to believe that something can be known by shared experience. If you don't, there's no way for you to know that my argument, and I, am not simply a hallucination beggaring your own self doubts.
Who says that I don't? I merely said that I think you should allow for the possibility that you may be wrong at all times. That does not mean you have to go insane pondering everything.
And just because a lot of people feel something, that does not mean that my suggestions (control your emotions, get over things quickly, don't get angry/sad about things that you can't change, etc) are impossible. It just means that it's not widespread (which likely doesn't mean that it's wrong).
In this case I am not.
Let me try the same thing: Of course I can be wrong. In this case I am not.
Your argument is like saying the harm from punching someone in the face comes from the face being in the way of the fist, not from the fist hitting the face.
No. It's like saying that after something has already happened, emotional harm can probably be avoided (or heavily mitigated). If you've already been punched in the face, pain or damage likely cannot be avoided (or, at least, it's more difficult to do so).
In actual reality, the harm does come from people's reactions to the image, which will be to devalue the person pictured.
My point was that the "harm" is in peoples' minds.
and in where you can't tell but it still has an effect.
If you can't tell, then I don't see where that can even cause emotional harm.
The only way to be so desensitized that you don't care is to
Or realize that getting upset is pointless. What does it fix? Nothing. Even getting over it quickly or controlling your emotions would be an improvement, in my opinion.
Healthy people have a sense of privacy.
"Healthy"? If by that you mean the average person, then probably. But you can both have a sense of privacy (preferring it) and not care if it's "violated."
That is why I said "everyone knows".
But that's not necessarily true.
You evidently don't know, or won't admit it.
Or I just disagree.
You should see a psychologist, or someone else who can help you develop some empathy.
When did I say that I was one of those people? Or did you just assume that I was based on the arguments that I made?
You'll feel better, even if now you think you can't and shouldn't feel anything.
That's an assumption. You actually likely don't know if someone would feel better. They might, or they might not. People are different.
If you can't relate to what I'm saying even after I explain it clearly so there's no confusion, you have a lack of empathy so deep that you could benefit from psychological help.
As I said previously, you state things in a way that seemingly allows for no disagreement. It's as if you cannot be wrong and anyone who disagrees with you must be 100% incorrect. If that is what you think, I believe it is quite arrogant.
Yes, because if it does them no harm, they have no reason (except inconvenience) to decline to post them.
The "harm" isn't done from posting the image itself. The "harm" comes from peoples' reactions to the image (the people that are around you, not the ones that just view it). The only "harm" that could be inflicted upon you is emotional harm, but if you're desensitized/don't care, that would not happen. Whatever emotional harm is inflicted upon them is done by themselves.
There is no real harm being inflicted upon you that can't be avoided (except if someone forced you to pose for the picture). The problem, I think, is that humans are too emotional.
except inconvenience
And preference. For instance, someone could think, "I would prefer that a naked picture of myself not be posted on the internet. If it happened, however, I wouldn't care." In other words, they would derive more enjoyment out of it not being posted. That doesn't mean they have to feel angry or sad about it being posted.
Everyone knows that posting naked pictures of people do them harm.
You state that in a way that allows for no disagreement. "In your heart, you know that God exists."
Every further viewer of the picture does the person some harm, even if they can't tell directly, especially after some scale of harm.
How? What harm is done if someone that you don't even know views a naked picture of yourself and then does nothing with it?
There's nothing factually "wrong" with them (as far as I know). The fact that humans stick labels on people does not mean that there is something wrong with those people. They themselves might eventually agree that there is (not certain), and most people might agree that there is, but that does not mean that there is.
Yes. Because saying that no harm will result from it implies that he wants to take naked pictures of people and post them...
And whether or not it does any harm is up to the "victim" to decide. If someone somehow gets a hold of a naked picture of someone and looks at it, I doubt the person in the photo would even know in the first place (it's not as if additional "harm" is added with each view).
You might be "supporting" any number of things just by visiting a website, but I don't think that means that they should blame you for it. I believe the actual harm is caused by the people actually doing it in the first place.
Even someone that is pro-copyright could object to these laws/decisions. From shutting off peoples' internet connections because they are accused of copyright infringement to things such as this (and lobbying).
I'm sorry, but I simply don't see the potential loss of potential profit as that big of a deal. Certainly not big enough of a deal that I'd suggest legislation would could harm innocents.
But they're not abusing the children themselves, and the "damage" they cause is probably small (there probably needs to be quite a few of them for it to even be sustainable).
And they're not necessarily even supporting the producers at all (they could get it elsewhere, unknowingly to the producer).
I don't work for the FBI or anything studying serial killers but I don't think we need a psych major here to tell you that certain fantasies tended to be acted upon more than others.
You might not need to be a psych major, but I will ask for some proof of this. I don't see why that would be (and even if a seemingly "reasonable" explanation is given, I'd still like some proof). Now we just need to read everyone's minds, find out who fantasizes about what, and then try to determine which fantasies are acted out more often than others...
That's probably only true if they bought it. If they silently obtain it from elsewhere (the producers don't even know about it), then I don't see how that is.
How? He looked at them, yes, but what happened? As far as I know, nothing happened or resulted from that. The so-called "victim" probably doesn't even know if someone looked at it (how they got the pictures is another matter, I think).
Exactly. If some hacker or something abuses the exploit and harms the company (and perhaps all of its customers), then too bad for them. If they're going to act like this, just let it happen to them (the customers will love it).
And if machines are only efficient for a very short time (if that's what you're saying), then the problem is our system itself. That should not happen.
Techie simpletons think that everything should be done by machines.
If one thing is more efficient than another thing (assuming, of course, that it actually is more efficient), I'd rather use the thing that is more efficient. I don't believe that halting technological progress just so that some people can keep their jobs is intelligent. I think that society needs to adapt.
Slashdot Mirror
You were offended (I magically know this). Therefore, it's true. You need to get a life.
Much like how you can tell if someone is a homosexual if you call them one and they get offended (and if they're not one already, they magically turn into one).
In my opinion, absolutely nothing.
lots of people don't get life even half figured out by 50.
Or ever.
how would one cope with losing his friends/loved ones how either could not afford or would not want such medication?
Maybe the same way you cope with people dying now? Also, some people may not care about such a thing happening.
Stop being so greedy and entitled. Here in America (or any other country that's better than third world countries), we have it great. Therefore, you have no right to complain.
After all, things could be worse (which doesn't apply to people in, say, Africa because I said so). If things could be worse, that means your current situation is good!
I'm done arguing with people like you to whom compassion and empathy are alien.
What makes you think that compassion and empathy are alien to me, personally?
Or with people like you who think that it's arrogant to know when one is right because of overwhelming experience underpinning the facts and logic.
But that's just it. Who doesn't believe that they are correct? Why else would we be having an argument? Most people would claim to "know" something, I'm sure. I think that allowing for the possibility that you may be wrong makes you open-minded.
I've also found arguing with solipsists to be the most boring waste of time. In the end, you have to believe that something can be known by shared experience. If you don't, there's no way for you to know that my argument, and I, am not simply a hallucination beggaring your own self doubts.
Who says that I don't? I merely said that I think you should allow for the possibility that you may be wrong at all times. That does not mean you have to go insane pondering everything.
And just because a lot of people feel something, that does not mean that my suggestions (control your emotions, get over things quickly, don't get angry/sad about things that you can't change, etc) are impossible. It just means that it's not widespread (which likely doesn't mean that it's wrong).
In this case I am not.
Let me try the same thing: Of course I can be wrong. In this case I am not.
Your argument is like saying the harm from punching someone in the face comes from the face being in the way of the fist, not from the fist hitting the face.
No. It's like saying that after something has already happened, emotional harm can probably be avoided (or heavily mitigated). If you've already been punched in the face, pain or damage likely cannot be avoided (or, at least, it's more difficult to do so).
In actual reality, the harm does come from people's reactions to the image, which will be to devalue the person pictured.
My point was that the "harm" is in peoples' minds.
and in where you can't tell but it still has an effect.
If you can't tell, then I don't see where that can even cause emotional harm.
The only way to be so desensitized that you don't care is to
Or realize that getting upset is pointless. What does it fix? Nothing. Even getting over it quickly or controlling your emotions would be an improvement, in my opinion.
Healthy people have a sense of privacy.
"Healthy"? If by that you mean the average person, then probably. But you can both have a sense of privacy (preferring it) and not care if it's "violated."
That is why I said "everyone knows".
But that's not necessarily true.
You evidently don't know, or won't admit it.
Or I just disagree.
You should see a psychologist, or someone else who can help you develop some empathy.
When did I say that I was one of those people? Or did you just assume that I was based on the arguments that I made?
You'll feel better, even if now you think you can't and shouldn't feel anything.
That's an assumption. You actually likely don't know if someone would feel better. They might, or they might not. People are different.
If you can't relate to what I'm saying even after I explain it clearly so there's no confusion, you have a lack of empathy so deep that you could benefit from psychological help.
As I said previously, you state things in a way that seemingly allows for no disagreement. It's as if you cannot be wrong and anyone who disagrees with you must be 100% incorrect. If that is what you think, I believe it is quite arrogant.
Yes, because if it does them no harm, they have no reason (except inconvenience) to decline to post them.
The "harm" isn't done from posting the image itself. The "harm" comes from peoples' reactions to the image (the people that are around you, not the ones that just view it). The only "harm" that could be inflicted upon you is emotional harm, but if you're desensitized/don't care, that would not happen. Whatever emotional harm is inflicted upon them is done by themselves.
There is no real harm being inflicted upon you that can't be avoided (except if someone forced you to pose for the picture). The problem, I think, is that humans are too emotional.
except inconvenience
And preference. For instance, someone could think, "I would prefer that a naked picture of myself not be posted on the internet. If it happened, however, I wouldn't care." In other words, they would derive more enjoyment out of it not being posted. That doesn't mean they have to feel angry or sad about it being posted.
Everyone knows that posting naked pictures of people do them harm.
You state that in a way that allows for no disagreement. "In your heart, you know that God exists."
Every further viewer of the picture does the person some harm, even if they can't tell directly, especially after some scale of harm.
How? What harm is done if someone that you don't even know views a naked picture of yourself and then does nothing with it?
lack of moral
What is a "lack of moral"? The fact that their morals are different than yours or most peoples' does not mean that they have no morals at all.
There's nothing factually "wrong" with them (as far as I know). The fact that humans stick labels on people does not mean that there is something wrong with those people. They themselves might eventually agree that there is (not certain), and most people might agree that there is, but that does not mean that there is.
And? I think automatically assuming that you stole them without any evidence (at least not that I can see in your scenario) is idiotic.
Yes. Because saying that no harm will result from it implies that he wants to take naked pictures of people and post them...
And whether or not it does any harm is up to the "victim" to decide. If someone somehow gets a hold of a naked picture of someone and looks at it, I doubt the person in the photo would even know in the first place (it's not as if additional "harm" is added with each view).
You might be "supporting" any number of things just by visiting a website, but I don't think that means that they should blame you for it. I believe the actual harm is caused by the people actually doing it in the first place.
But you're being tempted to join in, and some will.
Like how some people might commit crimes with a car.
will respond to any kind of attention they get, even if it's just comments or download hits.
This seems to be an assumption about what some of them might do.
In any case, I still think they should just go after the producers.
the evil pirates
Evil by whose standards?
The problem is that for 99.99% of the fucks out there, they just want free shit
Interesting. How do you know the motivations of 99.99% of all pirates?
steal
I'd just say "copy."
Even someone that is pro-copyright could object to these laws/decisions. From shutting off peoples' internet connections because they are accused of copyright infringement to things such as this (and lobbying).
I'm sorry, but I simply don't see the potential loss of potential profit as that big of a deal. Certainly not big enough of a deal that I'd suggest legislation would could harm innocents.
this "person" is creating demand.
But they're not abusing the children themselves, and the "damage" they cause is probably small (there probably needs to be quite a few of them for it to even be sustainable).
And they're not necessarily even supporting the producers at all (they could get it elsewhere, unknowingly to the producer).
Not all fantasies are equal.
According to you, at least. But that is likely subjective.
I don't work for the FBI or anything studying serial killers but I don't think we need a psych major here to tell you that certain fantasies tended to be acted upon more than others.
You might not need to be a psych major, but I will ask for some proof of this. I don't see why that would be (and even if a seemingly "reasonable" explanation is given, I'd still like some proof). Now we just need to read everyone's minds, find out who fantasizes about what, and then try to determine which fantasies are acted out more often than others...
Anyone who has it is fueling that abuse.
That's probably only true if they bought it. If they silently obtain it from elsewhere (the producers don't even know about it), then I don't see how that is.
I would certainly consider that "harm."
How? He looked at them, yes, but what happened? As far as I know, nothing happened or resulted from that. The so-called "victim" probably doesn't even know if someone looked at it (how they got the pictures is another matter, I think).
Exactly. If some hacker or something abuses the exploit and harms the company (and perhaps all of its customers), then too bad for them. If they're going to act like this, just let it happen to them (the customers will love it).
Beware of jumping to the conclusions
I just said it to confirm it.
And if machines are only efficient for a very short time (if that's what you're saying), then the problem is our system itself. That should not happen.
Techie simpletons think that everything should be done by machines.
If one thing is more efficient than another thing (assuming, of course, that it actually is more efficient), I'd rather use the thing that is more efficient. I don't believe that halting technological progress just so that some people can keep their jobs is intelligent. I think that society needs to adapt.
In other words, it appears that your concept of ownership may be different from mine.