It all depends on how you define "wrong" to begin with. Certainly, if someone believes that what they and someone else did was "wrong," that would be correct.
What if relevant or irrelevant for them is for them to determine. Perhaps they can use their brains and determine the consequences of what would happen if everyone did the same thing. Their brains don't turn to mush (as far as I know). Emotions aren't necessary to determine what will likely happen if you do something.
certainly immoral and unethical
Since it is easily possible for someone to have a different idea of what is "immoral," then the same could be said about anyone.
Most have a hard time consistently applying the rules about breaking the law and being punished.
"Most"? I wonder if "most" sociopaths have even been found.
Then they would likely commit all manner of atrocities large and small because they would get no visceral sense of wrong.
Well, "wrong" is subjective to begin with. The fact that someone doesn't feel emotions does not mean they will go out and commit "atrocities." Even people without emotions (or regret) have brains and can work out the consequences of their actions (breaking the law could get them arrested and their actions could hurt society).
And I didn't mean to imply that there is some absolutely perfect solution out there. I just meant that I want to decrease the chances of abuse by making the act of confiscating domains more difficult (by requiring due process).
I see. So because not everything is done right, the government should have no power to shut down conterfeit operations, smugglers, scam outfits, etc.
No, but before being able to confiscate a domain, I think a court case is in order. As someone else said, it is absolutely trivial for them to take down websites. Not so much for physically having to do it. By requiring that they go through the proper procedures, you decrease the chances of this happening.
Everyone has painful and/or embarrassing things in their lives
Can you prove that? That's an interesting thing to claim because not only did you probably not ask everyone this, but even if you did, how could you be sure (or even close to sure) that you are right? I doubt you can read minds.
Yours don't bother you much because not dwelling on such things causes them to fade in your memory
What if you remember things that would normally embarrass/emotionally scar a "normal" person but feel absolutely nothing from it?
I merely want to find out why this isn't possible.
We can trust the government with the power to confiscate domains because they're the government. Surely they couldn't ever do anything wrong, right? They only get the big, bad criminals!
The burden of proving that their website didn't have copyrighted content on it is on the person whose domain was confiscated. Having to go to court for things such as this would just burden the government. What a bother! You don't want to burden the government, do you?
Therefore, you avoid a lot of nasty/bad behaviour because you know you will regret it.
But nasty and bad are both subjective. And if it isn't already illegal, then I probably don't care about it.
Except that society would fall apart if everybody did that.
That's why we have laws. That's where the "harm" comes from. There doesn't need to be any emotion involved to create laws. All there needs to be is a consensus that it would benefit society in the end.
And people with emotions commit crimes all the time. Oftentimes because of those emotions. The fact that someone doesn't feel regret (or doesn't feel much of it) won't necessarily make them commit a crime or abuse others. I haven't.
However, it only takes one more step for the emotionless to go from "well, I can get away with it because it isn't illegal" to "well, I'm so much smarter/more powerful than everyone else that I'll get away with it even if it is illegal."
That could be said about anyone (even people who have emotions). Those who have normal emotions still commit crimes (some feel justified, others feel they need to). Honestly, I don't think they're very intelligent if they think they can get away with it so easily (especially if others failed many times), so they're not much different from normal criminals. Like with normal people, it depends on the person (or sociopath).
And not feeling emotion towards past events probably doesn't ensure someone is a sociopath, anyway.
Remorse/regret is a very useful tool, in that it will help us prevent doing harmful things again in the future.
If doing something will likely cause you to be harmed in some way (not emotionally), then neither remorse or regret is necessary for someone to avoid it. They know what will likely happen, so they avoid it. Emotions aren't necessary to realize that much.
I disagree. I think it would be a positive thing. Well, certainly, they'd be somewhat different.
There's no point in regret that I see. It changes nothing. Feeling sad or angry changes nothing. Maybe some people would have trouble just not caring, but I think others wouldn't.
Imagine constantly reliving your most painful or embarrassing moments.
What painful or embarrassing moments? You might feel that way, but what is painful or embarrassing to you isn't necessarily painful or embarrassing to someone else. There's no reason that I see to be upset over a memory. There's likely nothing you can do to change it, so there's no point. For people that don't care, I don't think that remembering moments that would be painful or embarrassing to a normal person would matter. Or perhaps someone sees it as a good trade off.
I don't know. I don't see anything wrong with reusing the same arguments if they fit the situation (even if it's just copied and pasted). I'd just ignore them.
Those who do not apply heuristics such as ad hominem are vulnerable to ad nauseam.
If they're using the exact same argument over and over, then perhaps the solution would be to reuse your own arguments (not resort to using logical fallacies).
I don't know. Even though I agree that they shouldn't care, I don't think the guy that uploaded the photos and then tagged them without permission (to be "respectful" or something) is blameless.
The police don't have enough evidence to get you for one crime you allegedly committed, but it turns out you violated one of the thousands of "petty" laws in existence that they normally wouldn't go to such great lengths to enforce. Looks like an excuse!
Yes, but what they tell you is a different matter. I think it should mainly be about teaching people skills that they have the highest probability of needing in the future (and then having them pick optional things that suit them in high school).
If you read the comments, you will notice that some people are disagreeing with the large amount of money that they expect him to pay. Pointing out other examples in real life probably won't suddenly make them shift their opinions. Especially if they find it cruel and unusual.
Slashdot Mirror
It all depends on how you define "wrong" to begin with. Certainly, if someone believes that what they and someone else did was "wrong," that would be correct.
Hurting society is irrelevant to the sociopath.
What if relevant or irrelevant for them is for them to determine. Perhaps they can use their brains and determine the consequences of what would happen if everyone did the same thing. Their brains don't turn to mush (as far as I know). Emotions aren't necessary to determine what will likely happen if you do something.
certainly immoral and unethical
Since it is easily possible for someone to have a different idea of what is "immoral," then the same could be said about anyone.
Most have a hard time consistently applying the rules about breaking the law and being punished.
"Most"? I wonder if "most" sociopaths have even been found.
Then they would likely commit all manner of atrocities large and small because they would get no visceral sense of wrong.
Well, "wrong" is subjective to begin with. The fact that someone doesn't feel emotions does not mean they will go out and commit "atrocities." Even people without emotions (or regret) have brains and can work out the consequences of their actions (breaking the law could get them arrested and their actions could hurt society).
And I didn't mean to imply that there is some absolutely perfect solution out there. I just meant that I want to decrease the chances of abuse by making the act of confiscating domains more difficult (by requiring due process).
I see. So because not everything is done right, the government should have no power to shut down conterfeit operations, smugglers, scam outfits, etc.
No, but before being able to confiscate a domain, I think a court case is in order. As someone else said, it is absolutely trivial for them to take down websites. Not so much for physically having to do it. By requiring that they go through the proper procedures, you decrease the chances of this happening.
I have to wonder what's broken in your brain for you to have not noticed this.
What have I failed to notice? What does "common knowledge" have to do with anything?
using a standard term "everybody" in the in the non-literal sense
I see.
If you can't be emotionally hurt
What if someone could be emotionally hurt, but not by mere memories?
Everyone has painful and/or embarrassing things in their lives
Can you prove that? That's an interesting thing to claim because not only did you probably not ask everyone this, but even if you did, how could you be sure (or even close to sure) that you are right? I doubt you can read minds.
Yours don't bother you much because not dwelling on such things causes them to fade in your memory
What if you remember things that would normally embarrass/emotionally scar a "normal" person but feel absolutely nothing from it?
I merely want to find out why this isn't possible.
We can trust the government with the power to confiscate domains because they're the government. Surely they couldn't ever do anything wrong, right? They only get the big, bad criminals!
The burden of proving that their website didn't have copyrighted content on it is on the person whose domain was confiscated. Having to go to court for things such as this would just burden the government. What a bother! You don't want to burden the government, do you?
You can trust that the government won't confiscate any other domains because, well, they're the government! Who doesn't trust them?
Therefore, you avoid a lot of nasty/bad behaviour because you know you will regret it.
But nasty and bad are both subjective. And if it isn't already illegal, then I probably don't care about it.
Except that society would fall apart if everybody did that.
That's why we have laws. That's where the "harm" comes from. There doesn't need to be any emotion involved to create laws. All there needs to be is a consensus that it would benefit society in the end.
And people with emotions commit crimes all the time. Oftentimes because of those emotions. The fact that someone doesn't feel regret (or doesn't feel much of it) won't necessarily make them commit a crime or abuse others. I haven't.
However, it only takes one more step for the emotionless to go from "well, I can get away with it because it isn't illegal" to "well, I'm so much smarter/more powerful than everyone else that I'll get away with it even if it is illegal."
That could be said about anyone (even people who have emotions). Those who have normal emotions still commit crimes (some feel justified, others feel they need to). Honestly, I don't think they're very intelligent if they think they can get away with it so easily (especially if others failed many times), so they're not much different from normal criminals. Like with normal people, it depends on the person (or sociopath).
And not feeling emotion towards past events probably doesn't ensure someone is a sociopath, anyway.
Remorse/regret is a very useful tool, in that it will help us prevent doing harmful things again in the future.
If doing something will likely cause you to be harmed in some way (not emotionally), then neither remorse or regret is necessary for someone to avoid it. They know what will likely happen, so they avoid it. Emotions aren't necessary to realize that much.
there is something wrong with their brain
I disagree. I think it would be a positive thing. Well, certainly, they'd be somewhat different.
There's no point in regret that I see. It changes nothing. Feeling sad or angry changes nothing. Maybe some people would have trouble just not caring, but I think others wouldn't.
Imagine constantly reliving your most painful or embarrassing moments.
What painful or embarrassing moments? You might feel that way, but what is painful or embarrassing to you isn't necessarily painful or embarrassing to someone else. There's no reason that I see to be upset over a memory. There's likely nothing you can do to change it, so there's no point. For people that don't care, I don't think that remembering moments that would be painful or embarrassing to a normal person would matter. Or perhaps someone sees it as a good trade off.
Death is an inherently ugly thing.
Subjective. As far as I know, there is nothing "inherently ugly" about anything.
I don't know. I don't see anything wrong with reusing the same arguments if they fit the situation (even if it's just copied and pasted). I'd just ignore them.
All of his arguments are completely incorrect because I don't like the words that he used.
Those who do not apply heuristics such as ad hominem are vulnerable to ad nauseam.
If they're using the exact same argument over and over, then perhaps the solution would be to reuse your own arguments (not resort to using logical fallacies).
It seems to me that they just don't like how you play the game. If the server owners feel like banning them, though, fine.
I don't know. Even though I agree that they shouldn't care, I don't think the guy that uploaded the photos and then tagged them without permission (to be "respectful" or something) is blameless.
The police don't have enough evidence to get you for one crime you allegedly committed, but it turns out you violated one of the thousands of "petty" laws in existence that they normally wouldn't go to such great lengths to enforce. Looks like an excuse!
It's my opinion, that people who are against video cameras have never been assaulted on the street.
"If you experienced X, you would understand and agree with my position!"
That's a mere assumption. I don't agree with going to any lengths just to catch a few criminals (maybe).
Yes, but what they tell you is a different matter. I think it should mainly be about teaching people skills that they have the highest probability of needing in the future (and then having them pick optional things that suit them in high school).
So, a dollar a song nets 10,000.
Potentially.
it will be significantly more
If you read the comments, you will notice that some people are disagreeing with the large amount of money that they expect him to pay. Pointing out other examples in real life probably won't suddenly make them shift their opinions. Especially if they find it cruel and unusual.