No. The point about the current system not being broken is that the current system isn't broken. That's a point by itself. I see that argument all over, and I don't think it makes sense.
If they wanted to say that on-line voting has problems (and they did), then they could have just done that. I don't think there's any need to say that the current system isn't broken.
You're not giving them money either way. Not only that, but do you really think they believe that DRM helps stop piracy? I believe they know that it doesn't. And if they don't, I'd say it's ultimately their own fault and that they are fools.
What do you mean? I'm pretty sure that freedom of speech is almost useless if authority figures try to censor you by silencing you because you said something that they didn't like (if the law states that what you said was protected speech).
Then you may as well have said "It's subjective" as your reply to the other poster and left your entire argument at that.
I basically said that. "Some may disagree."
Is your only point that acceptability is subjective?
When I say "It is not acceptable", it should be obvious that what is meant is "I don't believe that it is acceptable". I am giving my opinion.
You think that it is obvious? Since there appears to be many people who believe in the existence of absolute morals, I'd say that it is not so obvious.
You are revealing that you think indecisiveness is ok even in critical situations.
I don't think it's indecisiveness. They merely reached a new conclusion quickly.
Yes, that's my opinion.
Then perhaps you should state it as one.
Making a decision is not predicting the future, it is choosing a course of action.
A course of action that you likely can't be sure that you'll be able to follow through with. You seem to be saying that it's impossible for a human being to be held back by emotion in such a critical situation. I don't think that it is.
Following through on that is a large part of what most of us call "character".
I'd call it "stubbornness" if you reached another conclusion but refused to change merely because you made another decision previously.
Ah right, but it's okay that there's no evidence that people were rioting for a specific cause?
Well, yes, I believe that it is okay to choose what you believe in. It's just a belief, after all. And, as I said, I said nothing about beliefs. That was you.
And if you're asking me if there's a possibility that something exists, then yes. Unless it has been proven wrong with 100% accuracy, I believe that there is (even if I don't believe in it).
I'm making the point to you that so pedantically abusing logic to try and make out you have a point is meaningless.
"Abusing logic"? What? I'd prefer whatever that is over making generalizations that you likely can't even know.
And stop "abusing logic" to try to make yourself seem as if you have a point. It's factually meaningless because I said so.
The fact is, there was no justification to the riots
That's your opinion. Some may disagree.
If someone wants to pretend there was some kind of cause behind it that's fine, but it's also bollocks
Can you prove that?
There is no cause in wrecking your own community for a bit of fun and greed, which is what it really came down to.
Fun and the belief the you are going to change something are two possible causes. I'm sure more exist that are unknown to me.
As others have said it doesn't really matter if there were one or two deluded individuals amongst the thousands of rioters who genuinely felt they were changing something in their own minds.
It matters to me. Otherwise, use of the word "nobody" was misplaced, I think. He didn't even state that in the form of an opinion.
they were wrong
"Wrong" about what?
What they did simply cannot be justified by any false cause they may wish to proclaim.
I believe that whether or not it can be justified depends on who you ask (since, in my opinion, that's just an opinion).
It makes them feel enlightened and intellectual to take the contrarian position. They think that being critical of their own species means they're really smart.
I wonder if generalizing and likely pretending to be able to read minds makes someone smart?
The goal of EVERY species on this planet is its continued survival, us included. Of course, not all species succeed.
That's not the goal of every individual, though. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Many humans really do seem to be very destructive and foolish. Perhaps they believe that such intelligence was wasted on a species which they perceive to be made almost entirely up of foolish, uncaring, and destructive individuals.
I just don't get this "HUMANS BAD" crap that so many are spewing.
They're not necessarily wrong since "bad" is likely subjective.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Then what is it? I'm pretty sure that freedom of speech is nothing more than the ability of someone to say something (some restrictions apply in most cases) without being punished by the government (or something similar).
You believe in Santa claus and the Easter bunny don't you?
No. I don't believe in them. Why would I? There's no evidence where evidence should be present.
Not only that, but you misinterpreted me. I didn't say that I believed that any of them thought that. I said that it was a possibility. I also have no reason that I see to believe that any of them thought anything. I don't know what they were thinking, and I doubt anyone else does either.
Yeah. My mistake. But whether or not I should do that would remain up to me (since I could hold everyone else to that standard and not bother with myself).
So they can't start it and play it when they have time (and eventually finish it)? If they're not doing that, then I'd say that they're just bored of it. If they have any time to finish the games at all, then they'd be able to do it eventually.
Plenty of things aren't broken. I'm sure very old computers weren't broken. That doesn't mean that improvements can't be made. But, under this mentality, nothing would ever likely improve. I'm not sure how on-line voting is reliable, but I don't believe that saying the previous system isn't broken is a very good argument against it.
The bad side is that you can get away on a technicalty
I don't think that's a bad side. To be honest, I don't think there should be a punishment at all. If "stupid" people listen to someone, then I think those "stupid" people are the ones who deserve to be punished. Of course, I don't expect that opinion to ever become law.
Except that some of them could have thought that looting and such would change things. You could say they're wrong, but that wouldn't change what they are thinking. Can you prove that none of them thought that?
Slashdot Mirror
Now that we've established that you're about 14
I think that's a nice example of guilt by association.
Well, it would still be censorship even if you think that it's "right."
and with Amazon they get a half decent DRM.
What a major advantage!
I have found that when it comes to the educated (people with a degree)
Yes. People with a degree are always educated.
No. The point about the current system not being broken is that the current system isn't broken. That's a point by itself. I see that argument all over, and I don't think it makes sense.
If they wanted to say that on-line voting has problems (and they did), then they could have just done that. I don't think there's any need to say that the current system isn't broken.
You're not giving them money either way. Not only that, but do you really think they believe that DRM helps stop piracy? I believe they know that it doesn't. And if they don't, I'd say it's ultimately their own fault and that they are fools.
What do you mean? I'm pretty sure that freedom of speech is almost useless if authority figures try to censor you by silencing you because you said something that they didn't like (if the law states that what you said was protected speech).
Then you may as well have said "It's subjective" as your reply to the other poster and left your entire argument at that.
I basically said that. "Some may disagree."
Is your only point that acceptability is subjective?
When I say "It is not acceptable", it should be obvious that what is meant is "I don't believe that it is acceptable". I am giving my opinion.
You think that it is obvious? Since there appears to be many people who believe in the existence of absolute morals, I'd say that it is not so obvious.
You are revealing that you think indecisiveness is ok even in critical situations.
I don't think it's indecisiveness. They merely reached a new conclusion quickly.
Yes, that's my opinion.
Then perhaps you should state it as one.
Making a decision is not predicting the future, it is choosing a course of action.
A course of action that you likely can't be sure that you'll be able to follow through with. You seem to be saying that it's impossible for a human being to be held back by emotion in such a critical situation. I don't think that it is.
Following through on that is a large part of what most of us call "character".
I'd call it "stubbornness" if you reached another conclusion but refused to change merely because you made another decision previously.
Ah right, but it's okay that there's no evidence that people were rioting for a specific cause?
Well, yes, I believe that it is okay to choose what you believe in. It's just a belief, after all. And, as I said, I said nothing about beliefs. That was you.
And if you're asking me if there's a possibility that something exists, then yes. Unless it has been proven wrong with 100% accuracy, I believe that there is (even if I don't believe in it).
I'm making the point to you that so pedantically abusing logic to try and make out you have a point is meaningless.
"Abusing logic"? What? I'd prefer whatever that is over making generalizations that you likely can't even know.
And stop "abusing logic" to try to make yourself seem as if you have a point. It's factually meaningless because I said so.
The fact is, there was no justification to the riots
That's your opinion. Some may disagree.
If someone wants to pretend there was some kind of cause behind it that's fine, but it's also bollocks
Can you prove that?
There is no cause in wrecking your own community for a bit of fun and greed, which is what it really came down to.
Fun and the belief the you are going to change something are two possible causes. I'm sure more exist that are unknown to me.
As others have said it doesn't really matter if there were one or two deluded individuals amongst the thousands of rioters who genuinely felt they were changing something in their own minds.
It matters to me. Otherwise, use of the word "nobody" was misplaced, I think. He didn't even state that in the form of an opinion.
they were wrong
"Wrong" about what?
What they did simply cannot be justified by any false cause they may wish to proclaim.
I believe that whether or not it can be justified depends on who you ask (since, in my opinion, that's just an opinion).
It makes them feel enlightened and intellectual to take the contrarian position. They think that being critical of their own species means they're really smart.
I wonder if generalizing and likely pretending to be able to read minds makes someone smart?
brainwashed sociopaths
How do you know that they are either?
justification (in their own minds)
Why would they need that? All you need to do to accomplish that is say, "I don't like this. Therefore, it's bad."
The goal of EVERY species on this planet is its continued survival, us included. Of course, not all species succeed.
That's not the goal of every individual, though. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Many humans really do seem to be very destructive and foolish. Perhaps they believe that such intelligence was wasted on a species which they perceive to be made almost entirely up of foolish, uncaring, and destructive individuals.
I just don't get this "HUMANS BAD" crap that so many are spewing.
They're not necessarily wrong since "bad" is likely subjective.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Then what is it? I'm pretty sure that freedom of speech is nothing more than the ability of someone to say something (some restrictions apply in most cases) without being punished by the government (or something similar).
You believe in Santa claus and the Easter bunny don't you?
No. I don't believe in them. Why would I? There's no evidence where evidence should be present.
Not only that, but you misinterpreted me. I didn't say that I believed that any of them thought that. I said that it was a possibility. I also have no reason that I see to believe that any of them thought anything. I don't know what they were thinking, and I doubt anyone else does either.
can you prove a presence of them?
No, but where did I say that I could? I was just commenting on his use of the word "nobody." I thought that it was technically incorrect.
And how do you know everyone else on the planet accepts the word "nobody" being used in a way that is technically "incorrect"?
Yeah. My mistake. But whether or not I should do that would remain up to me (since I could hold everyone else to that standard and not bother with myself).
No, but I'd expect that it would be. I can't prove that it is, though. Maybe not.
3) He has never heard of achievements to begin with.
And I wouldn't say that someone isn't "clever" merely because they didn't think of one thing.
So they can't start it and play it when they have time (and eventually finish it)? If they're not doing that, then I'd say that they're just bored of it. If they have any time to finish the games at all, then they'd be able to do it eventually.
Well, that's why I said "most things." If it's not an obvious joke or metaphor (or something).
That's just pedantic.
I don't think it's minor. I prefer to interpret most things by reading exactly what they wrote and not trying to guess what they "really" meant.
Plenty of things aren't broken. I'm sure very old computers weren't broken. That doesn't mean that improvements can't be made. But, under this mentality, nothing would ever likely improve. I'm not sure how on-line voting is reliable, but I don't believe that saying the previous system isn't broken is a very good argument against it.
The bad side is that you can get away on a technicalty
I don't think that's a bad side. To be honest, I don't think there should be a punishment at all. If "stupid" people listen to someone, then I think those "stupid" people are the ones who deserve to be punished. Of course, I don't expect that opinion to ever become law.
Except that some of them could have thought that looting and such would change things. You could say they're wrong, but that wouldn't change what they are thinking. Can you prove that none of them thought that?