That's not knowing then. I said I think you have an obligation to know, not to think you know.
Good luck trying to predict what you'd do in such a situation with 100% accuracy. I doubt it's even possible.
That is not an adequate counter to any point in this discussion.
I think it is an adequate counter to your point that it's not acceptable (and that it's stupid). "I don't believe that it is acceptable."
It is unacceptable to be wrong in such a case as carrying and using lethal weapons.
Right. Now all we need is people who can predict the future with 100% accuracy and ensure that their emotions will never get in the way 100% of the time. That'll be easy.
Except that there is no proof, as far as I'm aware. How could someone possibly know what every single person there (thousands) was thinking? He said that "nobody involved cared about that." Nobody. That's a lot of people to be making such an absolute statement about.
That's not making a decision, that's being indecisive.
No. You certainly made the decision previously. However, really killing someone is another matter entirely. I for one believe that a person's emotions can affect their actions.
Yes it is stupid, no it is not acceptable.
Subjective.
If you are going to carry firearms, I think you have an obligation to society to KNOW whether you are willing to use it
I'm sure a lot of people "know" things; then they find out that they were "wrong."
you are then responsible for arming a criminal.
I doubt a criminal who truly wanted a firearm wouldn't already be armed. And while you'd technically be responsible for giving them a knife, I personally wouldn't blame the person very much. It's quite a grave and scary situation to most people. Some people might not be able to handle it (even if they thought they could previously, but it isn't like they can choose when to be attacked).
Did you read what I said? They could tell their friends about their accounts and their friends would know who they are. Thus, they would not be anonymous (but only to their friends).
And I don't see why you can't socialize with people you don't know. Whether you know them or not, you're still communicating with them.
You can decide either to kill or not to kill in self defence on a rational basis.
Since it's all likely based on preference anyway, I don't see how. Well, I guess emotions aren't inherently illogical.
If you decide to go armed, you should have already made the decision.
You did make the decision. However, what if someone can't follow through with it (even if they thought they could) at the last minute (because of emotion)?
Making life and death decisions stupidly is not acceptable in my view.
"Stupidly" is subjective. I'd say that most people would think that something is stupid if they do not like it.
If it is acceptable in yours, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But I'm not speaking of mine.
would in hindsight acknowledge that it was stupid.
That probably goes for most people that rely on emotions or act on emotion.
The question isn't about the propriety but rather the risk.
The risk is probably pretty small if you know what you're doing.
It takes a $1 to rent a movie from Redbox and about an hour to rip it on a Core i7.
Well, for people that do pirate these movies, they might not want to make any trips or sign up for any services. Or, if they're "greedy" by most peoples' standards, they might just want to save a dollar.
And perhaps the time it takes them to download it and such is irrelevant to them. All they're really doing most of that time is waiting, and typically, they can do other things while they wait. Maybe it just doesn't matter to them if it'll take a bit longer.
and you could wind up getting a bad encode
Probably not likely if you pay attention to comments (assuming they exist).
Because all of those people probably have nearly identical stories. And, really, I don't think it'd be all that interesting.
how is it not greedy of the collectors who download more movies than they'll ever watch just because they can't bear to be bored for 5 seconds and they feel entitled because they were born?
That depends on someone's opinion of copyright and such.
Why did you ask the question if you were basically going to answer it for me? Anyway, I can't say exactly how I'd feel (since that is probably a "bad" situation to most people), but even if I did change my views for some reason, that would not mean that my original views were wrong. If anything, it would indicate bias on my part.
But, to be honest, I don't see myself ever supporting the ban of something simply because a few people misuse it.
That's sort of odd considering some of the things you said in other parts of your comment. Unless I somehow misunderstood you, of course.
I certainly believe that the production of child pornography should be illegal (and it is, under laws pertaining to child abuse) and therefore I don't really see an issue with distribution and possession of it also being illegal. That isn't censorship, that is simply the application of relevant, existing law. The point is that someone had to actually *do* something illegal in the first place.
What? It's censoring information/content. I'd say that it is indeed censorship (whether or not you agree with it is a different matter). And the fact that someone did something illegal to make it doesn't make it not censorship to censor it.
Similarly with Hate/Offensive speech. If I'm telling people to go and kill infidels or burn down buildings, that is incitement to commit an offence, which is (and should be) illegal.
Whether or not it should be illegal is subjective, I think. However, it is still censorship to suppress such speech, even if it is illegal.
and anyway they are far more serious than the temporary suspension of access to fucking twitter.
Whether they're more serious or not is probably subjective. However, that is probably what most people think. Other than that, I agree with you that talking doesn't necessarily mean anything will actually happen.
There is no direct harm to them done by doing so. The particular argument that I replied to seemed to imply that banning things when only a few people abuse them is alright (because, if not, why not make killing legal?), which I disagree with. There is no way to kill someone without killing them. However, you can drive a car without killing someone (but a car can certainly be used to kill someone or escape from law enforcement). The same can be said about just about anything. I'd say the particular analogy he used is flawed.
and it's considerably more than just a few.
Really? Could you give a citation for that? As I said in another post, I'm not sure of the numbers.
Furthermore, I'm none too fond of killing in most circumstances. So, even if I accepted that analogy, I would still be against the unbanning of killing simply because I don't like it. That's not hypocritical since they're two different things.
I don't think that's a very good analogy. You can't kill someone without killing them, but it's possible to drive a car (or use a tool) without killing someone. And their intention is to hurt people in the first place. We're not even talking about criminals here. Rather, we are talking about going after the few people who abuse it (read: abuse).
Not only that, but you could probably use the same logic to advocate the banning of cars (or practically anything in existence).
Slashdot Mirror
That's not knowing then. I said I think you have an obligation to know, not to think you know.
Good luck trying to predict what you'd do in such a situation with 100% accuracy. I doubt it's even possible.
That is not an adequate counter to any point in this discussion.
I think it is an adequate counter to your point that it's not acceptable (and that it's stupid). "I don't believe that it is acceptable."
It is unacceptable to be wrong in such a case as carrying and using lethal weapons.
Right. Now all we need is people who can predict the future with 100% accuracy and ensure that their emotions will never get in the way 100% of the time. That'll be easy.
I'm sure a lot of laws don't agree with me. There's not a whole lot I can do about that.
Except that there is no proof, as far as I'm aware. How could someone possibly know what every single person there (thousands) was thinking? He said that "nobody involved cared about that." Nobody. That's a lot of people to be making such an absolute statement about.
That's not making a decision, that's being indecisive.
No. You certainly made the decision previously. However, really killing someone is another matter entirely. I for one believe that a person's emotions can affect their actions.
Yes it is stupid, no it is not acceptable.
Subjective.
If you are going to carry firearms, I think you have an obligation to society to KNOW whether you are willing to use it
I'm sure a lot of people "know" things; then they find out that they were "wrong."
you are then responsible for arming a criminal.
I doubt a criminal who truly wanted a firearm wouldn't already be armed. And while you'd technically be responsible for giving them a knife, I personally wouldn't blame the person very much. It's quite a grave and scary situation to most people. Some people might not be able to handle it (even if they thought they could previously, but it isn't like they can choose when to be attacked).
Nobody involved cared about that.
You're right. I used my amazing mind reading powers to verify that absolutely none of them cared about that at all.
Just like if you were to hire a hitman, you don't actually fire a bullet, so the sentence should be different?
I think so, yes.
Being social ... by definition is not anonymous.
Did you read what I said? They could tell their friends about their accounts and their friends would know who they are. Thus, they would not be anonymous (but only to their friends).
And I don't see why you can't socialize with people you don't know. Whether you know them or not, you're still communicating with them.
The story and the entertainment is what's worth paying for, not technology.
Whether something is worth paying for or not is up to the individual person to decide.
Why? Why not? What if someone tells their friends how to contact them on Google+? What exactly is wrong with that?
You can decide either to kill or not to kill in self defence on a rational basis.
Since it's all likely based on preference anyway, I don't see how. Well, I guess emotions aren't inherently illogical.
If you decide to go armed, you should have already made the decision.
You did make the decision. However, what if someone can't follow through with it (even if they thought they could) at the last minute (because of emotion)?
Making life and death decisions stupidly is not acceptable in my view.
"Stupidly" is subjective. I'd say that most people would think that something is stupid if they do not like it.
If it is acceptable in yours, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But I'm not speaking of mine.
would in hindsight acknowledge that it was stupid.
That probably goes for most people that rely on emotions or act on emotion.
The question isn't about the propriety but rather the risk.
The risk is probably pretty small if you know what you're doing.
It takes a $1 to rent a movie from Redbox and about an hour to rip it on a Core i7.
Well, for people that do pirate these movies, they might not want to make any trips or sign up for any services. Or, if they're "greedy" by most peoples' standards, they might just want to save a dollar.
And perhaps the time it takes them to download it and such is irrelevant to them. All they're really doing most of that time is waiting, and typically, they can do other things while they wait. Maybe it just doesn't matter to them if it'll take a bit longer.
and you could wind up getting a bad encode
Probably not likely if you pay attention to comments (assuming they exist).
Because all of those people probably have nearly identical stories. And, really, I don't think it'd be all that interesting.
how is it not greedy of the collectors who download more movies than they'll ever watch just because they can't bear to be bored for 5 seconds and they feel entitled because they were born?
That depends on someone's opinion of copyright and such.
Every single one of those features is forced upon you. How horrible!
And only 13% of their test group.
I know. It's awful! They're holding us at gunpoint and making us use all of the features we don't like!
Yeah, there is. But I still wouldn't support a ban on something just because a few people abuse it and hurt/kill others.
Why did you ask the question if you were basically going to answer it for me? Anyway, I can't say exactly how I'd feel (since that is probably a "bad" situation to most people), but even if I did change my views for some reason, that would not mean that my original views were wrong. If anything, it would indicate bias on my part.
But, to be honest, I don't see myself ever supporting the ban of something simply because a few people misuse it.
I think actions should be illegal, not thoughts.
That's sort of odd considering some of the things you said in other parts of your comment. Unless I somehow misunderstood you, of course.
I certainly believe that the production of child pornography should be illegal (and it is, under laws pertaining to child abuse) and therefore I don't really see an issue with distribution and possession of it also being illegal. That isn't censorship, that is simply the application of relevant, existing law. The point is that someone had to actually *do* something illegal in the first place.
What? It's censoring information/content. I'd say that it is indeed censorship (whether or not you agree with it is a different matter). And the fact that someone did something illegal to make it doesn't make it not censorship to censor it.
Similarly with Hate/Offensive speech. If I'm telling people to go and kill infidels or burn down buildings, that is incitement to commit an offence, which is (and should be) illegal.
Whether or not it should be illegal is subjective, I think. However, it is still censorship to suppress such speech, even if it is illegal.
and anyway they are far more serious than the temporary suspension of access to fucking twitter.
Whether they're more serious or not is probably subjective. However, that is probably what most people think. Other than that, I agree with you that talking doesn't necessarily mean anything will actually happen.
I don't think anything prevents them from criticizing them (even if they are "hypocrites).
but at this point, with the information and contect, it's unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Well, some may disagree. And what he's talking about is indeed censorship (whether people agree with it is another matter, though).
There is no direct harm to them done by doing so. The particular argument that I replied to seemed to imply that banning things when only a few people abuse them is alright (because, if not, why not make killing legal?), which I disagree with. There is no way to kill someone without killing them. However, you can drive a car without killing someone (but a car can certainly be used to kill someone or escape from law enforcement). The same can be said about just about anything. I'd say the particular analogy he used is flawed.
and it's considerably more than just a few.
Really? Could you give a citation for that? As I said in another post, I'm not sure of the numbers.
Furthermore, I'm none too fond of killing in most circumstances. So, even if I accepted that analogy, I would still be against the unbanning of killing simply because I don't like it. That's not hypocritical since they're two different things.
I don't think that's a very good analogy. You can't kill someone without killing them, but it's possible to drive a car (or use a tool) without killing someone. And their intention is to hurt people in the first place. We're not even talking about criminals here. Rather, we are talking about going after the few people who abuse it (read: abuse).
Not only that, but you could probably use the same logic to advocate the banning of cars (or practically anything in existence).
You can't use that argument against them. As authority figures, they are always right and can do no wrong!