The choice was patently obvious, but a *very* large number caved. Those who did not were highly distressed, over LINES.
Sounds like the type of people who would just go with what a majority says, or say that something is correct because a lot of people believe it to be correct (appeal to popularity).
Milgram's Obedience study: proved that the average person would electrocute someone to death if told to by an authority figure.
I really don't think I'd do such a thing. I'm not fond of appeals to authority, and I'd rather fight for my freedom than be forced to do pointless things such as that.
Either a.) you are a paragon among men (hats off to you) or b.) you have yet to have your own vulnerability proven to you.
I actually don't know if I am influenced or not. I'd say "no" because my behavior never actually changes, but when the arguments are something along the lines of, "but you don't notice it," then I'm not sure. You needn't be a paragon, either. Just a statistical anomaly. Actually, maybe not even that. In order to prove that someone is a statistical anomaly, they'd need to use most humans on the planet in a study (which hasn't been done so far, as far as I know).
If you aren't... pretty much the only way for a human not to be a social animal is to go live survive by himself in some wilderness without having learned to communicate.
Which is possible, is it not? I was merely pointing out that referring to every human in existence (and any that will come into existence) as some kind of "social creature" is a bit of an assumption.
The ones who aren't, however, are so far into statistical outlier territory they're pretty much not worth mentioning.
They're worth mentioning to me. Instead of, "humans are social creatures," I'd say, "most humans are social creatures." Though, that's just me.
but imagine being unable to forget gritty details as well.
For people that just don't care, that wouldn't matter (as in, people that aren't easily saddened or angered or people that don't feel emotions). I'd like to remember everything ("bad" things included).
I know I buy useless garbage that I see on commercials all the time, remember commercials for a long time (even though I forget what they were about almost instantly), and change my behavior (even though I don't). But they're clearly brainwashing me... even though they're not. They're magical!
Is it really okay to abandon millions of children to the ignorance dictated by their parents?
Can you prove that this actually happens? If it happens to some of them, I think that's a shame, but not enough to ban homeschooling entirely (I'm entirely against indoctrinating children with pointless religious beliefs and such).
but they get to hear what the rest of society says, too.
Right. Because after spending almost an entire day at a school, they have time to be taught at home, right? If you try to do both, the child will have almost zero free time (they have to sleep too, after all).
I think the current school system is terribly inefficient because it teaches children things that they will probably not even use. I think that they should teach them the basics at first, and then give them a choice later on (perhaps in high school). Forcing knowledge that is useless to them upon them is inefficient because not only does it waste their time, it could make them do poorly in subjects that are important to them (because they have less time to work on those specific subjects) and they will forget information that they do not use/care about anyway (from my experience, anyway). By the time they have to apply their knowledge, they'll probably have to relearn it anyway.
I did go to a public school (it wasn't a bad one, mind you). Even now I feel it was mostly a waste of my time (not that homeschooling would have been better in my situation, but public schools could be vastly improved). Assuming that most people wish to brainwash their children by homeschooling them is a bit rash, I think. Unless you have evidence to back that conclusion up, of course.
Sorry, but unless you're a mind reader, I don't see how you can state such a thing as an absolute fact. Again, you're just assuming that the only reason he would post that (a fact, no less) is because he is jealous. How do you know there aren't other reasons? Because you can't think of them? That doesn't mean that they don't exist. In this instance, he may have just wanted to inform readers about the kid's father's career and does not actually care about the kid's success. Who knows?
Not only that, but I don't see how it's relevant. Whether he is or isn't jealous does not make his arguments anymore correct or incorrect. You have to assess those individually.
Is what he said correct? Is/was his dad a robotics and AI researcher (looking at the article, that seems to be true)? Instantly assuming that he is jealous because he mentioned that (or because he gave criticism) doesn't make sense to me. I don't know whether he is jealous or not, and that's precisely why I wouldn't reach a conclusion about whether he is jealous or not. I have seen quite a few people use the "you're just jealous" argument whenever someone mentions something that could downplay a well-off person's accomplishment(s) or merely gives them criticism. Unless they explicitly state that they are jealous (if they said the opposite, people probably wouldn't believe them), I don't see how you could be sure whether they are or not. Of course, it doesn't matter either way.
Intent can be demonstrated through action and as a result of action
No, it can't. The fact that you can't think of anything else that it could be does not mean a reason does not exist, and the burden of proof is on you. But, as I said, I don't personally care about their intentions. I don't like thought crimes.
reasonable
Which is subjective.
Saying it was an artistic representation of the neo-political environment and not a threat is somehow lacking integrity.
I didn't say that, but whether it is or is not an artistic representation is subjective.
So I guess the only thing left to do is agree, that we do disagree and we will likely not change each others opinions on it.
I guess so.
This is actually good and well because in order to keep my opinion in check, we need people with your opinion forcing me to make a case. That alone will trim a lot of the abuse or potential abuse and lay the seed of ideas that will stop it from being abused for long in reality.
actually, you will find in most jurisdictions, there is a crime if intimidating a witness and possible retaliation of a witness in addition to any robbery crimes specifically because I wrote my name and sent it to specific people.
I didn't say the opposite. I'm talking about my own opinion.
You can't really argue that certain behavior such as speaking out against the government isn't already illegal.
And I definitely don't agree with it. I think all speech should be free, regardless of intent. The only thing I care about is actions.
You have the irrelevancy backwards though.
Sorry, but what is and isn't relevant (especially on a subject such as this) is subjective. I'm just giving my own opinion.
The behavior is the important parts
I disagree. I couldn't care less about what someone "thinks" or what their "intent" is. I just care about what they actually do (besides just conveying their thoughts).
Things like Wikileaks are good, because they deny privacy to other people.
I think it's good because my government's decisions can affect me greatly. They're mostly revealing information about the government as a whole, or when its workers are on the job. Any other information is useless.
it really is more complicated then this. Suppose I robbed a store and you were a witness to it. I send you an article from a dated Time Magazine about a crook who killed all the witnesses at his trial and their families but I scratch that crook's name out and write mine in.
The police would investigate it. The crime wasn't writing your name, it was the robbery (which they can't be sure you did yet). If they investigate and find that you didn't do anything, they should let you go.
Not really.. the people making the speech would still need the behavior and the behavior would still need to be something that was unacceptable to society.
And if certain behavior became unacceptable to society (such as speaking out against the government), then what? The situation is as follows: "I don't like what you said, but I can't arrest you based on that, so I'm going to say it's because of your behavior!" The point of freedom of speech is to protect speech. Behavior is completely and utterly irrelevant. I don't care for thought crimes (trying to guess someone's "intent").
I'd much rather risk a "terrorist" attack than give up any of my privacy or freedoms. Besides, spying on random people suspected of being terrorists is hardly a good method of apprehending so-called terrorists.
I think you will find that most people and the law would consider the act of harassment to be the problem, not the vehicle chosen to get it done
Well, to me, the vehicle chosen to get it done matters very much. If nothing physical is happening, they can likely choose whether or not to be offended. It all comes down to someone's mindset. If it's not physical harassment, it will only 'hurt' you if you let it. Not to say that what I think matters a whole lot when the laws are already laid out.
But the supreme court has upheld a surprisingly large set of limits on free speech.
And that doesn't make it constitutional, either. Just because the supreme court says it is in compliance with the constitution, that does not mean it is.
I would believe they would uphold this concept as constitutional as it's the behavior, not the speech that is in question.
You could literally limit any speech using this excuse. "It was their behavior, not the speech! They had an anti-government attitude, so we arrested them!" Yes, we are talking about harassment here, but the excuse used above could be used to limit any speech. Why stop at malicious intent? Because you don't like it? As long as they're just speaking, they've physically harmed no one, and whether or not the person was harmed is their own choice.
Not necessarily. Sometimes people might not actually hate the new layout, but instead dislike the fact that they have to get used to it for what they perceive to be no reason.
and here is how I know you have no clue what harassment is.
I know what it is. I just don't think that harassment done using mere words, images, or text is serious in the least.
If you have to change or alter your lifestyle and habits to avid someones malicious intent, then it is harassment.
You've explained that. I fully understand.
Second, you don't seem to be arguing what harassment is or isn't, you seem to be arguing what you don't want it to be
Is that what it looks like to you? I'm merely saying that I don't believe that harassment using mere words, images, or text is a serious issue in the least.
I get sick and tired of people crying that a law is how they do not like and no one is willing to change it
It's possible that they don't have the means to change it without enough public support, or they just don't think going through the effort is worth it (but posting their objections to it is quite easy, and maybe for some, perhaps even fun).
actually, whether you like it or not, speech has been limited for almost the entirety of the country when it is certain types or forms of speech as well when it uses certain vehicles of delivery.
And I'm well aware of that. That doesn't mean that it's constitutional, though (not that you said that it was).
Based on what we've observed thus far, yes. But it only takes one instance of that not happening to destroy that reality (however unlikely that is to occur). I'd say it's quite difficult to be 100% sure of much of anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Closer, but "all" doesn't accurately describe it (wherever that number came from).
have you never got annoyed at the people around you because they are all wrong
I don't really get annoyed by that. For one thing, I think it's difficult to be certain that they are wrong. Second of all, I just don't care.
The choice was patently obvious, but a *very* large number caved. Those who did not were highly distressed, over LINES.
Sounds like the type of people who would just go with what a majority says, or say that something is correct because a lot of people believe it to be correct (appeal to popularity).
Milgram's Obedience study: proved that the average person would electrocute someone to death if told to by an authority figure.
I really don't think I'd do such a thing. I'm not fond of appeals to authority, and I'd rather fight for my freedom than be forced to do pointless things such as that.
Either a.) you are a paragon among men (hats off to you) or b.) you have yet to have your own vulnerability proven to you.
I actually don't know if I am influenced or not. I'd say "no" because my behavior never actually changes, but when the arguments are something along the lines of, "but you don't notice it," then I'm not sure. You needn't be a paragon, either. Just a statistical anomaly. Actually, maybe not even that. In order to prove that someone is a statistical anomaly, they'd need to use most humans on the planet in a study (which hasn't been done so far, as far as I know).
If you're talking about yourself
I wasn't.
If you aren't... pretty much the only way for a human not to be a social animal is to go live survive by himself in some wilderness without having learned to communicate.
Which is possible, is it not? I was merely pointing out that referring to every human in existence (and any that will come into existence) as some kind of "social creature" is a bit of an assumption.
The ones who aren't, however, are so far into statistical outlier territory they're pretty much not worth mentioning.
They're worth mentioning to me. Instead of, "humans are social creatures," I'd say, "most humans are social creatures." Though, that's just me.
but imagine being unable to forget gritty details as well.
For people that just don't care, that wouldn't matter (as in, people that aren't easily saddened or angered or people that don't feel emotions). I'd like to remember everything ("bad" things included).
rational, from careful thought and instincts
I really don't see how desiring to live is necessarily logical.
Humans are social animals
I see some people talk about humans as if they are all the same. Why is it not possible for one of them to not be a "social animal"?
you yourself are easily influenced
It seems to me that that would depend on the person.
will only recognize it when you pay attention for it
Same as above.
Noone's immune
Can you prove this with 100% accuracy?
How about asking whether -advertising- is ethical?
Ethical by whose standards?
I know I buy useless garbage that I see on commercials all the time, remember commercials for a long time (even though I forget what they were about almost instantly), and change my behavior (even though I don't). But they're clearly brainwashing me... even though they're not. They're magical!
We can only care about one thing at a time, after all.
outlawing lions from playing with the gazelles
Other animals torture their prey. Therefore, it's "okay" (whatever that means, since morality is subjective anyway) if we do it!
Is it really okay to abandon millions of children to the ignorance dictated by their parents?
Can you prove that this actually happens? If it happens to some of them, I think that's a shame, but not enough to ban homeschooling entirely (I'm entirely against indoctrinating children with pointless religious beliefs and such).
but they get to hear what the rest of society says, too.
Right. Because after spending almost an entire day at a school, they have time to be taught at home, right? If you try to do both, the child will have almost zero free time (they have to sleep too, after all).
I think the current school system is terribly inefficient because it teaches children things that they will probably not even use. I think that they should teach them the basics at first, and then give them a choice later on (perhaps in high school). Forcing knowledge that is useless to them upon them is inefficient because not only does it waste their time, it could make them do poorly in subjects that are important to them (because they have less time to work on those specific subjects) and they will forget information that they do not use/care about anyway (from my experience, anyway). By the time they have to apply their knowledge, they'll probably have to relearn it anyway.
I did go to a public school (it wasn't a bad one, mind you). Even now I feel it was mostly a waste of my time (not that homeschooling would have been better in my situation, but public schools could be vastly improved). Assuming that most people wish to brainwash their children by homeschooling them is a bit rash, I think. Unless you have evidence to back that conclusion up, of course.
you have to accept that someone must have authority over them in the form of being a ward or guardian.
While I think that there should be a guardian or something similar, I don't see how one "must" accept this opinion. It is just an opinion, after all.
Rights are born with you
Can you prove this? The fact that I'm able to do something does not make it a "right."
decent human being
Subjective.
Sorry, but unless you're a mind reader, I don't see how you can state such a thing as an absolute fact. Again, you're just assuming that the only reason he would post that (a fact, no less) is because he is jealous. How do you know there aren't other reasons? Because you can't think of them? That doesn't mean that they don't exist. In this instance, he may have just wanted to inform readers about the kid's father's career and does not actually care about the kid's success. Who knows?
Not only that, but I don't see how it's relevant. Whether he is or isn't jealous does not make his arguments anymore correct or incorrect. You have to assess those individually.
Is what he said correct? Is/was his dad a robotics and AI researcher (looking at the article, that seems to be true)? Instantly assuming that he is jealous because he mentioned that (or because he gave criticism) doesn't make sense to me. I don't know whether he is jealous or not, and that's precisely why I wouldn't reach a conclusion about whether he is jealous or not. I have seen quite a few people use the "you're just jealous" argument whenever someone mentions something that could downplay a well-off person's accomplishment(s) or merely gives them criticism. Unless they explicitly state that they are jealous (if they said the opposite, people probably wouldn't believe them), I don't see how you could be sure whether they are or not. Of course, it doesn't matter either way.
Intent can be demonstrated through action and as a result of action
No, it can't. The fact that you can't think of anything else that it could be does not mean a reason does not exist, and the burden of proof is on you. But, as I said, I don't personally care about their intentions. I don't like thought crimes.
reasonable
Which is subjective.
Saying it was an artistic representation of the neo-political environment and not a threat is somehow lacking integrity.
I didn't say that, but whether it is or is not an artistic representation is subjective.
So I guess the only thing left to do is agree, that we do disagree and we will likely not change each others opinions on it.
I guess so.
This is actually good and well because in order to keep my opinion in check, we need people with your opinion forcing me to make a case. That alone will trim a lot of the abuse or potential abuse and lay the seed of ideas that will stop it from being abused for long in reality.
I agree with that.
actually, you will find in most jurisdictions, there is a crime if intimidating a witness and possible retaliation of a witness in addition to any robbery crimes specifically because I wrote my name and sent it to specific people.
I didn't say the opposite. I'm talking about my own opinion.
You can't really argue that certain behavior such as speaking out against the government isn't already illegal.
And I definitely don't agree with it. I think all speech should be free, regardless of intent. The only thing I care about is actions.
You have the irrelevancy backwards though.
Sorry, but what is and isn't relevant (especially on a subject such as this) is subjective. I'm just giving my own opinion.
The behavior is the important parts
I disagree. I couldn't care less about what someone "thinks" or what their "intent" is. I just care about what they actually do (besides just conveying their thoughts).
Things like Wikileaks are good, because they deny privacy to other people.
I think it's good because my government's decisions can affect me greatly. They're mostly revealing information about the government as a whole, or when its workers are on the job. Any other information is useless.
it really is more complicated then this. Suppose I robbed a store and you were a witness to it. I send you an article from a dated Time Magazine about a crook who killed all the witnesses at his trial and their families but I scratch that crook's name out and write mine in.
The police would investigate it. The crime wasn't writing your name, it was the robbery (which they can't be sure you did yet). If they investigate and find that you didn't do anything, they should let you go.
Not really.. the people making the speech would still need the behavior and the behavior would still need to be something that was unacceptable to society.
And if certain behavior became unacceptable to society (such as speaking out against the government), then what? The situation is as follows: "I don't like what you said, but I can't arrest you based on that, so I'm going to say it's because of your behavior!" The point of freedom of speech is to protect speech. Behavior is completely and utterly irrelevant. I don't care for thought crimes (trying to guess someone's "intent").
I'd much rather risk a "terrorist" attack than give up any of my privacy or freedoms. Besides, spying on random people suspected of being terrorists is hardly a good method of apprehending so-called terrorists.
I think you will find that most people and the law would consider the act of harassment to be the problem, not the vehicle chosen to get it done
Well, to me, the vehicle chosen to get it done matters very much. If nothing physical is happening, they can likely choose whether or not to be offended. It all comes down to someone's mindset. If it's not physical harassment, it will only 'hurt' you if you let it. Not to say that what I think matters a whole lot when the laws are already laid out.
But the supreme court has upheld a surprisingly large set of limits on free speech.
And that doesn't make it constitutional, either. Just because the supreme court says it is in compliance with the constitution, that does not mean it is.
I would believe they would uphold this concept as constitutional as it's the behavior, not the speech that is in question.
You could literally limit any speech using this excuse. "It was their behavior, not the speech! They had an anti-government attitude, so we arrested them!" Yes, we are talking about harassment here, but the excuse used above could be used to limit any speech. Why stop at malicious intent? Because you don't like it? As long as they're just speaking, they've physically harmed no one, and whether or not the person was harmed is their own choice.
Not necessarily. Sometimes people might not actually hate the new layout, but instead dislike the fact that they have to get used to it for what they perceive to be no reason.
and here is how I know you have no clue what harassment is.
I know what it is. I just don't think that harassment done using mere words, images, or text is serious in the least.
If you have to change or alter your lifestyle and habits to avid someones malicious intent, then it is harassment.
You've explained that. I fully understand.
Second, you don't seem to be arguing what harassment is or isn't, you seem to be arguing what you don't want it to be
Is that what it looks like to you? I'm merely saying that I don't believe that harassment using mere words, images, or text is a serious issue in the least.
I get sick and tired of people crying that a law is how they do not like and no one is willing to change it
It's possible that they don't have the means to change it without enough public support, or they just don't think going through the effort is worth it (but posting their objections to it is quite easy, and maybe for some, perhaps even fun).
actually, whether you like it or not, speech has been limited for almost the entirety of the country when it is certain types or forms of speech as well when it uses certain vehicles of delivery.
And I'm well aware of that. That doesn't mean that it's constitutional, though (not that you said that it was).
You seem to be the oddball looking in on this.
Does that even matter?
If I drop a ball, it will fall
Based on what we've observed thus far, yes. But it only takes one instance of that not happening to destroy that reality (however unlikely that is to occur). I'd say it's quite difficult to be 100% sure of much of anything.