"limited regulation of weapons is acceptable", then "limited regulation of speech is acceptable"
How do you come to this conclusion? "Acceptable" is subjective. I'm sure there are people (like me) who do not find that acceptable. Not only that, but just because one rule is broken, that alone does not mean that it is okay to break another.
Freedom of speech is, roughly speaking, the freedom to express your opinions without fear of retribution or censor.
But then you said:
This does not inherently include "freedom to deceive" or "freedom to threaten".
I don't see how those aren't speech themselves, since you were talking about freedom of speech. So I'd say that the phrase "freedom of speech" does inherently include those. How could it not?
Oh and the last thing was a bait: It is called freedom of expression
Yeah, but there are technically a few definitions of the word "speech" that would fit writing.
Well, next time you're in or near a crowd of idiots I hope you have a plan for making them aware of their stupidity in case anything bad happens.
If that happened, then it's a shame that they are 'idiots'. That's no fault of the speech, though, and I wouldn't want it banned merely because of that.
Yet, if we allow them to do things as they please, they could literally do just that. I don't think they should be able to apply exceptions to amendments wherever they please like they've done. For instance, free speech zones.
Is the written word speech?
I'm fairly certain that there's also some definitions that could easily be applied to written things, as well.
It should be obvious to you how a strategy of waiting can work better than reacting to low probability dangers.
In the very same post I mentioned that there was situations where waiting would be wise. It's just that, oftentimes, humans procrastinate at the worst possible times.
These might not outweigh the advantages of doing something now, but there is a lot of wisdom in putting things off that don't need to be done today.
Actually, if the reasons to wait do not outweigh the reasons to not wait, then that would be an unwise decisions, would it not? In other words, in the situations you just described, waiting wouldn't be beneficial.
You obviously do not understand the merits of wait then act.
Except that it seems like a majority of the time humans wait until there's an absolute catastrophe before actually doing anything. Waiting is fine as long as there is a good reason to and it's not too long.
And "haste and agony" is a common product of public policy.
Yet panicking will do nothing. Calmly try to verify whether that is true. In many cases, it is easy to tell if someone is lying. Someone randomly screaming that there is a fire simply isn't convincing enough.
and cut off exits.
Don't they typically have emergency exits as well as normal exits?
Have you ever see a large mob in action?
Knocking one another around will indeed slow it down. It creates more obstacles which people then might trip over (even if only some people are slowed down). More people knocked down means more people knocked down and more people hurt, which is completely the fault of the idiotic mob of panicking humans.
And doesn't solve the problem that people do panic.
Then they can suffer for their stupidity.
I still don't see what your argumentation has to do with the problem at hand: that the approach of the Japanese government is completely ludicrous, self-serving and destructive to society.
People are mentioning that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater should be illegal. I disagree with this, as it is still speech (and, in the US, is protected by the first amendment).
I'd say we need to adopt a sustainable way of living here before we worry about venturing off to other planets. There are other species living here, too, and I'd rather not see them all destroyed because of us.
it is information that indicates an immediate threat to your life
Trampling over one another, especially when you don't even see a fire in the first place, is not going to help. Fires spread, but they don't spread at the speed of light (not to mention that trampling over each other would just slow everyone down). Not only that, but if it was false, there'd be no fire in sight, so there would be no immediate threat to your life.
and the reasonable individual response to the threat causes death when emulated by many people.
Whose fault is that? The fault of the idiots who panic so easily, I'd say.
I'd blame the idiots who didn't verify that there was a fire, not the speech.
maybe then you'll remember that there are certain situations where Freedom of Speech is limited
Not in the US. At least, not according to the first amendment (which we so conveniently ignore).
Furthermore, these are merely rumors. If people get the information wrong and are idiotic enough to not verify whether or not it is correct, then they are the ones at fault. No need to go down the pointless road of censorship.
Was there even any proof that such a thing existed? And even if so, how is removing an advertised feature from all systems a good solution? Is hurting your customers 'okay' just because only a few of them would use it? They should have better secured their system. Since they didn't, they should deal with it.
Unfortunately for you (and me, probably) the rest of the people in the world doesn't come from Vulcan.
They do not need to be from another planet. They just need to realize how pointless and counterproductive getting offended is. That seemed to have worked for me, so maybe it would for others as well.
And yet you are here trying to defend doing it.
Because I enjoy arguing (or else I wouldn't post here).
Have fun with your trash talk.
How did you reach this conclusion? I'm actually silent during a game.
You might not be, but I am. Why be insulted at all? It's useless and it makes no sense.
Even then, I'd rather not have to deal with someone insulting me.
It really doesn't matter to me either way.
looks like taking the game too seriously to me
Not necessarily. It looks like they're trying to win to me. The two aren't one in the same. The game would likely be very, very boring if no one actually tried to win. Tactics and skill add to the enjoyment of the game, in my opinion. I'd say that someone who gets legitimately angry or sad over a game is taking the game too seriously, not someone who merely tries everything to win.
Really? Well, that's apparently what some people are saying (that it allowed for certain hacks that allowed you to do that). I don't agree with the removal even if that is true.
Because some people play copied games, and this apparently made the console easier to hack. Also, there might be a few hackers in servers (which totally can't be banned individually like they have to do everywhere else). Or something. Therefore, the feature should be removed from all customers' systems entirely!
Getting upset by someone insulting you is a common response in life
But it is by no means an absolute response once you realize that doing so is illogical. I agree that taking the game too seriously is idiotic, but I also feel that way about taking anything too seriously. If you realize that they are just words, and it is completely up to you whether or not you want to be insulted, then it is easy to not be phased in the least (at least, it is for me).
I agree to an extent. I don't think that people should be so easily offended (especially by mere words). It's pointless, completely up to them, and counterproductive. I don't think anyone should take the game too seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
"limited regulation of weapons is acceptable", then "limited regulation of speech is acceptable"
How do you come to this conclusion? "Acceptable" is subjective. I'm sure there are people (like me) who do not find that acceptable. Not only that, but just because one rule is broken, that alone does not mean that it is okay to break another.
What exactly are we disagreeing upon?
In your post above, you said:
Freedom of speech is, roughly speaking, the freedom to express your opinions without fear of retribution or censor.
But then you said:
This does not inherently include "freedom to deceive" or "freedom to threaten".
I don't see how those aren't speech themselves, since you were talking about freedom of speech. So I'd say that the phrase "freedom of speech" does inherently include those. How could it not?
Oh and the last thing was a bait: It is called freedom of expression
Yeah, but there are technically a few definitions of the word "speech" that would fit writing.
Well, next time you're in or near a crowd of idiots I hope you have a plan for making them aware of their stupidity in case anything bad happens.
If that happened, then it's a shame that they are 'idiots'. That's no fault of the speech, though, and I wouldn't want it banned merely because of that.
That's using the wrong semantics.
Yet, if we allow them to do things as they please, they could literally do just that. I don't think they should be able to apply exceptions to amendments wherever they please like they've done. For instance, free speech zones.
Is the written word speech?
I'm fairly certain that there's also some definitions that could easily be applied to written things, as well.
It should be obvious to you how a strategy of waiting can work better than reacting to low probability dangers.
In the very same post I mentioned that there was situations where waiting would be wise. It's just that, oftentimes, humans procrastinate at the worst possible times.
These might not outweigh the advantages of doing something now, but there is a lot of wisdom in putting things off that don't need to be done today.
Actually, if the reasons to wait do not outweigh the reasons to not wait, then that would be an unwise decisions, would it not? In other words, in the situations you just described, waiting wouldn't be beneficial.
You obviously do not understand the merits of wait then act.
Except that it seems like a majority of the time humans wait until there's an absolute catastrophe before actually doing anything. Waiting is fine as long as there is a good reason to and it's not too long.
And "haste and agony" is a common product of public policy.
Common? Maybe. Good? I think not.
As a result, you are forced to rely on hearsay.
Yet panicking will do nothing. Calmly try to verify whether that is true. In many cases, it is easy to tell if someone is lying. Someone randomly screaming that there is a fire simply isn't convincing enough.
and cut off exits.
Don't they typically have emergency exits as well as normal exits?
Have you ever see a large mob in action?
Knocking one another around will indeed slow it down. It creates more obstacles which people then might trip over (even if only some people are slowed down). More people knocked down means more people knocked down and more people hurt, which is completely the fault of the idiotic mob of panicking humans.
And doesn't solve the problem that people do panic.
Then they can suffer for their stupidity.
I still don't see what your argumentation has to do with the problem at hand: that the approach of the Japanese government is completely ludicrous, self-serving and destructive to society.
People are mentioning that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater should be illegal. I disagree with this, as it is still speech (and, in the US, is protected by the first amendment).
I'd say we need to adopt a sustainable way of living here before we worry about venturing off to other planets. There are other species living here, too, and I'd rather not see them all destroyed because of us.
Do I shoulder any responsibility for what may occur beyond their stupidity & gullibility?
I don't think you should because they should always double check to make sure the information is true.
Could I (should I) get away with claiming freedom of speech?
I think so.
it is false information
Which can be verified by you.
it is information that indicates an immediate threat to your life
Trampling over one another, especially when you don't even see a fire in the first place, is not going to help. Fires spread, but they don't spread at the speed of light (not to mention that trampling over each other would just slow everyone down). Not only that, but if it was false, there'd be no fire in sight, so there would be no immediate threat to your life.
and the reasonable individual response to the threat causes death when emulated by many people.
Whose fault is that? The fault of the idiots who panic so easily, I'd say.
This does not inherently include "freedom to deceive" or "freedom to threaten".
Both of those are speech, are they not?
I'd blame the idiots who didn't verify that there was a fire, not the speech.
maybe then you'll remember that there are certain situations where Freedom of Speech is limited
Not in the US. At least, not according to the first amendment (which we so conveniently ignore).
Furthermore, these are merely rumors. If people get the information wrong and are idiotic enough to not verify whether or not it is correct, then they are the ones at fault. No need to go down the pointless road of censorship.
rampant piracy
Was there even any proof that such a thing existed? And even if so, how is removing an advertised feature from all systems a good solution? Is hurting your customers 'okay' just because only a few of them would use it? They should have better secured their system. Since they didn't, they should deal with it.
but they are not moral
Morals are subjective. But I'd say that it's more corrupt than anything else (since apparently they never had any evidence to begin with).
Unfortunately for you (and me, probably) the rest of the people in the world doesn't come from Vulcan.
They do not need to be from another planet. They just need to realize how pointless and counterproductive getting offended is. That seemed to have worked for me, so maybe it would for others as well.
And yet you are here trying to defend doing it.
Because I enjoy arguing (or else I wouldn't post here).
Have fun with your trash talk.
How did you reach this conclusion? I'm actually silent during a game.
We aren't dealing with logic
You might not be, but I am. Why be insulted at all? It's useless and it makes no sense.
Even then, I'd rather not have to deal with someone insulting me.
It really doesn't matter to me either way.
looks like taking the game too seriously to me
Not necessarily. It looks like they're trying to win to me. The two aren't one in the same. The game would likely be very, very boring if no one actually tried to win. Tactics and skill add to the enjoyment of the game, in my opinion. I'd say that someone who gets legitimately angry or sad over a game is taking the game too seriously, not someone who merely tries everything to win.
people who use OtherOS are far less likely to buy games for the PS3, and so Sony does not get as much money from game publishers.
Or so they think. There doesn't seem to be any viable way to prove it, though.
Really? Well, that's apparently what some people are saying (that it allowed for certain hacks that allowed you to do that). I don't agree with the removal even if that is true.
Because some people play copied games, and this apparently made the console easier to hack. Also, there might be a few hackers in servers (which totally can't be banned individually like they have to do everywhere else). Or something. Therefore, the feature should be removed from all customers' systems entirely!
And they're not stupid. They're trained on techniques that bring in more bad guys.
The fact that they memorize a few obvious techniques does not mean that they are not stupid.
and few, if any, are identical to you.
Can you prove this?
If it works, then I don't see why it would be a 'bad' thing. It's entirely their fault for being offended, after all.
Getting upset by someone insulting you is a common response in life
But it is by no means an absolute response once you realize that doing so is illogical. I agree that taking the game too seriously is idiotic, but I also feel that way about taking anything too seriously. If you realize that they are just words, and it is completely up to you whether or not you want to be insulted, then it is easy to not be phased in the least (at least, it is for me).
I agree to an extent. I don't think that people should be so easily offended (especially by mere words). It's pointless, completely up to them, and counterproductive. I don't think anyone should take the game too seriously.
It's a damn computer game.
Honestly, I feel the same way about 'real' sports such as Football. They're just games. I don't understand why people take them so seriously.