"What assumptions? You've been unable to grasp any argument other than your own, or to see things through someone else's eyes, in this entire conversation."
You said "any viewpoint," implying that I cannot understand any viewpoint other than my own, not just yours.
"What makes you think the the only possible tactic for changing public opinion is through appearing dishonest?"
They don't appear dishonest. It is very, very difficult to tell a pirate from a 'normal' person.
"I've given you two classic examples of individuals who faced much greater odds than what you're facing and won far more difficult battles."
Yes, but they weren't labeled thieves. The injustice done to them was obvious.
"They did so by going to great lengths to avoid any appearance of exactly what you promote."
What would that be? I'm pretty sure that they used illegal (or at least frowned upon), non-violent methods to get their point across (such as not moving to the back of the bus, or visiting a location that is only supposed to be available for whites).
"Truly smart people look at what has already been proven to work, and then follow that example as closely as possible."
Non-violent protest has indeed been proven to work.
"So, give me examples of how individuals have changed society for the better by changing its laws through promoting apparent dishonesty in the eyes of the vast majority of their society."
The people you listed seem to fit the bill. The public perception of pirates may be a little bit different (thieves), but the point remains the same.
Education is the only means to get people to realize this. Stopping piracy altogether (not that normal people would notice, anyway) would only make pirates appear more dishonest (why would they stop doing something if they believe that it is not harmful), or just have no effect at all. Martin Luther King didn't just sit back and obey the law, or nothing would have changed.
How so? Especially given the fact that a majority of people quickly forget the information that they do not use.
"Similarly, students take math because it makes them better thinkers, which in turn will make them better at whatever they decide to do professionally."
Only if they use the advanced math. Advanced math, specifically, has nothing to do with this.
Diligent enough to know whether or not they have a resume.
"exclude poor candidates quickly"
Usually backfires, but what I said above still counts.
"Being too specific in education leads to highly specialized people who are useless."
It leads to highly specialized people either way. You are forgetting that, with very few exceptions, people quickly forget things that they do not use in the first place. They have to relearn them either way. What my suggestion would likely do, however, is increase their knowledge in needed areas. It would make them even more knowledgeable than they would otherwise be.
"If there's no place that needs that specialization, what are you going to do?"
What do they do about it now? There is your answer.
"Not all of us knew what we wanted to do in middle school."
I believe I already answered this concern in my comment. Besides that, I said high school.
"If people later change their mind about their desired profession, that is their own choice. They do that currently, and many of them have to relearn what they need for their desired profession, anyway, because when you don't use something, it is easily forgettable (even in a short amount of time)."
They will quickly forget things that they had no interest in and did not use, anyway. They will have to relearn it either way. It is the same for people already past high school who do this.
He's not speaking of such people. I believe that he is speaking of people who have no interest in advanced mathematics and do not need it in their daily lives.
I do? I merely live in a system which incorporates it, but I am all for its removal.
"You might not, but you have not provided any ethical argument FOR (positive argument) piracy at all, and you argument on why it isn't wrong (negative argument) is wholly based on the lack of economic harm."
You're not explaining something: why is it wrong? What makes it wrong?
"Worthless paper = shelter, food, and the other basics of survival."
In our current capitalistic society, yes. That is what I am getting at.
"On that will still allow for complex works that you enjoy leaching."
I believe leaching implies some form of harm is done, which you said yourself isn't the case.
"Few people need Chemistry or Physics in their daily lives..."
You're right, they don't.
"Because Mathematics, like the rest, increase our fundamental understanding of the world around us."
Until they forget it, that is. Which the people who don't use it do, with few exceptions. It merely increases the rate of failures in the school system by forcing people to take classes which they are not interested in and do not need.
Which they would see if you demonstrated to them that you are knowledgeable in a specific subject that you actually use.
"People need mathematics not because they're going to go out and compute all these things every day."
If they're not going to use advanced mathematics, they don't need it. All this does is just increase the rate of failures in the school system by forcing people to take classes which they do not need. If they wish to do well, they devote a lot of time to something they likely will not use.
I've felt this way for a long time now, only about many other subjects that are mandatory in the school system as well. Instead of just teaching the essentials in the early years and allowing them to choose their classes in high school, they force you to take classes which have nothing to do with your desired profession. This likely increases the amount of failures because failing one of these non-essential subjects (which you aren't interested in) could cause you to fail an entire year. If you attempt to do well in one of these classes which you do not need, you will end up devoting a lot of time and effort for... something that you do not need. If people later change their mind about their desired profession, that is their own choice. They do that currently, and many of them have to relearn what they need for their desired profession, anyway, because when you don't use something, it is easily forgettable (even in a short amount of time). Sadly, many people think that more mandatory classes and tedious work will somehow make everyone more intelligent, but in reality, much of their time goes to waste memorizing this information which is not useful to them (which they forget soon enough because they do not use it, anyway).
"Well, since you are incapable of trying to understand any viewpoint other than your own"
Why the assumptions? I don't believe you were present in every argument I've ever gotten into. I've changed my mind about certain subjects in the past given a convincing enough argument, but I don't believe this is one of them.
"I'd wish you good luck with thinking you can effect societal change by appearing dishonest, but I have no sympathy for your self-imposed blindness."
Legitimate question: how would ceasing to pirate media (something no one other than yourself can see in the first place) change everyones mind about piracy? They would, instead, be grateful that the 'thieves' aren't 'stealing' anything any longer, would they not?
It's not all that difficult. I mean, you currently have a 50% chance of guessing the correct answer. Republican or democrat. Choose the one you think is the most popular! No other parties exist, and if they did, they are evil communists who will ruin this already ruined nation!
I'm saying that whether or not you agree with what he said, that doesn't mean he is 'wrong' or should be jailed. Calling what he said (even multiple times) "harassment" doesn't magically make it 'evil'.
"We have laws against animal cruelty and laws against cruelty to humans. I can't see that enlarging the scope of laws against cruelty to humans as a violation of the right to free speech. Your rights stop where mine begin, and I have a right to live in peace. You have no inherent right to abuse someone else so stop with your logical fallacies. Your asshole is showing."
All he did was express himself through speech, nothing more. You do not have a right to not be offended. That is absolutely ridiculous.
"I'd love to see how long a douche like you would have survived in the Old West."
So, wait, because people would beat me for expressing myself, that somehow means that I'm wrong? No, it just proves that they're idiots who can't resolve things without turning to violence.
"Justice was swift back then."
But apparently not now, since you haven't been arrested for that offensive message yet.
You sound like a terrorist! I've seen right through your pathetic disguise. In reality, this will help us catch all of your dirty terrorist friends while allowing us to be nearly 100% secure! Now all that's left to do is install cameras inside everyones houses and we're good to go.
"I think you need to upgrade your sense of what is right and wrong"
No, I don't. Both words are subjective. What might be right to you is not necessarily to me. With something like speech especially, whether you think it is wrong or not is irrelevant.
"rights of the bereaved people her"
You don't have a right to not be offended, sorry. All he did was send text, as far as I'm aware. Whatever you call that, it was free speech.
"and whose rights take priority."
From the looks of it, those who don't support free speech have already decided. They call it "harassment," or "evil," but don't realize that not everyone views it quite the same as them. It was speech, and therefore free. I can only imagine the idiocy that will come of this when people start deciding that because they are offended by something, it should be banned.
Direct action... through words. You are letting your pathetic emotions get the better of you and because of that, you are unable to see that this is, in fact, speech. It's text, but speech all the same.
"You can't disagree or agree with it any more than you can disagree with punching someone in the face."
He sent them text messages, correct? Speech.
"I think murder is an act of free speech"
No, it's murder. As in, killing someone. That is action. It is not in itself speech. Speaking is an act of free speech. Bribery also isn't free speech (even though the courts ruled that it is), it's bribery.
"Freedom of speech isn't important for the sake of freedom of speech."
Yes, it is. You can't have free speech without being allowed to see things that the majority disagrees with, but I can see that you're not a true supporter of free speech in the first place.
"If allowing people to bully families of people who died recently has nothing to do with why freedom of speech is important, it shouldn't be protected by those laws."
It allows them to speak in a manner that they see fit. You may not find it important. You may even find it stupid. That does not mean that it isn't important to them, nor does it mean that it's stupid. Again, your posts can be summed up as "I support everyones right to free speech... except this guy's because I think he's mean!"
Slashdot Mirror
"What assumptions? You've been unable to grasp any argument other than your own, or to see things through someone else's eyes, in this entire conversation."
You said "any viewpoint," implying that I cannot understand any viewpoint other than my own, not just yours.
"What makes you think the the only possible tactic for changing public opinion is through appearing dishonest?"
They don't appear dishonest. It is very, very difficult to tell a pirate from a 'normal' person.
"I've given you two classic examples of individuals who faced much greater odds than what you're facing and won far more difficult battles."
Yes, but they weren't labeled thieves. The injustice done to them was obvious.
"They did so by going to great lengths to avoid any appearance of exactly what you promote."
What would that be? I'm pretty sure that they used illegal (or at least frowned upon), non-violent methods to get their point across (such as not moving to the back of the bus, or visiting a location that is only supposed to be available for whites).
"Truly smart people look at what has already been proven to work, and then follow that example as closely as possible."
Non-violent protest has indeed been proven to work.
"So, give me examples of how individuals have changed society for the better by changing its laws through promoting apparent dishonesty in the eyes of the vast majority of their society."
The people you listed seem to fit the bill. The public perception of pirates may be a little bit different (thieves), but the point remains the same.
Education is the only means to get people to realize this. Stopping piracy altogether (not that normal people would notice, anyway) would only make pirates appear more dishonest (why would they stop doing something if they believe that it is not harmful), or just have no effect at all. Martin Luther King didn't just sit back and obey the law, or nothing would have changed.
"it makes the students smarter."
How so? Especially given the fact that a majority of people quickly forget the information that they do not use.
"Similarly, students take math because it makes them better thinkers, which in turn will make them better at whatever they decide to do professionally."
Only if they use the advanced math. Advanced math, specifically, has nothing to do with this.
"because of other people too stupid"
Not necessarily stupid, but they are likely uninterested victims of the mandatory advanced math classes.
"Job recruiters aren't that diligent."
Diligent enough to know whether or not they have a resume.
"exclude poor candidates quickly"
Usually backfires, but what I said above still counts.
"Being too specific in education leads to highly specialized people who are useless."
It leads to highly specialized people either way. You are forgetting that, with very few exceptions, people quickly forget things that they do not use in the first place. They have to relearn them either way. What my suggestion would likely do, however, is increase their knowledge in needed areas. It would make them even more knowledgeable than they would otherwise be.
"If there's no place that needs that specialization, what are you going to do?"
What do they do about it now? There is your answer.
"Given that each person will not use most of what they are taught across"
Who doesn't use basic math? Who doesn't speak the native language(s) of their country? Those are the absolute basics and are what needs to be taught.
"That, or we make people decide what they want to do with their life at 8 years old and teach them only what they will use."
I suggested high school in a previous comment.
Apparently so. The 'justice' system seems to thrive on stupid opinions such as the one present in this article.
"Instead of just teaching the essentials in the early years and allowing them to choose their classes in high school"
"Not all of us knew what we wanted to do in middle school."
I believe I already answered this concern in my comment. Besides that, I said high school.
"If people later change their mind about their desired profession, that is their own choice. They do that currently, and many of them have to relearn what they need for their desired profession, anyway, because when you don't use something, it is easily forgettable (even in a short amount of time)."
They will quickly forget things that they had no interest in and did not use, anyway. They will have to relearn it either way. It is the same for people already past high school who do this.
He's not speaking of such people. I believe that he is speaking of people who have no interest in advanced mathematics and do not need it in their daily lives.
"but base you entire value system around it"
I do? I merely live in a system which incorporates it, but I am all for its removal.
"You might not, but you have not provided any ethical argument FOR (positive argument) piracy at all, and you argument on why it isn't wrong (negative argument) is wholly based on the lack of economic harm."
You're not explaining something: why is it wrong? What makes it wrong?
"Worthless paper = shelter, food, and the other basics of survival."
In our current capitalistic society, yes. That is what I am getting at.
"On that will still allow for complex works that you enjoy leaching."
I believe leaching implies some form of harm is done, which you said yourself isn't the case.
"Why teach History?"
So that we don't repeat past mistakes.
"Why teach music? Other arts?"
I ask myself these very same questions.
"Few people need Chemistry or Physics in their daily lives..."
You're right, they don't.
"Because Mathematics, like the rest, increase our fundamental understanding of the world around us."
Until they forget it, that is. Which the people who don't use it do, with few exceptions. It merely increases the rate of failures in the school system by forcing people to take classes which they are not interested in and do not need.
"take away fundamental education"
No one spoke of fundamental education at all.
"They see it as that you are capable of learning"
Which they would see if you demonstrated to them that you are knowledgeable in a specific subject that you actually use.
"People need mathematics not because they're going to go out and compute all these things every day."
If they're not going to use advanced mathematics, they don't need it. All this does is just increase the rate of failures in the school system by forcing people to take classes which they do not need. If they wish to do well, they devote a lot of time to something they likely will not use.
I've felt this way for a long time now, only about many other subjects that are mandatory in the school system as well. Instead of just teaching the essentials in the early years and allowing them to choose their classes in high school, they force you to take classes which have nothing to do with your desired profession. This likely increases the amount of failures because failing one of these non-essential subjects (which you aren't interested in) could cause you to fail an entire year. If you attempt to do well in one of these classes which you do not need, you will end up devoting a lot of time and effort for... something that you do not need. If people later change their mind about their desired profession, that is their own choice. They do that currently, and many of them have to relearn what they need for their desired profession, anyway, because when you don't use something, it is easily forgettable (even in a short amount of time). Sadly, many people think that more mandatory classes and tedious work will somehow make everyone more intelligent, but in reality, much of their time goes to waste memorizing this information which is not useful to them (which they forget soon enough because they do not use it, anyway).
"Well, since you are incapable of trying to understand any viewpoint other than your own"
Why the assumptions? I don't believe you were present in every argument I've ever gotten into. I've changed my mind about certain subjects in the past given a convincing enough argument, but I don't believe this is one of them.
"I'd wish you good luck with thinking you can effect societal change by appearing dishonest, but I have no sympathy for your self-imposed blindness."
Legitimate question: how would ceasing to pirate media (something no one other than yourself can see in the first place) change everyones mind about piracy? They would, instead, be grateful that the 'thieves' aren't 'stealing' anything any longer, would they not?
It's not all that difficult. I mean, you currently have a 50% chance of guessing the correct answer. Republican or democrat. Choose the one you think is the most popular! No other parties exist, and if they did, they are evil communists who will ruin this already ruined nation!
"This isn't about privacy, we lost that a long time ago."
Almost...
I'm saying that whether or not you agree with what he said, that doesn't mean he is 'wrong' or should be jailed. Calling what he said (even multiple times) "harassment" doesn't magically make it 'evil'.
"We have laws against animal cruelty and laws against cruelty to humans. I can't see that enlarging the scope of laws against cruelty to humans as a violation of the right to free speech. Your rights stop where mine begin, and I have a right to live in peace. You have no inherent right to abuse someone else so stop with your logical fallacies. Your asshole is showing."
All he did was express himself through speech, nothing more. You do not have a right to not be offended. That is absolutely ridiculous.
"I'd love to see how long a douche like you would have survived in the Old West."
So, wait, because people would beat me for expressing myself, that somehow means that I'm wrong? No, it just proves that they're idiots who can't resolve things without turning to violence.
"Justice was swift back then."
But apparently not now, since you haven't been arrested for that offensive message yet.
If harassment is defined as recurring speech that people find offensive, then yes, it is the "slippery slope" that I think it is.
You sound like a terrorist! I've seen right through your pathetic disguise. In reality, this will help us catch all of your dirty terrorist friends while allowing us to be nearly 100% secure! Now all that's left to do is install cameras inside everyones houses and we're good to go.
"I wonder what future generations will say about our obsession with security in years to come?"
If people keep putting up with it, they'll probably be in the same situation we are.
The pat down stops all those nasty terrorists, of course! It's also done by people you can definitely trust.
The fewer rights we have, the more secure we are! Eliminating privacy will surely protect us from those evil terrorists!
"I think you need to upgrade your sense of what is right and wrong"
No, I don't. Both words are subjective. What might be right to you is not necessarily to me. With something like speech especially, whether you think it is wrong or not is irrelevant.
"rights of the bereaved people her"
You don't have a right to not be offended, sorry. All he did was send text, as far as I'm aware. Whatever you call that, it was free speech.
"and whose rights take priority."
From the looks of it, those who don't support free speech have already decided. They call it "harassment," or "evil," but don't realize that not everyone views it quite the same as them. It was speech, and therefore free. I can only imagine the idiocy that will come of this when people start deciding that because they are offended by something, it should be banned.
"You can't because it is direct action"
Direct action... through words. You are letting your pathetic emotions get the better of you and because of that, you are unable to see that this is, in fact, speech. It's text, but speech all the same.
"You can't disagree or agree with it any more than you can disagree with punching someone in the face."
He sent them text messages, correct? Speech.
"I think murder is an act of free speech"
No, it's murder. As in, killing someone. That is action. It is not in itself speech. Speaking is an act of free speech. Bribery also isn't free speech (even though the courts ruled that it is), it's bribery.
"Freedom of speech isn't important for the sake of freedom of speech."
Yes, it is. You can't have free speech without being allowed to see things that the majority disagrees with, but I can see that you're not a true supporter of free speech in the first place.
"If allowing people to bully families of people who died recently has nothing to do with why freedom of speech is important, it shouldn't be protected by those laws."
It allows them to speak in a manner that they see fit. You may not find it important. You may even find it stupid. That does not mean that it isn't important to them, nor does it mean that it's stupid. Again, your posts can be summed up as "I support everyones right to free speech... except this guy's because I think he's mean!"