I really don't care what some random dictionary says about it. I do not believe it should be called stealing because it pertains to a legal matter, and legally, it is not called stealing; it's called copyright infringement. Second of all, it confuses people who don't actually know what it is. Third of all, it often just acts as flamebait and makes people talk about what it should be called rather than the issue at hand.
If by "balance" you mean trying to find ways to increase safety without removing 'fundamental' freedoms, then probably. Get rid of the TSA, the Patriot Act, free speech zones, and all that other garbage, though.
That's what happens when people get obsessed with safety. Freedoms are sacrificed to get safety, and sometimes the safety received isn't even real. That is precisely why we have the TSA, the Patriot Act, and other such nonsense, and why people try so hard to get rid of guns. They'd rather remove people's freedoms than accept a few casualties.
Have to fill those gaps in knowledge somehow, you insensitive clod! What better way to do it but making up random nonsensical theories (god, in this case)?
Because when someone does something truly shocking to the public conciousness, we need a law on the books to nail them to the wall with.
You'd better hope the masses don't turn against you in the future.
So long as judges keep denying these charges in cases where they obviously do not apply
Where they "obviously do not apply"? And where's that? Whether something is "obscene" or not is subjective. Even if you try to determine whether something is "art," that's still utterly subjective. There is no hope for laws like these.
consider that in a democracy, what the majority want ought to be the law in most cases.
In most cases? Maybe. In cases where the laws violate people's rights? Definitely not. The laws are too ambiguous no matter how you slice it. What is "obscene" to some is not obscene to others. There is no right to not be offended, and, at least in the US, we have a constitution, and that constitution has something called the first amendment. Majority rule cannot easily make that vanish, and it hasn't, so laws like these should, in my opinion, be struck down as unconstitutional.
Therefore if the vast majority think something is too obscene to be permitted, the democratic thing to do would be to remove it.
I'm happy we don't live in a full democracy, then. I believe there needs to be limits on majority rule. I'm definitely not going to say that slavery should be allowed just because that's what the moronic masses want.
I guess it does seem kind of pointless to just link to a study that agrees with your own point of view, doesn't it? Let's just drop the whole charade and not even bother doing that anymore.
That's completely subjective. It's possible that someone could believe that a myriad of things you do are "obscene," but that doesn't mean you should be punished for doing them.
Law is the Law
That sounds like a scary mindset to me. "Jim Crow laws are unjust? Law is the Law."
due mainly because of the large number of pedophile cases
What exactly is a "pedophile case"? I'm going to assume you're referring to children being sexually abused. So... how are there a large number of "pedophile cases"? They seem pretty rare to me! Perhaps it's just that people in the US are so paranoid when it comes to child safety, and not that there are a large number of children being sexually abused.
Just because some dudes who ended up being the founding fathers wrote that bearing arms is a right, doesn't mean that it should be.
The fact that you don't think it should be doesn't mean we should allow the government to violate the constitution. Do you want to change the constitution? With constitutional amendments, you can!
By the way, I never once said that everything the founding fathers did or could do was right. But I absolutely do not believe we should allow the government to violate the constitution; which they're already doing, by the way. You could use the same logic to argue 'against' freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. "What if they'd written that every parent has the right to kill their own child if he/she gets too far out of line?"
What if they'd written that every parent has the right to kill their own child if he/she gets too far out of line?
I suspect that would eventually be stopped with a constitutional amendment, as I believe it should be.
So yeah, if you're so hellbent on having safety instead of freedom (the TSA would love you), at least go through the proper procedures to get things changed.
"we all know"? Speak for yourself; I've encountered numerous people that truly believed that being a pedophile is synonymous with being a child molester.
And yes, there are paedophiles who do not act out their desires on real children, but adding cowardice to warped sexuality is not much of an achievement.
It is sad that this culture quickly blames the victim for being hurt and lets those who commit horrific acts get a pass.
Who is blaming the victim? Who is suggesting that we let people get away? If they're truly dangerous, perhaps we shouldn't let them out of prison to begin with.
The problem is not that the treatment is inappropriate for some individuals based on their past crimes
That's exactly the problem. If they're dangerous, why are they out of prison? If you need to lock them in a bubble even when they're out of prison then maybe you shouldn't have released them to begin with. If they're out of prison, they've been punished already.
Maybe one actually is effective and the other is not?
In any case, I think the better question is this: why do a select few people who deride the TSA because it infringes upon our freedoms advocate for gun control (which trades freedom for safety, much like the TSA)? Would they still hate the TSA if it was effective?
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't care what some random dictionary says about it. I do not believe it should be called stealing because it pertains to a legal matter, and legally, it is not called stealing; it's called copyright infringement. Second of all, it confuses people who don't actually know what it is. Third of all, it often just acts as flamebait and makes people talk about what it should be called rather than the issue at hand.
Isn't there a nice balance
If by "balance" you mean trying to find ways to increase safety without removing 'fundamental' freedoms, then probably. Get rid of the TSA, the Patriot Act, free speech zones, and all that other garbage, though.
That's what happens when people get obsessed with safety. Freedoms are sacrificed to get safety, and sometimes the safety received isn't even real. That is precisely why we have the TSA, the Patriot Act, and other such nonsense, and why people try so hard to get rid of guns. They'd rather remove people's freedoms than accept a few casualties.
Copyright infringement is called rape, actually. Get it right!
but don't presume everyone's a "pirate".
When did he do that?
Have to fill those gaps in knowledge somehow, you insensitive clod! What better way to do it but making up random nonsensical theories (god, in this case)?
Because when someone does something truly shocking to the public conciousness, we need a law on the books to nail them to the wall with.
You'd better hope the masses don't turn against you in the future.
So long as judges keep denying these charges in cases where they obviously do not apply
Where they "obviously do not apply"? And where's that? Whether something is "obscene" or not is subjective. Even if you try to determine whether something is "art," that's still utterly subjective. There is no hope for laws like these.
consider that in a democracy, what the majority want ought to be the law in most cases.
In most cases? Maybe. In cases where the laws violate people's rights? Definitely not. The laws are too ambiguous no matter how you slice it. What is "obscene" to some is not obscene to others. There is no right to not be offended, and, at least in the US, we have a constitution, and that constitution has something called the first amendment. Majority rule cannot easily make that vanish, and it hasn't, so laws like these should, in my opinion, be struck down as unconstitutional.
Therefore if the vast majority think something is too obscene to be permitted, the democratic thing to do would be to remove it.
I'm happy we don't live in a full democracy, then. I believe there needs to be limits on majority rule. I'm definitely not going to say that slavery should be allowed just because that's what the moronic masses want.
I guess it does seem kind of pointless to just link to a study that agrees with your own point of view, doesn't it? Let's just drop the whole charade and not even bother doing that anymore.
Pissing in public is obscene
That's completely subjective. It's possible that someone could believe that a myriad of things you do are "obscene," but that doesn't mean you should be punished for doing them.
Law is the Law
That sounds like a scary mindset to me. "Jim Crow laws are unjust? Law is the Law."
due mainly because of the large number of pedophile cases
What exactly is a "pedophile case"? I'm going to assume you're referring to children being sexually abused. So... how are there a large number of "pedophile cases"? They seem pretty rare to me! Perhaps it's just that people in the US are so paranoid when it comes to child safety, and not that there are a large number of children being sexually abused.
1 + 1 most certainly does not equal 3, you imbecile!
Please tell us, what is the NEW business model ?
Except for the people who need one, that's not anyone's problem.
Reported. This is clearly a matter of national security. Better safe than sorry!
Just because some dudes who ended up being the founding fathers wrote that bearing arms is a right, doesn't mean that it should be.
The fact that you don't think it should be doesn't mean we should allow the government to violate the constitution. Do you want to change the constitution? With constitutional amendments, you can!
By the way, I never once said that everything the founding fathers did or could do was right. But I absolutely do not believe we should allow the government to violate the constitution; which they're already doing, by the way. You could use the same logic to argue 'against' freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. "What if they'd written that every parent has the right to kill their own child if he/she gets too far out of line?"
What if they'd written that every parent has the right to kill their own child if he/she gets too far out of line?
I suspect that would eventually be stopped with a constitutional amendment, as I believe it should be.
So yeah, if you're so hellbent on having safety instead of freedom (the TSA would love you), at least go through the proper procedures to get things changed.
And just how likely is that? Or is this just another example of "the terrists are going to get us!"?
This is a start, and if it keeps ONE kid from being damaged, then imo it is worth it!
Just like the TSA is worth it, eh?
While it's not a perfect system to protect the innocent from being harmed, it is a system.
As is the TSA. Honestly, this "save the children" rhetoric has been wearing thin for a while now.
Would you have us go back to the dark days where the Sanduskys of this life can molest children with impunity?
False dilemma.
I don't want to live in his chaotic country
Are you kidding me? Don't we have enough pedophile paranoia as it is?
"we all know"? Speak for yourself; I've encountered numerous people that truly believed that being a pedophile is synonymous with being a child molester.
And yes, there are paedophiles who do not act out their desires on real children, but adding cowardice to warped sexuality is not much of an achievement.
Cowardice?
Some rapists and paedophiles are more dangerous than others
And...?
This hardly seems like parole. This seems more like punishing people for the rest of their lives.
Why? A pedophile is not necessarily a child molester.
But what about murderers? I consider them even worse.
And if you think sex offenders should be in prison for 998 years rather than 999 years, you're callous towards victims!
To which they always reply, meh, won't happen to me...
In other words, they only care about themselves?
It is sad that this culture quickly blames the victim for being hurt and lets those who commit horrific acts get a pass.
Who is blaming the victim? Who is suggesting that we let people get away? If they're truly dangerous, perhaps we shouldn't let them out of prison to begin with.
The problem is not that the treatment is inappropriate for some individuals based on their past crimes
That's exactly the problem. If they're dangerous, why are they out of prison? If you need to lock them in a bubble even when they're out of prison then maybe you shouldn't have released them to begin with. If they're out of prison, they've been punished already.
Sex crime punishments just seem ridiculous.
Maybe one actually is effective and the other is not?
In any case, I think the better question is this: why do a select few people who deride the TSA because it infringes upon our freedoms advocate for gun control (which trades freedom for safety, much like the TSA)? Would they still hate the TSA if it was effective?