You seem to believe that wanting to prevent that is a bug, not a feature
No, I seem to believe that things such as warrantless government surveillance, the Patriot Act, and the TSA shouldn't exist because I believe freedom is far more important than safety. It has nothing to do with being indifferent about a small amount of deaths.
Not what I meant. Is having to vote for the 'lesser evil' because third parties have virtually no chance of winning really any better than a situation where the number of people who don't want a certain candidate having power is more visible? It's the same situation either way.
No, I said will. Because, in the real world, there are people who will take advantage.. Not "might". Will.
That doesn't really matter to me. I think you focused on the wrong part of my comment to reply to, because I don't truly believe that there is no one that will take advantage of it; I just don't care.
No, it's banning something because history has shown that corrupt political parties will abuse it if given half a chance.
In other words, it's exactly as I said: banning something entirely because some people might abuse it. Similar to collective punishment. You wish to punish everyone because you think it'll make you or others more 'safe' in some way.
No, there is a very good reason for this law: if you can show which way you voted to third parties, then it's possible for you to sell your vote to those third parties.
Banning something entirely because certain people might cheat is a good reason? I'll have to disagree.
So why haven't you, an extremist, grown up? Clearly saying you need to grow up, which is just an opinion, will utterly defeat you. To add to the strength of my amazing arguments, let me say that you're not a "productive" member of society!
Now, we have a party in power that 89% of the country disagrees with! Hooray!
So it's quite possibly no different from how it is now, then? The only difference from now is that people are actually voting for people that they disagree with so the other side doesn't win. Is it really any better to vote for the 'lesser evil' (someone who you disagree with)?
It all depends on how you define "extremism." Personally, I think we need a bit more of it; I'd rather not have the TSA or the Patriot Act, for instance.
I actually noticed the same thing with math, and oftentimes, even science. Just memorize these equations and look for the patterns I showed you to figure out when you should used them on the test! Oh, and it's okay to forget them after that; your math teacher next year will have you memorize them again...
You've compared something ridiculous and unlikely to something actual and common.
Straw man. My only point was that just because people are using a word that way doesn't mean you can't disagree with its use. I used that example to demonstrate that I think it's absurd.
It's a deterrent. It's not supposed to be fair recompense for harm to the company. It's like those $1,000 fine for littering signs. Nearly no one ever gets ticketed for littering, so the fine has to be pretty high for anybody to care. If you had a small chance of getting hit with that fine, instead of zero, which it usually is, you'd think twice about throwing garbage on the ground. Same deal here. He's not supposed to pay. He's supposed to not do this.
I think it's having the opposite effect: complete and total loss of respect for copyright law. Well, at least for people who respected it to begin with.
Don't want a pat down. Get the fuck off the plane. Don't fly. There are rules when you fly.
So you think that the government should have the ability to arbitrarily declare that certain areas are constitution-free zones? Would you say the same if they did it to an entire city? "Don't want to be strip-searched? Get the fuck out of this city. Don't live here. There are rules when you live in this city."
I'm sorry you might be temporarily inconvenienced by someone protesting a government organization that is quite possibly both unjust and unconstitutional. The horror!
Really? Given the number of successful flights, I certainly would. It just isn't likely to happen, but even if it was, I'd still be opposed to the TSA.
Yea but its your choice to take your bodies or possessions into public places.
Ah, so the government can arbitrary decide to take away your privacy at specific locations in the name of security theater. Sounds like a flawless plan!
Installing a security camera in your own home - your own paid for property - is an entirely different case than airport security where everyone has access, including would-be terrorists.
People don't own their bodies or their possessions, then? Because you have arbitrary decided that privacy at airports isn't important, it's not? Then let me do the same for your home.
Slashdot Mirror
What we really want to do is ensure that serial rapists cannot use the internet as their predatory jungle
Why are serial rapists running free to begin with?
That's true, but I like to make the point that I believe freedoms to be far more important even if what they're giving us actually does make us safer.
You seem to believe that wanting to prevent that is a bug, not a feature
No, I seem to believe that things such as warrantless government surveillance, the Patriot Act, and the TSA shouldn't exist because I believe freedom is far more important than safety. It has nothing to do with being indifferent about a small amount of deaths.
And both seem to want to increase government surveillance and trade freedom for safety.
Not what I meant. Is having to vote for the 'lesser evil' because third parties have virtually no chance of winning really any better than a situation where the number of people who don't want a certain candidate having power is more visible? It's the same situation either way.
No, I said will. Because, in the real world, there are people who will take advantage.. Not "might". Will.
That doesn't really matter to me. I think you focused on the wrong part of my comment to reply to, because I don't truly believe that there is no one that will take advantage of it; I just don't care.
No, it's banning something because history has shown that corrupt political parties will abuse it if given half a chance.
In other words, it's exactly as I said: banning something entirely because some people might abuse it. Similar to collective punishment. You wish to punish everyone because you think it'll make you or others more 'safe' in some way.
No, there is a very good reason for this law: if you can show which way you voted to third parties, then it's possible for you to sell your vote to those third parties.
Banning something entirely because certain people might cheat is a good reason? I'll have to disagree.
So why haven't you, an extremist, grown up? Clearly saying you need to grow up, which is just an opinion, will utterly defeat you. To add to the strength of my amazing arguments, let me say that you're not a "productive" member of society!
Now, we have a party in power that 89% of the country disagrees with! Hooray!
So it's quite possibly no different from how it is now, then? The only difference from now is that people are actually voting for people that they disagree with so the other side doesn't win. Is it really any better to vote for the 'lesser evil' (someone who you disagree with)?
Actually, having two parties STOPS extremism
It all depends on how you define "extremism." Personally, I think we need a bit more of it; I'd rather not have the TSA or the Patriot Act, for instance.
Whether you think so or not, it is rude.
Whether you think so or not, thinking it is rude is rude.
Geography, history, etc, were just fact cramming
I actually noticed the same thing with math, and oftentimes, even science. Just memorize these equations and look for the patterns I showed you to figure out when you should used them on the test! Oh, and it's okay to forget them after that; your math teacher next year will have you memorize them again...
What theft?
More programmer logic.
More generalizations?
You've compared something ridiculous and unlikely to something actual and common.
Straw man. My only point was that just because people are using a word that way doesn't mean you can't disagree with its use. I used that example to demonstrate that I think it's absurd.
Yes, the word 'rape' may also "evolve" such that it becomes able to describe copyright infringement.
That doesn't mean I can't oppose such a stupid use of the word. It just confuses the issue.
It's a deterrent. It's not supposed to be fair recompense for harm to the company. It's like those $1,000 fine for littering signs. Nearly no one ever gets ticketed for littering, so the fine has to be pretty high for anybody to care. If you had a small chance of getting hit with that fine, instead of zero, which it usually is, you'd think twice about throwing garbage on the ground. Same deal here. He's not supposed to pay. He's supposed to not do this.
I think it's having the opposite effect: complete and total loss of respect for copyright law. Well, at least for people who respected it to begin with.
It gives an impression that you have something to hide.
I'd say that's only true for those possessing suboptimal intellect.
It also encourages other visitors to non-cooperative behavior.
That's a good thing, in my opinion.
If you want to complain: complain afterwards, not during.
After the injustice has happened, and where no one else can see you.
Sorry, but I expect more from my democracy.
You should be happy you got punched in the face! After all, you could've been shot instead.
I think it's the TSA that is the source of anyone's inconvenience.
Don't want a pat down. Get the fuck off the plane. Don't fly. There are rules when you fly.
So you think that the government should have the ability to arbitrarily declare that certain areas are constitution-free zones? Would you say the same if they did it to an entire city? "Don't want to be strip-searched? Get the fuck out of this city. Don't live here. There are rules when you live in this city."
I'm sorry you might be temporarily inconvenienced by someone protesting a government organization that is quite possibly both unjust and unconstitutional. The horror!
That being said I wouldn't say minuscule chance.
Really? Given the number of successful flights, I certainly would. It just isn't likely to happen, but even if it was, I'd still be opposed to the TSA.
Yea but its your choice to take your bodies or possessions into public places.
Ah, so the government can arbitrary decide to take away your privacy at specific locations in the name of security theater. Sounds like a flawless plan!
Installing a security camera in your own home - your own paid for property - is an entirely different case than airport security where everyone has access, including would-be terrorists.
People don't own their bodies or their possessions, then? Because you have arbitrary decided that privacy at airports isn't important, it's not? Then let me do the same for your home.