However, public health policy is not about solving every fringe case
It also seems to be about punishing absolutely everyone. Even thin individuals are punished by nonsense like this. Why are people so concerned about safety (in this case it's safety from... a large container of soda).
You sound like a terrorist. Only terrorists would copy ideas and threaten national security (copyright/patents/trademarks are matters of national security)!
There's also crowd funding,concerts, merchandise, etc. Well, it's up to them to come up with a business model. Censorship via copyright is not an acceptable solution to me even if it results in more content.
In fact, to the degree that a significant number of appeals to hypocrisy can be made against a politician
Saying that their position is wrong because they're hypocrites is different than saying that you won't vote for them because you personally don't feel they can be trusted. It's not that they ceased to be fallacies, but that those things weren't fallacies to begin with.
I don't think so. I'm just tired of these sweeping bans/limitations/penalties that certain people seem to want from the government. The fact that kids are the ones being limited this time around or that it's television being limited makes no difference to me.
Sometimes there are calls to censor the web by default (an opt-out service) so that porn can be filtered. Much like in this scenario, attack religion instead of porn/tv would cause a massive outrage (and I think it should). For certain people, it's okay to attack the things they don't like, but when someone else does the same thing and it happens to be something that they do like, they are angry.
Except that this law would be an unenforceable waste of money that tries to combat a nonexistent threat. You might as well crack down on lemonade stands...
Regulating materials used in children's toys is far more simple than controlling how much television every kid watches. Not to mention that that would just punish everyone.
It isn't, but people seem to be afraid of every nonexistent threat. Terrorists, communists, copyright infringement, television...
They seem so afraid, in fact, that they wish to punish everyone because whatever it is they're afraid of harms some people. What a good solution that is.
In America, there are groups like the Westboro Baptist Church that protest and cause great, directed offence to specific individuals at funerals. Do you think that's right?
I think they should be able to say it. Offended? Too bad.
Since I say anything that offended me isn't free speech, and you don't have a right to offend, I believe you should be arrested. Your comment offends me deeply!
How does it seem reasonable that someone was arrested for causing offense? As far as I know, being offended isn't the end of the world. But I guess safety (Even from mean words!) is all that really matters.
A situation where people don't have freedom of speech? I think not. If your only test is that someone might be offended, then I believe there is a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
However, public health policy is not about solving every fringe case
It also seems to be about punishing absolutely everyone. Even thin individuals are punished by nonsense like this. Why are people so concerned about safety (in this case it's safety from... a large container of soda).
Nobody really needs 500ml
You don't need to be posting on Slashdot, either.
You sound like a terrorist. Only terrorists would copy ideas and threaten national security (copyright/patents/trademarks are matters of national security)!
The apropriate method to prevent abuse
Would be for them to not have the power at all.
There's also crowd funding,concerts, merchandise, etc. Well, it's up to them to come up with a business model. Censorship via copyright is not an acceptable solution to me even if it results in more content.
In fact, to the degree that a significant number of appeals to hypocrisy can be made against a politician
Saying that their position is wrong because they're hypocrites is different than saying that you won't vote for them because you personally don't feel they can be trusted. It's not that they ceased to be fallacies, but that those things weren't fallacies to begin with.
I don't think so. I'm just tired of these sweeping bans/limitations/penalties that certain people seem to want from the government. The fact that kids are the ones being limited this time around or that it's television being limited makes no difference to me.
Sigh. I hope you are pretty young to have written such a reply.
They don't necessarily have to be religious, either. But the same suggestion for religion would cause an outrage.
Sometimes there are calls to censor the web by default (an opt-out service) so that porn can be filtered. Much like in this scenario, attack religion instead of porn/tv would cause a massive outrage (and I think it should). For certain people, it's okay to attack the things they don't like, but when someone else does the same thing and it happens to be something that they do like, they are angry.
Except that this law would be an unenforceable waste of money that tries to combat a nonexistent threat. You might as well crack down on lemonade stands...
Regulating materials used in children's toys is far more simple than controlling how much television every kid watches. Not to mention that that would just punish everyone.
It isn't, but people seem to be afraid of every nonexistent threat. Terrorists, communists, copyright infringement, television...
They seem so afraid, in fact, that they wish to punish everyone because whatever it is they're afraid of harms some people. What a good solution that is.
Can we just get rid of the TSA mentalities?
Safety is more important than anything. We must ban/limit something for everyone because it affects certain people in a way that we don't like!
And banning it or trying to limit it would not only be unenforceable, but it would violate people's freedoms.
But hey, as long as we're talking about banning things we don't like, how about we ban religion? Or if that's too much, how about limiting it?
Is that what you want to protect?
Yes.
In America, there are groups like the Westboro Baptist Church that protest and cause great, directed offence to specific individuals at funerals. Do you think that's right?
I think they should be able to say it. Offended? Too bad.
Free speech is only allowed of the majority agree with it. What a great system that would be.
I'm fairly certain he was just making a point. If someone can be arrested for offending someone else, why not for other reasons than this, too?
Since I say anything that offended me isn't free speech, and you don't have a right to offend, I believe you should be arrested. Your comment offends me deeply!
Sorry, but "speech needs protection only when it offends someone" does not imply "all offensive speech should be protected".
It doesn't imply that, but that's what I believe. Any distinctions are going to be arbitrary.
Free speech is okay as long as it's something that I like. If it's offensive to me, and I see it, well, that's not free speech anymore!
How does it seem reasonable that someone was arrested for causing offense? As far as I know, being offended isn't the end of the world. But I guess safety (Even from mean words!) is all that really matters.
Yes, someone who doesn't cry as much as you lacks empathy.
This is LESS JUSTICE.
A situation where people don't have freedom of speech? I think not. If your only test is that someone might be offended, then I believe there is a problem.
In an effort to save their lives, people might stampede.
I find that unlikely, but if that happened, I believe we should punish the ones who caused the actual damage: the ones who stampeded over others.
But still a limitation upon freedom of speech. It just has a different name.