I think one problem is that people are too emotional about the issue. Some people don't seem to want to allow any casualties whatsoever and wish to live in some fantasy land where no one ever dies. It's very likely not possible, and that same attitude is what leads us to 'solutions' like the TSA: security theater at the expense of freedom.
There are probably
Key word: probably. That's not a sufficient reason to curtail individual freedom in the name of safety, in my opinion. I see it like this: if they use drugs, that's their own fault. No need to say that nobody can use drugs just because some people abuse them and/or because it harms their health. That's very similar to collective punishment and makes whatever nation with those policies seem like a nanny state.
would open legal use of drugs result in more deaths?
If they can't prove that it would, I do not believe there should be any laws against it. Actually, even if they could, I still don't believe there should be a war on drugs.
I don't care for how certain people (not necessarily you) use 'safety' as an excuse to curtail certain individual freedoms.
I said in terms of pointlessness . I believe the war on drugs is far worse, but at least some of the people behind it have (somewhat), in my opinion, noble intentions. I also believe they're completely wrong, but that's not the point. The only thing at stake with copyright infringement is potential profit. I find that to be an absolutely pathetic reason to push draconian laws.
Reminds me of the equally pointless "war on drugs".
In terms of pointlessness, I'd say it's even worse. They're trying to stop people from copying data, and it's nearly impossible to catch anyone to begin with.
No, it's a futile endeavor that leads to censorship. Here they are wasting unimaginably large amounts of money trying to stop copyright infringement, and it simply never works. It very likely never will work.
Some people aren't bothered by cutting other people into little pieces for their own amusement.
But I'd say not agonizing over a random stranger's death (which is important for no reason whatsoever, apparently) is quite a bit different than cutting someone up. Your lack of feelings towards someone's death typically doesn't kill someone, for instance.
It's a choice that is generally significantly biased by an underlying mental illness.
Regardless of what mental illnesses we diagnose these people with, I see nothing inherently illogical about it. No more so than simply doing what you want to do (even if they can't evaluate the consequences, but for some people, that may not be true).
It is the most selfish decision a person can make.
Who decided that it is the "most" selfish? Almost everything humans do is selfish, anyway.
He should have gotten the authorities involved, because they should always be involved. In everything.
Precisely. Sadly, some people are perfectly willing to trade away safety for this 'freedom' nonsense. I honestly wish it was possible to have a TSA agent constantly breathing down everyone's necks; if that happened, we'd be perfectly safe from all the evil trolls, rapists, and terrorists! Oh, and copyright infringers (the most dangerous criminals of them all).
The problem with "'fire' in a crowded theater" is not that it's a limitation of free speech, rather, someone who does so can be held liable for any injury they cause in the course of a lie.
And what is the lie? Speech. It is very much a limitation on free speech (You're being punished for the lie which people reacted to; if you had said nothing, you would not have been punished.), and it is other people that cause the injuries, not the speaker.
The thing is that everything about it is irrational.
I don't see anything inherently illogical about it. It's a choice just like anything else.
It's the most selfish act that a person can do.
But wanting them to stay alive for you and/or others isn't? I say there's nothing wrong with selfishness in some cases. Don't let other people's sensitivity/emotions control your every action.
It's not surprising that someone would be opposed to something that could cost them their job, but I'd say they're the people we should be listening to, anyway. They'll simply have to find another way to make money rather than try to stifle innovation.
I believe few allegations about government abuse are truly crazy. We have an entire history to back up the fact that people given power can and will abuse it. Personally, I'd say that applies less so in this case than others, though.
Cooking your own meals is fine.
But the children could get hurt! If it wouldn't result in severe backlash, I honestly would be surprised if they didn't try to make everyone buy a permit.
Despite your hand-waving, this is NOT the same thing as being irradiated in order to board an airplane.
The end result is the same: less freedom in exchange for safety. I just found that particular regulation utterly ridiculous in that specific context.
When did we become a society completely incapable of empathy?
As far as I'm aware, we didn't. The fact that certain people aren't as offended or sad about a random stranger's death as you doesn't mean that they don't feel empathy at all. Go be in agony if you think it'll improve the situation.
ie - yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater, calling in bomb threats
No matter what he was thinking or feeling at the time, the people who were violent are the ones who are the murderers. He did nothing to control them, and laws like that only seek to blame someone for other people's weak-mindedness. I suppose religions cannot be criticized because some people that are part of them are violent...
Slashdot Mirror
it is a sad waste of life.
I think one problem is that people are too emotional about the issue. Some people don't seem to want to allow any casualties whatsoever and wish to live in some fantasy land where no one ever dies. It's very likely not possible, and that same attitude is what leads us to 'solutions' like the TSA: security theater at the expense of freedom.
There are probably
Key word: probably. That's not a sufficient reason to curtail individual freedom in the name of safety, in my opinion. I see it like this: if they use drugs, that's their own fault. No need to say that nobody can use drugs just because some people abuse them and/or because it harms their health. That's very similar to collective punishment and makes whatever nation with those policies seem like a nanny state.
would open legal use of drugs result in more deaths?
If they can't prove that it would, I do not believe there should be any laws against it. Actually, even if they could, I still don't believe there should be a war on drugs.
I don't care for how certain people (not necessarily you) use 'safety' as an excuse to curtail certain individual freedoms.
How do you know it was because of cannabis? Not only that, but that's just anecdotal evidence.
I said in terms of pointlessness . I believe the war on drugs is far worse, but at least some of the people behind it have (somewhat), in my opinion, noble intentions. I also believe they're completely wrong, but that's not the point. The only thing at stake with copyright infringement is potential profit. I find that to be an absolutely pathetic reason to push draconian laws.
Reminds me of the equally pointless "war on drugs".
In terms of pointlessness, I'd say it's even worse. They're trying to stop people from copying data, and it's nearly impossible to catch anyone to begin with.
But other people feel entitled to create little monopolies for themselves using the government's power. That's okay, though.
but since people can just steal any album
I believe the word you're looking for is "rape," not "steal."
No, it's a futile endeavor that leads to censorship. Here they are wasting unimaginably large amounts of money trying to stop copyright infringement, and it simply never works. It very likely never will work.
Stop wasting your time.
When you get older, you may understand why you're 100% incorrect. There, now you're completely defeated.
Why? If their community doesn't like it, they can leave. No need to blame Twitter for someone else's actions.
Some people aren't bothered by cutting other people into little pieces for their own amusement.
But I'd say not agonizing over a random stranger's death (which is important for no reason whatsoever, apparently) is quite a bit different than cutting someone up. Your lack of feelings towards someone's death typically doesn't kill someone, for instance.
It's a choice that is generally significantly biased by an underlying mental illness.
Regardless of what mental illnesses we diagnose these people with, I see nothing inherently illogical about it. No more so than simply doing what you want to do (even if they can't evaluate the consequences, but for some people, that may not be true).
It is the most selfish decision a person can make.
Who decided that it is the "most" selfish? Almost everything humans do is selfish, anyway.
Prison isn't there to make people better or to rehabilitate them.
Exactly. It's good for the economy that people end up right back in prison.
He should have gotten the authorities involved, because they should always be involved. In everything.
Precisely. Sadly, some people are perfectly willing to trade away safety for this 'freedom' nonsense. I honestly wish it was possible to have a TSA agent constantly breathing down everyone's necks; if that happened, we'd be perfectly safe from all the evil trolls, rapists, and terrorists! Oh, and copyright infringers (the most dangerous criminals of them all).
Safety first.
The problem with "'fire' in a crowded theater" is not that it's a limitation of free speech, rather, someone who does so can be held liable for any injury they cause in the course of a lie.
And what is the lie? Speech. It is very much a limitation on free speech (You're being punished for the lie which people reacted to; if you had said nothing, you would not have been punished.), and it is other people that cause the injuries, not the speaker.
The thing is that everything about it is irrational.
I don't see anything inherently illogical about it. It's a choice just like anything else.
It's the most selfish act that a person can do.
But wanting them to stay alive for you and/or others isn't? I say there's nothing wrong with selfishness in some cases. Don't let other people's sensitivity/emotions control your every action.
You're arguing about irrelevancies.
That makes it likely you are incorrect.
What?
Is that the type of thing you want shown on TV?
I honestly wouldn't care.
It's not surprising that someone would be opposed to something that could cost them their job, but I'd say they're the people we should be listening to, anyway. They'll simply have to find another way to make money rather than try to stifle innovation.
Or you could take your tinfoil hat
I believe few allegations about government abuse are truly crazy. We have an entire history to back up the fact that people given power can and will abuse it. Personally, I'd say that applies less so in this case than others, though.
Cooking your own meals is fine.
But the children could get hurt! If it wouldn't result in severe backlash, I honestly would be surprised if they didn't try to make everyone buy a permit.
Despite your hand-waving, this is NOT the same thing as being irradiated in order to board an airplane.
The end result is the same: less freedom in exchange for safety. I just found that particular regulation utterly ridiculous in that specific context.
and realize that not everyone is out to get you?
Straw man.
The permit says that you have been trained in proper food handling to avoid foodborne illnesses
Wait... that really exists? Why haven't they outlawed home cooking meals for anyone that doesn't have a license yet?
Just because we accept some regulations to ensure safety
Safety, safety, safety. That's why we have the TSA. I just love exchanging freedom for safety!
When did we become a society completely incapable of empathy?
As far as I'm aware, we didn't. The fact that certain people aren't as offended or sad about a random stranger's death as you doesn't mean that they don't feel empathy at all. Go be in agony if you think it'll improve the situation.
Because you're not as offended by something as I am, I hereby deem you to be a sociopath.
Too soon (or something moronic such as that)!
ie - yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater, calling in bomb threats
No matter what he was thinking or feeling at the time, the people who were violent are the ones who are the murderers. He did nothing to control them, and laws like that only seek to blame someone for other people's weak-mindedness. I suppose religions cannot be criticized because some people that are part of them are violent...
I see no evidence that they can control themselves.
There are a few who can't, and that's their problem.
Of course, your comment might make me go berserk and murder countless innocents. When that happens, it's on you.