I think you missed my point, so I'll restate it: In the case of government and law enforcement, the only law that applies, per The Constitution, is The Constitution.
Right. I don't want them to break it, myself, but I wouldn't say it's objectively wrong to break it.
In the case of government and law enforcement, if it's against the law for them to do it, it IS wrong.
Appeal to law. Something being legal doesn't make it moral, and something being illegal doesn't make it immoral. I don't believe that's how morals work.
Unless you're saying that the US Constitution is a bad law.
No, I'm saying that laws don't necessarily dictate what is or is not moral (for anyone).
I wouldn't say that's fine. They're suggesting that things they don't like should be automatically blocked. What if I said that we should automatically block republican/democrat/religious/atheist websites, for instance? I'm sure there are some people that would like at least a few of those blocked, yet if it was proposed, I believe there would be far more outrage.
If the schools don't want that happening, they can implement a meaningless block themselves.
everyone has to refuse the treatment otherwise it sends a signal that doing that again is OK.
I think that's silly. For one thing, the one who came up with the cure would be punished. Second of all, could you really say you'd be willing to throw out a perfectly good cure for cancer meaninglessly?
Unfortunate for me, but less so for your cat. You do know the cat more than you know a stranger, after all. Sort of like choosing to save your child over choosing to save a stranger.
And you've gone down this road mentally, thought about it, and wrote down that you're not sure if certain humans should be allowed to live versus another species or whether humans are worth sticking up for at all.
It depends on the situation. Deciding whether or not to save a member of another species you love over a human has nothing to do with eugenicists.
I didn't say anything about whether humans are worth sticking up for at all or not. That's a subjective matter.
Don't message me back.
Then don't reply to me in a place where I have the ability to reply to your comments.
The person who killed them would be punished. However, the treatment is already there, so what's the point? Throw out a perfectly good cure for cancer and pretend it doesn't exist? The person who came up with the treatment could not profit off of it, so it's utterly pointless to refuse it. And I believe most humans don't like to die, so I believe they would take the treatment.
Please read the comment I replied to. He mentioned a member of one species trying to come up with a convincing argument about why a member of another species should save them over a member of their own species. While it might be possible to do, given instinct, it's unlikely. But there is no reason that a species above humans should treat humans any differently than they treat others (unless they wish to). I find it funny how often humans treat their species as special (not surprising) and as if some magical entity decided they are more objectively important than anything else.
Because only people with absolute lack of empathy would pick Thumper.
No, it's just that you lack the imagination required to imagine a scenario where someone has empathy for both members of other species and members of their own species. You could, for instance, view either death as a tragedy, but still choose to save the one you like the most (which might very well be Thumper or the human in this scenario).
Sorry if this annoys you.
I'm going to state my opinion as a fact and act as if that's the end of that. Sorry if this annoys you.
So you are saying that it is okay to use human babies as fertilizer for your lawn and skin them to make lamp shades?
No, I was saying that I think it's pointless to refuse a treatment because of the methods used to develop it that are no longer in use. The scenario I described was a one-time thing, and the perpetrator would be punished, but the treatment would remain available. I suppose you could refuse the treatment, but I just think it's meaningless.
And yes, for some this includes making use of research obained through immoral means.
What a meaningless sacrifice.
That you do, says a lot about you.
That I have a different opinion than you?
For most, "everyone else is doing it" is thankfully not good enough or we all be living in a world like Somalia and other hell holes where individual morals have disappeared.
Individual morals likely never disappear as long as you're human. I don't see where anyone mentioned the fact that everyone else is doing it, either.
The daily proof is that we don't eat our dead.
I thought that was unhealthy, anyway? And who is "we"? I'm sure there are some cultures that do.
I predict you will be shunned.
Eating human sounds rather unappetizing to me, so I'll pass on that. But I find it amusing that a few sentences prior to this you mentioned "everyone else is doing it," and here you basically say, "no one else is doing it!"
Amazing as it may appear to you, some people would indeed refuse such a treatment.
I never said that they couldn't. I just said I thought it was meaningless.
It is what makes them human.
And people who don't are... goblins or something? No True Human would go through with the treatment! Statements such as these always amuse me. They attempt to state as a fact what a human being should act like, and anyone that doesn't follow their made-up rules must be some sort of alien in disguise as a human.
That you can't means you are an animal.
All humans are animals, and I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find a human being that doesn't have any morals whatsoever. Them having different morals than you doesn't mean that they don't have any at all.
I don't believe it's possible to give a convincing argument for choosing you over a member of something else's species. If other beings did this to us, I would hope humans wouldn't be so arrogant as to claim they're special snowflakes deserving of special treatment.
I wonder how many PETA vegans who develop fibrosis in the lungs will turn down any potential treatment to keep them alive developed from this.
If someone somehow found a cure for cancer by sacrificing a million human babies, and no more babies would need to be killed afterwards in order to treat people, would you refuse the treatment? That would be pointless. The ones who died are already dead, and refusing the treatment will not bring them back.
But the feeling of entitlement, that you should be able to grab whatever is produced at no cost to yourself, regardless of what justification you use.... that one I can't go with you on.
But the feeling of entitlement, that some believe copyright law should exist...
Yeah, you can create feelings of "entitlement" anywhere and out of just about any situation. Invoking that word means absolutely nothing.
Very many people agree that the Pirate Bay is an organized copyright thief. That's a simple fact.
Really? I don't know whether or not that's true, but is that simply something you hope is true, or do you have some sort of evidence to back up that statement?
A few minutes. It makes no difference. There are 24 hours in a day, yes? Surely using a few minutes to whitelist things on a few websites on their own time doesn't indicate that someone has "no life" (are they dead?).
Taking a few seconds to whitelist a few domains indicates you don't have a life? I hope you don't tie your shoes, or do anything that takes a few seconds on a routine basis!
1. Copyright infringement is a lesser crime than speeding due mainly to the fact that speeding implies a greater chance of KILLING PEOPLE whereas copyright infringement arguably has no victims.
Victims of copyright infringement have had their intellectual property raped! How can you say copyright infringement leaves no victims!?
Society can't "decide" such a thing, anyway. They can make laws based on their own opinions, but that is all. Whether everyone is truly equal or not (and which groups are and aren't) is up to the individual to decide.
As a society we've decided that all men are created equal and therefore should all have the same rights.
They do have the same rights. What they don't have are the same abilities (which are different from rights). I don't believe it's necessarily a bad thing to help them, though.
You don't like it, too bad, you're arguing for it.
No, that was a straw man argument you came up with. I just want to know what magical entity decided that these people "should" be paid. Who decided that? How do you decide if someone "should" do something? I implied nothing about copyright being right or wrong there.
So, according to you, having an opinion that is based on nothing or incomplete assumptions is valid?
I was implying that it's a subjective matter. "I don't like copyright." is an opinion.
I bet, if I were to search this site alone, I could find posts from you arguing that people are idiots for that very thing! The hypocrisy here is unimaginable.
Wait... you theorize that such comments exist (and I don't even know what you were talking about there), offer no evidence that they do, and then call me a hypocrite?
But of course, hypocrisy doesn't make someone incorrect to begin with.
and I'm sorry that they feel that they're entitled
Disagreeing with a law means you're "entitled"? I see. Then you're "entitled" for agreeing with it. Of course, that's nonsense, and doesn't actually disprove anyone's arguments.
I think, sad to say, that, because I'm on slashdot for this argument, as your sig so blatantly points out, I'm arguing with children, or at least individuals who hold the mindset of children when it comes to this argument.
I don't believe calling people children or saying they have the mindset of children is ever going to make someone agree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you missed my point, so I'll restate it: In the case of government and law enforcement, the only law that applies, per The Constitution, is The Constitution.
Right. I don't want them to break it, myself, but I wouldn't say it's objectively wrong to break it.
In the case of government and law enforcement, if it's against the law for them to do it, it IS wrong.
Appeal to law. Something being legal doesn't make it moral, and something being illegal doesn't make it immoral. I don't believe that's how morals work.
Unless you're saying that the US Constitution is a bad law.
No, I'm saying that laws don't necessarily dictate what is or is not moral (for anyone).
I wouldn't say that's fine. They're suggesting that things they don't like should be automatically blocked. What if I said that we should automatically block republican/democrat/religious/atheist websites, for instance? I'm sure there are some people that would like at least a few of those blocked, yet if it was proposed, I believe there would be far more outrage.
If the schools don't want that happening, they can implement a meaningless block themselves.
It means what you want to do is wrong, and you shouldn't do it.
It's not necessarily wrong because it's against the law. There is such a thing as a bad law.
everyone has to refuse the treatment otherwise it sends a signal that doing that again is OK.
I think that's silly. For one thing, the one who came up with the cure would be punished. Second of all, could you really say you'd be willing to throw out a perfectly good cure for cancer meaninglessly?
Unfortunate for me, but less so for your cat. You do know the cat more than you know a stranger, after all. Sort of like choosing to save your child over choosing to save a stranger.
And you've gone down this road mentally, thought about it, and wrote down that you're not sure if certain humans should be allowed to live versus another species or whether humans are worth sticking up for at all.
It depends on the situation. Deciding whether or not to save a member of another species you love over a human has nothing to do with eugenicists.
I didn't say anything about whether humans are worth sticking up for at all or not. That's a subjective matter.
Don't message me back.
Then don't reply to me in a place where I have the ability to reply to your comments.
We called them eugenicists.
What? I don't believe that has anything to do with what I said.
The person who killed them would be punished. However, the treatment is already there, so what's the point? Throw out a perfectly good cure for cancer and pretend it doesn't exist? The person who came up with the treatment could not profit off of it, so it's utterly pointless to refuse it. And I believe most humans don't like to die, so I believe they would take the treatment.
Please read the comment I replied to. He mentioned a member of one species trying to come up with a convincing argument about why a member of another species should save them over a member of their own species. While it might be possible to do, given instinct, it's unlikely. But there is no reason that a species above humans should treat humans any differently than they treat others (unless they wish to). I find it funny how often humans treat their species as special (not surprising) and as if some magical entity decided they are more objectively important than anything else.
Because only people with absolute lack of empathy would pick Thumper.
No, it's just that you lack the imagination required to imagine a scenario where someone has empathy for both members of other species and members of their own species. You could, for instance, view either death as a tragedy, but still choose to save the one you like the most (which might very well be Thumper or the human in this scenario).
Sorry if this annoys you.
I'm going to state my opinion as a fact and act as if that's the end of that. Sorry if this annoys you.
So you are saying that it is okay to use human babies as fertilizer for your lawn and skin them to make lamp shades?
No, I was saying that I think it's pointless to refuse a treatment because of the methods used to develop it that are no longer in use. The scenario I described was a one-time thing, and the perpetrator would be punished, but the treatment would remain available. I suppose you could refuse the treatment, but I just think it's meaningless.
And yes, for some this includes making use of research obained through immoral means.
What a meaningless sacrifice.
That you do, says a lot about you.
That I have a different opinion than you?
For most, "everyone else is doing it" is thankfully not good enough or we all be living in a world like Somalia and other hell holes where individual morals have disappeared.
Individual morals likely never disappear as long as you're human. I don't see where anyone mentioned the fact that everyone else is doing it, either.
The daily proof is that we don't eat our dead.
I thought that was unhealthy, anyway? And who is "we"? I'm sure there are some cultures that do.
I predict you will be shunned.
Eating human sounds rather unappetizing to me, so I'll pass on that. But I find it amusing that a few sentences prior to this you mentioned "everyone else is doing it," and here you basically say, "no one else is doing it!"
Amazing as it may appear to you, some people would indeed refuse such a treatment.
I never said that they couldn't. I just said I thought it was meaningless.
It is what makes them human.
And people who don't are... goblins or something? No True Human would go through with the treatment! Statements such as these always amuse me. They attempt to state as a fact what a human being should act like, and anyone that doesn't follow their made-up rules must be some sort of alien in disguise as a human.
That you can't means you are an animal.
All humans are animals, and I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find a human being that doesn't have any morals whatsoever. Them having different morals than you doesn't mean that they don't have any at all.
I don't believe it's possible to give a convincing argument for choosing you over a member of something else's species. If other beings did this to us, I would hope humans wouldn't be so arrogant as to claim they're special snowflakes deserving of special treatment.
I wonder how many PETA vegans who develop fibrosis in the lungs will turn down any potential treatment to keep them alive developed from this.
If someone somehow found a cure for cancer by sacrificing a million human babies, and no more babies would need to be killed afterwards in order to treat people, would you refuse the treatment? That would be pointless. The ones who died are already dead, and refusing the treatment will not bring them back.
we can generalize that all laws are entirely unjust
I don't see where that was said.
But the feeling of entitlement, that you should be able to grab whatever is produced at no cost to yourself, regardless of what justification you use.... that one I can't go with you on.
But the feeling of entitlement, that some believe copyright law should exist...
Yeah, you can create feelings of "entitlement" anywhere and out of just about any situation. Invoking that word means absolutely nothing.
And the number of people convinced by the other sides' arguments...?
Very many people agree that the Pirate Bay is an organized copyright thief. That's a simple fact.
Really? I don't know whether or not that's true, but is that simply something you hope is true, or do you have some sort of evidence to back up that statement?
Which, in reality, is not what happened.
It isn't? If you're going by what it literally says, it really doesn't list any exceptions. Whether you think that's a good idea is another matter.
A few minutes. It makes no difference. There are 24 hours in a day, yes? Surely using a few minutes to whitelist things on a few websites on their own time doesn't indicate that someone has "no life" (are they dead?).
In contrast to you, I have a life.
Taking a few seconds to whitelist a few domains indicates you don't have a life? I hope you don't tie your shoes, or do anything that takes a few seconds on a routine basis!
It does if you simply call it "freedom of speech" and then list no exceptions.
1. Copyright infringement is a lesser crime than speeding due mainly to the fact that speeding implies a greater chance of KILLING PEOPLE whereas copyright infringement arguably has no victims.
Victims of copyright infringement have had their intellectual property raped! How can you say copyright infringement leaves no victims!?
Society can't "decide" such a thing, anyway. They can make laws based on their own opinions, but that is all. Whether everyone is truly equal or not (and which groups are and aren't) is up to the individual to decide.
As a society we've decided that all men are created equal and therefore should all have the same rights.
They do have the same rights. What they don't have are the same abilities (which are different from rights). I don't believe it's necessarily a bad thing to help them, though.
You don't like it, too bad, you're arguing for it.
No, that was a straw man argument you came up with. I just want to know what magical entity decided that these people "should" be paid. Who decided that? How do you decide if someone "should" do something? I implied nothing about copyright being right or wrong there.
So, according to you, having an opinion that is based on nothing or incomplete assumptions is valid?
I was implying that it's a subjective matter. "I don't like copyright." is an opinion.
I bet, if I were to search this site alone, I could find posts from you arguing that people are idiots for that very thing! The hypocrisy here is unimaginable.
Wait... you theorize that such comments exist (and I don't even know what you were talking about there), offer no evidence that they do, and then call me a hypocrite?
But of course, hypocrisy doesn't make someone incorrect to begin with.
and I'm sorry that they feel that they're entitled
Disagreeing with a law means you're "entitled"? I see. Then you're "entitled" for agreeing with it. Of course, that's nonsense, and doesn't actually disprove anyone's arguments.
I think, sad to say, that, because I'm on slashdot for this argument, as your sig so blatantly points out, I'm arguing with children, or at least individuals who hold the mindset of children when it comes to this argument.
I don't believe calling people children or saying they have the mindset of children is ever going to make someone agree with you.