I don't believe the fact that it might help discourage it warrants prosecuting the people who didn't even rape anyone over maybes (maybe they encouraged more child porn to be made). I think it's just a waste of time.
Do you still wish to die? If so, do you think everyone else feels that way? I think the problem with murder is that the person is simply gone, and there is absolutely no way they can recover from that (as in, live anything like a normal life in any way).
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech.
I don't think that makes much sense. In this same way, even countries like China have freedom of speech. After all, people are only punished for the consequences of their speech.
If the government punishes someone for their speech, then that type of speech is indeed being limited.
but the actions that arise from the speech.
They're actions that result from other people.
Also, prosecute the billboard owner for obscenity.
That sounds far too subjective to me, and why would they prosecute him, anyway? He didn't even necessarily put it there.
You need to have speech to convince people to change the law. Other speech freedoms are relatively less important.
And sometimes they're both highly related. I know I don't want to live somewhere where my speech (in your example, insulting Mohammed) is deemed illegal merely because the certain people take offense to it. I believe that it indicates a rampant, out of control government that is very prone to corruption.
I find it somewhat unlikely that people would get up, scream, and trample over everyone else to get out of the building because someone screamed something that they don't know to be true. And even if they did, I'd say they should be the ones paying for any damage they did to other people.
How about if someone rapes your daughter, films the act, and puts it on a billboard across the street from her school?
Prosecute the rapist.
Freedom is important, but it is not an absolute.
That depends on where your priorities lie. In some cases, and to some people, it might be.
Because it's Pure Evil, and I don't like it. Not to mention that it might encourage the creation of more (and we need to arrest people based on maybes and blame them for the actions of others even if they didn't pay them a single cent). Oh, and it's far easier to catch people who look at pictures than it is to stop those who are doing the molesting.
Seems our constitution does a good job of protecting us from such abuses, or at least it has so far.
Like from the TSA and the Patriot Act? Then again, it really doesn't matter much how the US compares to other countries. That won't determine whether or not the US is doing a good job.
I believe the likelihood of such an attack is also very much worth considering, and that rights are far more important than a few people's lives. In other words, I think this "to stop the terrorists" nonsense has to go unless they show that it's working, show that it doesn't violate anyone's rights, and show that a specific attack is likely going to occur.
I do. It allows the potential for abuse, and I see it as an unnecessary power to have. Especially when it allows them to spy on citizens. No, I'm not going to blindly trust the government or their filters that are supposedly "pretty good."
I'll guess that the guys with the tinfoil hats
You needn't have a tinfoil hat to see that humans tend to abuse their power when given too much of it. History is filled with such things, and I certainly don't want to take any unnecessary risks.
Irrelevant. We by no means need to tax these people's activities. It is not a "must." Throwing out the word "responsibility" is completely and utterly pointless.
There are groups trying to get some of those banned. They're just as nutty as this proposed tax. I think participants in sports usually pay higher insurance rates to cover the added risk.
Really? And just how would they keep track of who ice skates and who doesn't?
In the first part of the sentence it looks like you're advocating higher taxes. Are you for or against them?
I didn't advocate higher taxes. I said I thought it was a worthy trade off to be able to live in a free society.
It is almost impossible to do things that do not inadvertently affect others in some way. I do not believe that should ever mean that we need to start taxing and/or banning certain activities just because someone else doesn't want to pay slightly higher taxes.
Btw, society does accept many problems, but why should we accept every self-induced problem that people decide to inflict upon themselves?
To live in a free society that doesn't force you to get care from the government and then turn around and tax/ban your activities simply because it doesn't like what you do.
My opinion is that 99.999% of home schooled children are being robbed of opportunities and will be denied the ability to choose what could be best for them due to their parents short-comings/ignorance/prejudices/ignorance/etc.
Now all you need to do is perform a study to actually prove that before you go off advocating for any laws that restrict other people's freedom.
Yes, punish them for doing completely harmless things because the rules say so! Teach them that the employees at the school are actually more childish than the students themselves!
Too late to make that statement. You have to make it without the prompting to be believed. You didn't.
No, I don't. That doesn't make any sense. I don't have to list every single one of my beliefs in a single comment in order to have them.
Actually, it does. A hypocrite is wrong, because they aren't being honest, but lying and misrepresenting themselves.
Tu quoque.
You're taking "random profanity" as the standard when the proper direction is "honest criticism"
That is incorrect. I simply applied your logic to another scenario. You said that if someone protests, then that somehow means that what you said was spot on. But it could easily be that it's false and that they simply disagree. As for "honest criticism," anyone could claim that that's what their criticism was. More than likely, you believe that you are correct, after all.
Your protest kinda points me towards doubting you even more now.
Are you disagreeing with me? Your protest kinda points me towards doubting you even more now. See how that works?
Substitute in Socialist, Communist, liberal, modify your words just a bit, and the same thing happens.
Yeah. I think that needs to stop, too.
but I'm sorry, my experience with hypocrites trying to project their own sins with such word-play onto others while never owning up to their conduct makes me doubt the genuineness of any concern you may have.
Even if other people are hypocrites, that doesn't mean I am one. But being a hypocrite doesn't make one wrong, either.
In fact, the harder they protest, the more I tend to know that it's spot on.
Much like how if you were to scream all sorts of random profanity at someone, and if they got offended, that would mean all of your insults apply to them. Even ones that are physically impossible. The fact that someone protests doesn't mean you're correct. That's just a non sequitur. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean.
Since when did Slashdot have so many internet psychologists that have the ability to instantly diagnose random people they've never met as sociopaths? I've often seen the above reasons used to call someone else a sociopath. If your actions make someone else sad or angry, and you don't let your future actions be controlled by their emotions, that somehow makes you a "sociopath" even if there are people you care about. According to them. Basically, anyone they disagree with is a sociopath. Especially if you don't care about the same things that they do.
What is wrong with taxing things that are bad for you and society?
Because eventually someone will find that an activity you enjoy is "useless" (to them) and "harmful," and therefore in need of a ban/tax. Because not everyone who drinks these is unhealthy; some people can do it in moderation. This is just punishing everyone.
There are few things that don't inadvertently affect others in some way, but that doesn't mean we need to tax/ban them. It is easily possible to not only have health care but also not attempt to restrict the actions of others (either by taxing or by banning) just because you don't care for what they do. I'd say potentially higher taxes are a trade off of living in a free society.
I think this word is a bit overused here. Disagree with me? Sociopath. Don't care about a specific group of people? Sociopath. Don't let other people's emotions forever control your actions? Sociopath. Care about some people, but not others? Sociopath. Care about people, but not enough to let their emotions stop you from doing what you feel needs to be done? Sociopath. Everything makes one a sociopath/means they don't have empathy for anyone.
Why is it that if what you do affects someone else inadvertently, it must be taxed/banned? That pretty much includes everything. Ice skating? Useless, and people could get hurt. Sports? Useless, and people could get hurt (and they often do). Boxing? Wrestling? Various other activities? Ban/tax them all because I don't feel like paying higher taxes for people getting hurt doing things that I personally don't agree with!
Why is it that we can't accept paying for others' problems as a trade off of living in a free society where everything you do isn't taxed just because someone else wanted socialized health care but doesn't want to pay higher taxes for one of the things you do?
Slashdot Mirror
but it does help discourage it.
I don't believe the fact that it might help discourage it warrants prosecuting the people who didn't even rape anyone over maybes (maybe they encouraged more child porn to be made). I think it's just a waste of time.
Jeez, since when did NAMBLA have such a big following on slashdot?
Yes, they're guilty by association! They must be part of that group!
Do you still wish to die? If so, do you think everyone else feels that way? I think the problem with murder is that the person is simply gone, and there is absolutely no way they can recover from that (as in, live anything like a normal life in any way).
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech.
I don't think that makes much sense. In this same way, even countries like China have freedom of speech. After all, people are only punished for the consequences of their speech.
If the government punishes someone for their speech, then that type of speech is indeed being limited.
but the actions that arise from the speech.
They're actions that result from other people.
Also, prosecute the billboard owner for obscenity.
That sounds far too subjective to me, and why would they prosecute him, anyway? He didn't even necessarily put it there.
You need to have speech to convince people to change the law. Other speech freedoms are relatively less important.
And sometimes they're both highly related. I know I don't want to live somewhere where my speech (in your example, insulting Mohammed) is deemed illegal merely because the certain people take offense to it. I believe that it indicates a rampant, out of control government that is very prone to corruption.
But I don't think that's what the person you replied to meant to begin with. He was probably referring to banning TOR or something such as that.
Not shouting fire in a crowded theater?
I find it somewhat unlikely that people would get up, scream, and trample over everyone else to get out of the building because someone screamed something that they don't know to be true. And even if they did, I'd say they should be the ones paying for any damage they did to other people.
How about if someone rapes your daughter, films the act, and puts it on a billboard across the street from her school?
Prosecute the rapist.
Freedom is important, but it is not an absolute.
That depends on where your priorities lie. In some cases, and to some people, it might be.
Because it's Pure Evil, and I don't like it. Not to mention that it might encourage the creation of more (and we need to arrest people based on maybes and blame them for the actions of others even if they didn't pay them a single cent). Oh, and it's far easier to catch people who look at pictures than it is to stop those who are doing the molesting.
Seems our constitution does a good job of protecting us from such abuses, or at least it has so far.
Like from the TSA and the Patriot Act? Then again, it really doesn't matter much how the US compares to other countries. That won't determine whether or not the US is doing a good job.
I believe the likelihood of such an attack is also very much worth considering, and that rights are far more important than a few people's lives. In other words, I think this "to stop the terrorists" nonsense has to go unless they show that it's working, show that it doesn't violate anyone's rights, and show that a specific attack is likely going to occur.
I personally don't see the huge issue with this
I do. It allows the potential for abuse, and I see it as an unnecessary power to have. Especially when it allows them to spy on citizens. No, I'm not going to blindly trust the government or their filters that are supposedly "pretty good."
I'll guess that the guys with the tinfoil hats
You needn't have a tinfoil hat to see that humans tend to abuse their power when given too much of it. History is filled with such things, and I certainly don't want to take any unnecessary risks.
Not to mention that healthy people who occasionally do these things get punished as well.
What happened to personal responsibility?
Irrelevant. We by no means need to tax these people's activities. It is not a "must." Throwing out the word "responsibility" is completely and utterly pointless.
There are groups trying to get some of those banned. They're just as nutty as this proposed tax. I think participants in sports usually pay higher insurance rates to cover the added risk.
Really? And just how would they keep track of who ice skates and who doesn't?
In the first part of the sentence it looks like you're advocating higher taxes. Are you for or against them?
I didn't advocate higher taxes. I said I thought it was a worthy trade off to be able to live in a free society.
It is almost impossible to do things that do not inadvertently affect others in some way. I do not believe that should ever mean that we need to start taxing and/or banning certain activities just because someone else doesn't want to pay slightly higher taxes.
Btw, society does accept many problems, but why should we accept every self-induced problem that people decide to inflict upon themselves?
To live in a free society that doesn't force you to get care from the government and then turn around and tax/ban your activities simply because it doesn't like what you do.
Sorry, but you can't do that. If it was allowed, it would destroy the 'conomy!
My opinion is that 99.999% of home schooled children are being robbed of opportunities and will be denied the ability to choose what could be best for them due to their parents short-comings/ignorance/prejudices/ignorance/etc.
Now all you need to do is perform a study to actually prove that before you go off advocating for any laws that restrict other people's freedom.
More likely, he will learn to disobey authority, which is bad.
That's bad? I believe authority should always be questioned to begin with.
Yes, punish them for doing completely harmless things because the rules say so! Teach them that the employees at the school are actually more childish than the students themselves!
Not upset, but amusing. Some here will call you a sociopath for just about anything.
Too late to make that statement. You have to make it without the prompting to be believed. You didn't.
No, I don't. That doesn't make any sense. I don't have to list every single one of my beliefs in a single comment in order to have them.
Actually, it does. A hypocrite is wrong, because they aren't being honest, but lying and misrepresenting themselves.
Tu quoque.
You're taking "random profanity" as the standard when the proper direction is "honest criticism"
That is incorrect. I simply applied your logic to another scenario. You said that if someone protests, then that somehow means that what you said was spot on. But it could easily be that it's false and that they simply disagree. As for "honest criticism," anyone could claim that that's what their criticism was. More than likely, you believe that you are correct, after all.
Your protest kinda points me towards doubting you even more now.
Are you disagreeing with me? Your protest kinda points me towards doubting you even more now. See how that works?
Substitute in Socialist, Communist, liberal, modify your words just a bit, and the same thing happens.
Yeah. I think that needs to stop, too.
but I'm sorry, my experience with hypocrites trying to project their own sins with such word-play onto others while never owning up to their conduct makes me doubt the genuineness of any concern you may have.
Even if other people are hypocrites, that doesn't mean I am one. But being a hypocrite doesn't make one wrong, either.
In fact, the harder they protest, the more I tend to know that it's spot on.
Much like how if you were to scream all sorts of random profanity at someone, and if they got offended, that would mean all of your insults apply to them. Even ones that are physically impossible. The fact that someone protests doesn't mean you're correct. That's just a non sequitur. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean.
Any other questions?
Since when did Slashdot have so many internet psychologists that have the ability to instantly diagnose random people they've never met as sociopaths? I've often seen the above reasons used to call someone else a sociopath. If your actions make someone else sad or angry, and you don't let your future actions be controlled by their emotions, that somehow makes you a "sociopath" even if there are people you care about. According to them. Basically, anyone they disagree with is a sociopath. Especially if you don't care about the same things that they do.
Except we can point to real harm and real costs.
I hinted at the fact that I don't care about "real harm" and "real costs" if it means living in a free society.
It's the same as anything else that has the appearance of being cheap because you choose not to look at the big picture.
That wasn't really the purpose of that comment.
What is wrong with taxing things that are bad for you and society?
Because eventually someone will find that an activity you enjoy is "useless" (to them) and "harmful," and therefore in need of a ban/tax. Because not everyone who drinks these is unhealthy; some people can do it in moderation. This is just punishing everyone.
There are few things that don't inadvertently affect others in some way, but that doesn't mean we need to tax/ban them. It is easily possible to not only have health care but also not attempt to restrict the actions of others (either by taxing or by banning) just because you don't care for what they do. I'd say potentially higher taxes are a trade off of living in a free society.
Or maybe your sociopathic ideals
I think this word is a bit overused here. Disagree with me? Sociopath. Don't care about a specific group of people? Sociopath. Don't let other people's emotions forever control your actions? Sociopath. Care about some people, but not others? Sociopath. Care about people, but not enough to let their emotions stop you from doing what you feel needs to be done? Sociopath. Everything makes one a sociopath/means they don't have empathy for anyone.
Why is it that if what you do affects someone else inadvertently, it must be taxed/banned? That pretty much includes everything. Ice skating? Useless, and people could get hurt. Sports? Useless, and people could get hurt (and they often do). Boxing? Wrestling? Various other activities? Ban/tax them all because I don't feel like paying higher taxes for people getting hurt doing things that I personally don't agree with!
Why is it that we can't accept paying for others' problems as a trade off of living in a free society where everything you do isn't taxed just because someone else wanted socialized health care but doesn't want to pay higher taxes for one of the things you do?