If you, in your obese state, chose to operate a motor vehicle and while doing so have a heart attack, veer across traffic and take out a healthy family of 5 you have caused harm to those around.
That sounds extremely unlikely. Not that I think we should ever limit someone's freedom in such a way, but likelihood should at least be taken into account. Some people seem to have this "I'll accept no casualties, even if it's unlikely that there'll be any" mentality, and I believe it's simply unrealistic. It's what allows for nonsense like the TSA and Patriot Act.
We live in a collective society wether we like it or not, and choosing to make significantly unhealthy choices causes damage to the entire society.
And people choose to live in this society and support programs which aid the people who are making unhealthy choices.
Society could literally deem anything to be "unhealthy." I believe it is simply dangerous to allow freedoms to be limited simply because a majority wish it to be so.
Should we update are laws to acknowledge that, or just ignore it?
If updating laws means limiting individual freedoms, I say ignore it. Society certainly won't fall apart from a few unhealthy people, and just as the unhealthy people make choices, the same applies to all the people who choose to be a part of society and choose to support systems which aid these unhealthy people.
If you want to be free from the pressures of your community and have no responsibility to other people, you're free to live in the wilderness.
"Pack up and leave" is a great response to anyone bringing up a problem.
It places a cost on the rest of us.
And why would that be? Because they chose to have these systems in place, and chose to be part of the community? If these "unhealthy" people need to take responsibility for themselves, then perhaps the people who chose to have these systems in place to help them need to do the same. Instead they use them as a justification for limiting freedoms.
I see no reason why your right to be a lardass trumps the community's need to keep healthcare costs down.
Individual rights. Tyranny of the majority. Just about everything you do affects someone else in some way. Sometimes even monetarily. If affecting other people was enough of a justification to limit freedoms, just about any freedom could be taken away.
If there was ever an argument against universal health care, I think this would be it. People use it as a justification to take away other people's freedom.
But... land of the free! My government would never abuse its citizens! That's why censorship, the TSA, warrantless wiretapping, questionable wars, indefinite detainment, and torture are all perfectly acceptable. If they claim doing those will stop the terrorists or protect the children, of course.
In other words drones can make life better for those who are not criminals.
I don't believe stopping criminals is important at all when the government is attempting to expand its power so that they can use unmanned drones to efficiently spy on its citizens.
But the TSA and the Patriot Act are good because they claim to stop the evil terrorists. And that's all that matters. Not privacy or stopping the progression of the government's tools used to spy on its citizens. Criminals are hiding behind every corner, after all, and governments would never abuse their citizens.
I care more about the government's ability to cheaply and easily spy on people with unmanned drones than I do about a helicopter's safety. I don't even care about stopping "bad guys" when the government is attempting to expand its power. I don't envision a decent future if we allow them to do things such as this (but apparently you weren't thinking about the future). I don't even want to take the risk of giving the government more power to spy on its citizens.
Everyone rallies to protest the idea of the police having move capable and modern surveillance and tracking tools, until they discover the criminal who victimized them
"Everyone"? Really? Care to back that up?
In any case, it doesn't matter what they feel after being victimized. Let's not let victims be judges, juries, and executioners, shall we? What someone would or would not think if they were in a different situation than they are now (victimized) is irrelevant to whether or not they're correct right now.
What if someone was victimized in a house somewhere? The victim person might feel the need to have government cameras installed in every house. And since they were victims, that means they're right!
Whelp, there goes the internet. No one has a way to ensure anything unless they're perfect beings with the ability to magically identify copyrighted content.
But that's okay. They should be defending another person's copyright for them, anyway!
Problem is, it assumes guilt, and then the video is removed. By law. I'm fairly certain they have to remove it once they receive a DMCA takedown notice. Not many people have the resources to try to get these people punished for frivolous DMCA takedown notices.
I never said you did. Only that the mentality of the government in this case is similar to that of the mentality that allows for the TSA. Paranoia zero tolerance nonsense.
Nobody needs to be arrested, nobody needs to be convicted of a crime, nobody needs to lose their job.
Ah. But I did think you were suggesting that he be punished in some way. That said, you did say it was a clear and obvious joke, so if that is the case, there would be no point in questioning him, either.
If it's clearly and obviously a joke, then I think people shouldn't come up to you asking questions, either.
and I have no problem with someone facing reasonable consequences for doing something like that
I don't believe there should've been any consequences whatsoever. It's a pointless waste of taxpayer money, manpower, and time. Why not catch some real criminals?
Reminds me of the same mentality that allows for the TSA. The terrorists are going to get us! They're hiding behind every corner! The only way to stop them is to violate everyone's rights and go completely insane with paranoia!
I believe it's the government that is doing something extremely stupid. Just like they waste time and taxpayer money hunting down copyright infringers and people who use drugs, they waste time and taxpayer money trying to punish someone for what I think was an obvious joke.
Ah, so if you know someone will do something (as i often do with my children), then it doesn't matter if they actually do it or not??
The point is that if a creator exists, and he does indeed know everything, the end result will be known. If he is also all-powerful, he could create them and judge them based on the results of the experiment (the results he already knows) and give them memories of the experiment upon creation. Making them go through it manually is simply pointless because either way, the result will be the same.
But if a creator does exist, and he still wants to create them, he can. But there is no point to the "experiment" because if he is indeed a god, he will already know the result. Therefore, he can create them and judge them immediately (possibly giving them memories of such an experiment). Or whatever it is that magical sky daddies do.
Absolutely. After all, if your situation could be worse, that means that your situation isn't bad! For instance, if I were to punch you in the face, that wouldn't be a bad thing because getting murdered is far worse!
First of all, who said that cyber bullying means the person doing it doesn't know you in real life?
No one. But in that case, you probably have a real bully on your hands.
And even if none of your friends believe what's been said about you, that doesn't help if your unemployable for anything more than minimum wage jobs because on the internet your name is synonymous with "raper of animals."
Employers will believe random rumors about you? As I said, I believe that is simply idiotic. Some seem to like to blame others for their own stupidity. "Sorry I buy into random rumors spread around on the internet, but it's that other guy's fault, I swear!"
Perhaps rather than blame a few individuals spreading idiotic rumors on the internet (although I'd say they are at fault for spreading the rumors), we blame the people actually 'harming' the person in some way (such as not hiring them for a job because they're idiotic enough to believe random rumors).
"Pretend the problem doesn't exist" is almost never the correct solution to anything.
No one ever stated that it was a solution. Whether it's actually a problem or not is quite subjective.
Of course why minors are even on an adult network when minors are not allowed unaccompanied in any other adult forums like night clubs or hotels
Probably because there is no way to stop them. The parents are the only ones who have a chance to stop them, but some simply don't care (and for good reason, in my opinion). I don't see any point in stopping them, either.
And constant physical abuse can also cause the latter.
In my opinion, there is something wrong with someone if they're so oversensitive that they can't withstand a random person on the internet mocking them. I don't even know how such people manage to survive in society.
Slashdot Mirror
If you, in your obese state, chose to operate a motor vehicle and while doing so have a heart attack, veer across traffic and take out a healthy family of 5 you have caused harm to those around.
That sounds extremely unlikely. Not that I think we should ever limit someone's freedom in such a way, but likelihood should at least be taken into account. Some people seem to have this "I'll accept no casualties, even if it's unlikely that there'll be any" mentality, and I believe it's simply unrealistic. It's what allows for nonsense like the TSA and Patriot Act.
We live in a collective society wether we like it or not, and choosing to make significantly unhealthy choices causes damage to the entire society.
And people choose to live in this society and support programs which aid the people who are making unhealthy choices.
Society could literally deem anything to be "unhealthy." I believe it is simply dangerous to allow freedoms to be limited simply because a majority wish it to be so.
Should we update are laws to acknowledge that, or just ignore it?
If updating laws means limiting individual freedoms, I say ignore it. Society certainly won't fall apart from a few unhealthy people, and just as the unhealthy people make choices, the same applies to all the people who choose to be a part of society and choose to support systems which aid these unhealthy people.
If you want to be free from the pressures of your community and have no responsibility to other people, you're free to live in the wilderness.
"Pack up and leave" is a great response to anyone bringing up a problem.
It places a cost on the rest of us.
And why would that be? Because they chose to have these systems in place, and chose to be part of the community? If these "unhealthy" people need to take responsibility for themselves, then perhaps the people who chose to have these systems in place to help them need to do the same. Instead they use them as a justification for limiting freedoms.
I see no reason why your right to be a lardass trumps the community's need to keep healthcare costs down.
Individual rights. Tyranny of the majority. Just about everything you do affects someone else in some way. Sometimes even monetarily. If affecting other people was enough of a justification to limit freedoms, just about any freedom could be taken away.
If there was ever an argument against universal health care, I think this would be it. People use it as a justification to take away other people's freedom.
Yes. It's all their fault. Never mind the people who are actually considering passing the law. They have nothing to do with the law!
Your government is not exempt from this behavior.
But... land of the free! My government would never abuse its citizens! That's why censorship, the TSA, warrantless wiretapping, questionable wars, indefinite detainment, and torture are all perfectly acceptable. If they claim doing those will stop the terrorists or protect the children, of course.
In other words drones can make life better for those who are not criminals.
I don't believe stopping criminals is important at all when the government is attempting to expand its power so that they can use unmanned drones to efficiently spy on its citizens.
But the TSA and the Patriot Act are good because they claim to stop the evil terrorists. And that's all that matters. Not privacy or stopping the progression of the government's tools used to spy on its citizens. Criminals are hiding behind every corner, after all, and governments would never abuse their citizens.
it is safer then a real helicopter
I care more about the government's ability to cheaply and easily spy on people with unmanned drones than I do about a helicopter's safety. I don't even care about stopping "bad guys" when the government is attempting to expand its power. I don't envision a decent future if we allow them to do things such as this (but apparently you weren't thinking about the future). I don't even want to take the risk of giving the government more power to spy on its citizens.
Flying over backyards and observing people is not an invasion of privacy.
When it's being done by the government's numerous unmanned drones, it might as well be.
Everyone rallies to protest the idea of the police having move capable and modern surveillance and tracking tools, until they discover the criminal who victimized them
"Everyone"? Really? Care to back that up?
In any case, it doesn't matter what they feel after being victimized. Let's not let victims be judges, juries, and executioners, shall we? What someone would or would not think if they were in a different situation than they are now (victimized) is irrelevant to whether or not they're correct right now.
What if someone was victimized in a house somewhere? The victim person might feel the need to have government cameras installed in every house. And since they were victims, that means they're right!
Whelp, there goes the internet. No one has a way to ensure anything unless they're perfect beings with the ability to magically identify copyrighted content.
But that's okay. They should be defending another person's copyright for them, anyway!
Problem is, it assumes guilt, and then the video is removed. By law. I'm fairly certain they have to remove it once they receive a DMCA takedown notice. Not many people have the resources to try to get these people punished for frivolous DMCA takedown notices.
Where did I suggest violating anyone's rights?
I never said you did. Only that the mentality of the government in this case is similar to that of the mentality that allows for the TSA. Paranoia zero tolerance nonsense.
Nobody needs to be arrested, nobody needs to be convicted of a crime, nobody needs to lose their job.
Ah. But I did think you were suggesting that he be punished in some way. That said, you did say it was a clear and obvious joke, so if that is the case, there would be no point in questioning him, either.
what is clearly and obviously a joke
If it's clearly and obviously a joke, then I think people shouldn't come up to you asking questions, either.
and I have no problem with someone facing reasonable consequences for doing something like that
I don't believe there should've been any consequences whatsoever. It's a pointless waste of taxpayer money, manpower, and time. Why not catch some real criminals?
Reminds me of the same mentality that allows for the TSA. The terrorists are going to get us! They're hiding behind every corner! The only way to stop them is to violate everyone's rights and go completely insane with paranoia!
Don't badmouth the government. It's illegal. Comedians know it. Amateurs should as well.
Being the victims, it's completely their fault that the government is a piece of garbage.
The guy did something extremely stupid
I believe it's the government that is doing something extremely stupid. Just like they waste time and taxpayer money hunting down copyright infringers and people who use drugs, they waste time and taxpayer money trying to punish someone for what I think was an obvious joke.
No. It appeared to me that he was trying to say that it wasn't relative because of your conscience.
The first part appeared to be sarcastic, and then he said that.
How is one culture supposed to judge another culture? Everything is relative...
If you recognize that it's relative, then attempting to stop people who do things that you disagree with can be perfectly in line with your own views.
Until you actually get told otherwise by your conscience.
Your conscience could say that 1 + 1 = 3, and it still wouldn't be correct.
Ah, so if you know someone will do something (as i often do with my children), then it doesn't matter if they actually do it or not??
The point is that if a creator exists, and he does indeed know everything, the end result will be known. If he is also all-powerful, he could create them and judge them based on the results of the experiment (the results he already knows) and give them memories of the experiment upon creation. Making them go through it manually is simply pointless because either way, the result will be the same.
This assumes he's 100% accurate.
But if a creator does exist, and he still wants to create them, he can. But there is no point to the "experiment" because if he is indeed a god, he will already know the result. Therefore, he can create them and judge them immediately (possibly giving them memories of such an experiment). Or whatever it is that magical sky daddies do.
Absolutely. After all, if your situation could be worse, that means that your situation isn't bad! For instance, if I were to punch you in the face, that wouldn't be a bad thing because getting murdered is far worse!
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Why is your bathroom door shut, anyway? What are you hiding in there?
Probably because I've long since learned to ignore other people's opinions.
You're not sensitive enough. You need to cry and commit suicide when other people express an opinion that you don't agree with.
This is all for the children, so anything is okay.
First of all, who said that cyber bullying means the person doing it doesn't know you in real life?
No one. But in that case, you probably have a real bully on your hands.
And even if none of your friends believe what's been said about you, that doesn't help if your unemployable for anything more than minimum wage jobs because on the internet your name is synonymous with "raper of animals."
Employers will believe random rumors about you? As I said, I believe that is simply idiotic. Some seem to like to blame others for their own stupidity. "Sorry I buy into random rumors spread around on the internet, but it's that other guy's fault, I swear!"
Perhaps rather than blame a few individuals spreading idiotic rumors on the internet (although I'd say they are at fault for spreading the rumors), we blame the people actually 'harming' the person in some way (such as not hiring them for a job because they're idiotic enough to believe random rumors).
"Pretend the problem doesn't exist" is almost never the correct solution to anything.
No one ever stated that it was a solution. Whether it's actually a problem or not is quite subjective.
Of course why minors are even on an adult network when minors are not allowed unaccompanied in any other adult forums like night clubs or hotels
Probably because there is no way to stop them. The parents are the only ones who have a chance to stop them, but some simply don't care (and for good reason, in my opinion). I don't see any point in stopping them, either.
Bruises heal. Minds shatter.
And constant physical abuse can also cause the latter.
In my opinion, there is something wrong with someone if they're so oversensitive that they can't withstand a random person on the internet mocking them. I don't even know how such people manage to survive in society.