US law is far from being perfect in any aspect and free speech is no exception. Flawed as it may be, in this aspect it is still much better than the law of almost all countries in the top positions of that list.
Reporters Without Borders is a very biased NGO with very progressive beliefs. You won`t see then fighting against politically correctness and thought policing. They won't ever complain about progressive abuses like Sweden ultrafeminism, for example.
Regarding your bullshit, let me know the day any of those countries allow neonazist and racist groups to express themselves like US does. That is freedom of speech, to allow people who you radically disagree with to express their views, no matter who warped they feel to you.
Like the old adage says, I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.
I am not a fun of going after whistleblowers and I do think what Snowden did was right, but it is still much better to persecute rogue agents than common people.
Laws allowing you to be sued into oblivion just for speaking things people don't agree with are almost as bad as laws allowing the government to arrest you for the same acts.
But I do agree. US is better than most of the top countries in the list regarding real freedom of speech, not the travesty that these groups consider to be freedom of speech, which basically means freedom to agree with their ideas.
The list is bogus.I would love to see what happens to a journalist that says politically incorrect stuff, like racist or anti-gay rants, in the top countries of this list. He would "only" be foired and sued if he was lucky, and arrested in the worse case scenario.
Freedom to say only what people consider nice and acceptable is no freedom at all. Any country that has "hate speech" laws has no grounds to criticize US lack of free speech.
You don't have any argument anymore, my friend, and you are desperately trying to save face here (a quite futile effort considering just we two are likely reading this exchange by now). May that serve to you as a lesson about discussing about a subject you don't have any clue about.
What is and is not a problem is completely subjective.
No it is not. Although some psychological problems are indeed badly defined and too broad to mean anything, there are a fair number of them that are very well defined and documented. These are sufficiently objective to be determined with reasonable precision by true doctors (psychiatrists) and not psychologists. And all people who were isolated were found presenting problems in the second category.
Given the sheer number of people who lived throughout history, the sheer number of people who live now that we don't pay attention to, and the fact that we really only started paying attention to this sort of thing not much more than a century ago, I'm more hesitant to say that it is extremely unlikely that someone, at some point, had the mentality of a complete loner.
Given the sheer number of beings and species who lived from the down on life in this world, the very limited number of evidences we found about evolution, and the time since when we started to pay attention at it, you should be reluctant in believing this theory too, for example. But that is a false assumption. When all evidence you find points to something you have no reason to believe otherwise, no matter how much other study cases may exist, at least until more, contrary evidence is brought into light.
Actually, I didn't say it is wrong, just that the possibility is there. That's a mere straw man.
Oh, you did, and since the beginning. The fallacy is on your part, by trying to argue that because some theory may be untrue it is untrue.
I am not opposed to accept the possibility is there, in the same way I am not opposed in accepting that the possibility that Natural Evolution and Gravity Theories are wrong. In science it is impossible to prove that something is right, but it is usually trivial to prove that something is wrong. In this case you just have to provide a single example of someone that managed to live in total isolation for a few decades without ending with serious psychiatric problems. As nobody was capable of producing such counter-example yet I will stick with the best explanation given the evidence we have, that evidence being that all cases of people that lived in isolation for long periods of time ended with very serious psychiatric problems, in the very same way I stick with Natural Evolution, Einstein's General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc...
Saying that it is wrong without any evidence to support, just because it may be wrong, like you are trying to do, is pure ignorance on how Science works, on the other hand. If you accept this idea you will be force to invalidate any and all scientific theories.
Oh, I do have evidence and a scientific theory on my side. Theory backed up by all psychologists and psychiatrists and based on a huge amount of evidence. You on the other hand have only wishful thinking and ignorance at your side.
Oh I do have quite a lot of evidence supporting my position. my friend. No one exists in recorded history that disprove this theory and all cases of forced isolation produced results that further corroborates it.
Sure it may be wrong as any scientific theory, but the likelihood of this being the case is the same of Darwin`s Evolution or Einstein's General Relativity being wrong. It is not arrogance to stick to the most probable explanation for the evidence you have, it is common sense and one of the basic principles of Science.
Mutations do occur, but it takes a long while and a selecting environment to produce this kind of result. Find me a person that can survive indefinitely alone without mental degeneration and I promise to change my mind. As far as I know there is no case registered yet.
You may think yourself as different and unique as you want, but you still have the same biological characteristics of your species. You will be exactly as successful in being the exception while trying to completely isolate yourself from interaction with other human beings as you would trying to drink a cup of concentrated sulfuric acid
I can't and don't decide anything for "other people", Things are as they are, you can accept them or pretend they are otherwise, that is your prerogative but that won't make them different.
Only because there wouldn't be new content for me to consume to cure my boredom.
Exactly and by this you admit that you need interaction to other people in the form of absorbing information generated by them.
Which is perfectly fine, but although it may make you less social than some, you are still a social being and dependent on social interaction as all other human beings.
No, my friend, we haven't create such a society, but we are on the way, we just have to we keep defending collectivist doctrines and increasing the government size and we will get there for sure.
Well, you still can apply to quite a few. At least that assures that people are being judged and selected by the same rules. In my view the more objective the criteria the better.
the fact that you can just change the name of the thing and claim it to be anything else is why we have laws that define when something is a selling and when it is a rent. When someone pays for something once and gets a lifetime use of the good it is a selling, no matter how you decide to call it.
Slashdot Mirror
US law is far from being perfect in any aspect and free speech is no exception. Flawed as it may be, in this aspect it is still much better than the law of almost all countries in the top positions of that list.
There is no distinction. If there is no protected free speech there is no free journalism. Period.
You are misinformed. They do criminalize "hate speech". Sweden has prosecuted a lot of people because of anti-gay speech, for example.
Reporters Without Borders is a very biased NGO with very progressive beliefs. You won`t see then fighting against politically correctness and thought policing. They won't ever complain about progressive abuses like Sweden ultrafeminism, for example.
Regarding your bullshit, let me know the day any of those countries allow neonazist and racist groups to express themselves like US does. That is freedom of speech, to allow people who you radically disagree with to express their views, no matter who warped they feel to you.
Like the old adage says, I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.
I am not a fun of going after whistleblowers and I do think what Snowden did was right, but it is still much better to persecute rogue agents than common people.
Laws allowing you to be sued into oblivion just for speaking things people don't agree with are almost as bad as laws allowing the government to arrest you for the same acts.
But I do agree. US is better than most of the top countries in the list regarding real freedom of speech, not the travesty that these groups consider to be freedom of speech, which basically means freedom to agree with their ideas.
The list is bogus.I would love to see what happens to a journalist that says politically incorrect stuff, like racist or anti-gay rants, in the top countries of this list. He would "only" be foired and sued if he was lucky, and arrested in the worse case scenario.
Freedom to say only what people consider nice and acceptable is no freedom at all. Any country that has "hate speech" laws has no grounds to criticize US lack of free speech.
You don't have any argument anymore, my friend, and you are desperately trying to save face here (a quite futile effort considering just we two are likely reading this exchange by now). May that serve to you as a lesson about discussing about a subject you don't have any clue about.
What is and is not a problem is completely subjective.
No it is not. Although some psychological problems are indeed badly defined and too broad to mean anything, there are a fair number of them that are very well defined and documented. These are sufficiently objective to be determined with reasonable precision by true doctors (psychiatrists) and not psychologists. And all people who were isolated were found presenting problems in the second category.
Given the sheer number of people who lived throughout history, the sheer number of people who live now that we don't pay attention to, and the fact that we really only started paying attention to this sort of thing not much more than a century ago, I'm more hesitant to say that it is extremely unlikely that someone, at some point, had the mentality of a complete loner.
Given the sheer number of beings and species who lived from the down on life in this world, the very limited number of evidences we found about evolution, and the time since when we started to pay attention at it, you should be reluctant in believing this theory too, for example. But that is a false assumption. When all evidence you find points to something you have no reason to believe otherwise, no matter how much other study cases may exist, at least until more, contrary evidence is brought into light.
Actually, I didn't say it is wrong, just that the possibility is there. That's a mere straw man.
Oh, you did, and since the beginning. The fallacy is on your part, by trying to argue that because some theory may be untrue it is untrue.
I am not opposed to accept the possibility is there, in the same way I am not opposed in accepting that the possibility that Natural Evolution and Gravity Theories are wrong. In science it is impossible to prove that something is right, but it is usually trivial to prove that something is wrong. In this case you just have to provide a single example of someone that managed to live in total isolation for a few decades without ending with serious psychiatric problems. As nobody was capable of producing such counter-example yet I will stick with the best explanation given the evidence we have, that evidence being that all cases of people that lived in isolation for long periods of time ended with very serious psychiatric problems, in the very same way I stick with Natural Evolution, Einstein's General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc...
Saying that it is wrong without any evidence to support, just because it may be wrong, like you are trying to do, is pure ignorance on how Science works, on the other hand. If you accept this idea you will be force to invalidate any and all scientific theories.
Oh, I do have evidence and a scientific theory on my side. Theory backed up by all psychologists and psychiatrists and based on a huge amount of evidence. You on the other hand have only wishful thinking and ignorance at your side.
Oh I do have quite a lot of evidence supporting my position. my friend. No one exists in recorded history that disprove this theory and all cases of forced isolation produced results that further corroborates it.
Sure it may be wrong as any scientific theory, but the likelihood of this being the case is the same of Darwin`s Evolution or Einstein's General Relativity being wrong. It is not arrogance to stick to the most probable explanation for the evidence you have, it is common sense and one of the basic principles of Science.
That depends on what you mean by "mental degeneration."
I mean things like acquiring multiple personalities, schizophrenia, acute clinical depression etc.
That's because they have no chance to be isolated
So you basically have absolutely no evidence supporting your position. Cute.
Mutations do occur, but it takes a long while and a selecting environment to produce this kind of result. Find me a person that can survive indefinitely alone without mental degeneration and I promise to change my mind. As far as I know there is no case registered yet.
You may think yourself as different and unique as you want, but you still have the same biological characteristics of your species. You will be exactly as successful in being the exception while trying to completely isolate yourself from interaction with other human beings as you would trying to drink a cup of concentrated sulfuric acid
Only because there wouldn't be new content for me to consume to cure my boredom.
Exactly and by this you admit that you need interaction to other people in the form of absorbing information generated by them.
Which is perfectly fine, but although it may make you less social than some, you are still a social being and dependent on social interaction as all other human beings.
All humans are social animals. You would certainly care if all people are gone. You would get insane pretty quickly as anybody else.
And still all of us are here interacting with each other willingly... So you can say that at least by your example your assumption is quite wrong.
No, my friend, we haven't create such a society, but we are on the way, we just have to we keep defending collectivist doctrines and increasing the government size and we will get there for sure.
Probably not, but you may have a small chance of their killing each other whilst deciding who will sue you first.
Sure, but whoever does it will have to deal with the consequences and no excuse will save them.
These guys live from taking such risks.
It is far more likely for the attack's objective to be the speculation of the 0.0001% than the revenge of the 99.9999%.
Well, you still can apply to quite a few. At least that assures that people are being judged and selected by the same rules. In my view the more objective the criteria the better.
the fact that you can just change the name of the thing and claim it to be anything else is why we have laws that define when something is a selling and when it is a rent. When someone pays for something once and gets a lifetime use of the good it is a selling, no matter how you decide to call it.