After the rootkits and the removal of OtherOS, I think people should've already been boycotting Sony. Sadly, some people have this, "I hate Sony! I'll never buy from them aga--wow, look! A shiny PS4! Day one buy!" mentality. That or it's something along the lines of, "Some people were copying games! Therefore, everyone using OtherOS needed to be punished! Also, there were few OtherOS users. Therefore, ripping them off was completely acceptable." Unless something happens to them, they just won't care...
"If you think your feelings are more important than the speech rights of others, maybe the US isn't the place for you to live."
I agree with that. I was bullied, yet I still think people need to stop being so oversensitive. It becomes a problem for me when it gets physical. Yes, I believe free speech is precious. Apparently the constitution agrees.
Also, I don't really see where he said to just outright "ignore it." I'd rather not have your "think of the children" nonsense interfering with free speech.
"I hate him because he was mean to me and he should have the crap beaten out of him"
That's almost on the level of calling someone a stupid head!
Seriously, why are the school staff seemingly acting like oversensitive imbeciles?
Most people are probably responding to the information that they have now. As in, "If X is true [they did this to her for a petty reason], then..."
Those kids who use bullying speech off school grounds are the same ones who use physical bullying on campus.
Then I think they should be punished for what they actually do in the school.
To those who think that anti-bullying campaigns are "nanny brigade" I say you have never been bullied.
I'm sorry that you can't seem to accept that different people in your group (the bullied) have different opinions than you. I assure you that I was physically bullied. Still, I do not want anyone's free speech violated. Especially not in a petty manner that has nothing to do with the school.
Well, I don't see that as a reason for the government to step in. Then we just get situations like this, and I'd rather have the nonexistent parent situation, to be honest.
What? What do other countries have to do with the US?
You act as if because all the other countries do it too, that means the US must be free. That's simply not true. The US can technically be the "freest" country in the world and still be an awful country with few rights (just an example).
As such, asking about other countries is just asking about irrelevancy.
Too bad you didn't tell her how it pretty much had nothing on it.
"...and I'm not one of them!" Wow! That's awful! That's the most vile, reprehensible comment I've ever laid my eyes upon. That's almost as bad as calling someone a "stupid head."
I don't think it bodes well for schools if their staff are actually more childish than the students.
I am in the situation the same situation he is in now and I do not agree with him, therefore you are wrong.
Wrong about what? I never said you need to be in a different situation than him to disagree (though you seem to think it indicates that someone is wrong if they aren't in the exact same situation that another person is). I only said that the fact that you would feel differently if you were in a different situation doesn't mean you're wrong.
If you were in a different situation (one of my choosing), you'd feel differently (my assumption, just like yours was an assumption). Therefore, you're wrong.
I don't get it. What evidence do you have that the fact that someone feeling differently if they were in a different situation than they are now means they're wrong? And wrong by whose standards? Why are they an authority on this subject? "Don't snitch" is a mere preference.
I thought you would have seen what I was talking about by now, but since you didn't, I can use the same logic to "prove" that 1 + 1 does not equal 2.
Imagine someone believes that 1 + 1 = 2. Someone else does not agree with them, and insists that it is 3. The person who thinks that 1 + 1 = 3 suggests that the other person would believe that it is 3 if they were in the same situation (whatever that situation is) than them. That person then concludes that the person who thinks that 1 + 1 = 2 is wrong solely based on this reason.
Do you think that's valid logic? You're saying that someone's conclusion is wrong because they might believe something else if they were in a different situation. How can this possibly be anything but a non sequitur?
What? Are you suggesting we assume people are guilty until they're proven innocent?
That doesn't sound like a very intelligent thing to do to me. But it does sound like it's right around the line of thinking of people who throw "for the children" arguments out left and right.
The fact that he would want people to snitch if it helped catch those that hurt him or his family makes him a hypocrite and does make his current view wrong.
No, no it doesn't. That's called bias.
As I said, your logic can be applied to literally anyone (even you). If you were in his situation, you'd agree with him. Therefore, all of your arguments are completely incorrect. I can use your logic to say that absolutely anyone who would believe something else if they were in a different situation than they are now (probably many people) is wrong. Hell, you might want to be the judge, jury, and executioner of the accused murderer of your family, but does that mean it should be allowed (you could use the argument that anyone who says that you shouldn't be allowed to do so would feel differently if they were in your situation)?
I believe it's nonsense that can be applied to any person in existence.
makes him a hypocrite
If this is what you're saying makes him wrong, then this is just the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.
I wish people like you would stop justifying assholes like the GGP.
Yes, they're factually wrong and you're 100% right.
The fact that you would believe differently than you do now if you were in a different situation does not mean that your current views are wrong.
I can apply that logic to you, or anyone. In fact, it even applies to the guy you just replied to. "I bet you would be singing a different tune if the police needed leads on the people who gang raped your mother, wife, and daughter." The guy in your scenario would believe differently if that didn't happen to him. Therefore, his views are wrong.
I wish people would stop spouting this "if you were in a different situation..." nonsense.
They invade citizens' privacy, and because of that, I think they should be gone.
"For the children," "to stop the terrorists," "ban technology X because of the actions of a few," they're all the same thing. All that's needed is increased cockpit security and citizen awareness. No privacy violations are necessary or even wanted.
Meaning what? Is rationalizing (explaining or attempting to justify, the latter of which is a subjective matter) something pure evil or something? I see a lot of people mentioning "rationalization" when speaking of copyright infringement, but I've never understood it. If you're in an argument with someone, how can you even avoid rationalization?
Example from the non-virtual world - you take someone's car without their permission and return it a few hours later. They still have their car, but you're still a thief.
But that's a false analogy because, even if only temporarily, they lost the car.
Not only have you stolen the questions, you've also stolen the scholarship.
How did you steal the questions? Or, for that matter, the scholarship? I'm not seeing the theft in this example. You cheated, yes, but I don't see any theft.
I dump a load of garbage in your parking space
Suddenly your space is being used up. A resource. Not stolen, but used up.
You also have to pay to have it cleaned up.
What kinds of analogies are you trying to make here? Now I especially fail to see what this has to do with copyright infringement since nothing of the sort happens there.
So, I've stolen money from you as well
I'd say you harmed them, but I wouldn't say you stole their money.
But - you still have your original parking spot, so I didn't "really" steal anything from you, right?
Stealing a parking spot would be quite difficult. Rather, you used it up and inflicted harm upon them by doing so. Can we talk about copyright infringement now?
Slashdot Mirror
After the rootkits and the removal of OtherOS, I think people should've already been boycotting Sony. Sadly, some people have this, "I hate Sony! I'll never buy from them aga--wow, look! A shiny PS4! Day one buy!" mentality. That or it's something along the lines of, "Some people were copying games! Therefore, everyone using OtherOS needed to be punished! Also, there were few OtherOS users. Therefore, ripping them off was completely acceptable." Unless something happens to them, they just won't care...
"If you think your feelings are more important than the speech rights of others, maybe the US isn't the place for you to live."
I agree with that. I was bullied, yet I still think people need to stop being so oversensitive. It becomes a problem for me when it gets physical. Yes, I believe free speech is precious. Apparently the constitution agrees.
Also, I don't really see where he said to just outright "ignore it." I'd rather not have your "think of the children" nonsense interfering with free speech.
"I hate him because he was mean to me and he should have the crap beaten out of him"
That's almost on the level of calling someone a stupid head!
Seriously, why are the school staff seemingly acting like oversensitive imbeciles?
Most people are probably responding to the information that they have now. As in, "If X is true [they did this to her for a petty reason], then..."
Those kids who use bullying speech off school grounds are the same ones who use physical bullying on campus.
Then I think they should be punished for what they actually do in the school.
To those who think that anti-bullying campaigns are "nanny brigade" I say you have never been bullied.
I'm sorry that you can't seem to accept that different people in your group (the bullied) have different opinions than you. I assure you that I was physically bullied. Still, I do not want anyone's free speech violated. Especially not in a petty manner that has nothing to do with the school.
and that is that Most Parents won't
Well, I don't see that as a reason for the government to step in. Then we just get situations like this, and I'd rather have the nonexistent parent situation, to be honest.
Yeah, well, you're a stupid head!
So in other words, they're just paranoia idiots who worry about unlikely events...
What? What do other countries have to do with the US?
You act as if because all the other countries do it too, that means the US must be free. That's simply not true. The US can technically be the "freest" country in the world and still be an awful country with few rights (just an example).
As such, asking about other countries is just asking about irrelevancy.
because they have none
Interestingly enough, the constitution never actually says that children don't have rights such as free speech...
But then again, a school isn't exactly a court.
Good luck getting a job even if you receive your piece of paper.
I replied with it was none of her business
Too bad you didn't tell her how it pretty much had nothing on it.
"...and I'm not one of them!" Wow! That's awful! That's the most vile, reprehensible comment I've ever laid my eyes upon. That's almost as bad as calling someone a "stupid head."
I don't think it bodes well for schools if their staff are actually more childish than the students.
He can even use coercion, threats, and lies during the interrogation.
Oh, I see. So for normal citizens, that kind of thing usually isn't allowed, but for cops, it's perfectly okay!
It's all there in the constitution, man. It's just invisible!
Indeed. The problem seems to be needless gloating and carelessness.
I am in the situation the same situation he is in now and I do not agree with him, therefore you are wrong.
Wrong about what? I never said you need to be in a different situation than him to disagree (though you seem to think it indicates that someone is wrong if they aren't in the exact same situation that another person is). I only said that the fact that you would feel differently if you were in a different situation doesn't mean you're wrong.
If you were in a different situation (one of my choosing), you'd feel differently (my assumption, just like yours was an assumption). Therefore, you're wrong.
I don't get it. What evidence do you have that the fact that someone feeling differently if they were in a different situation than they are now means they're wrong? And wrong by whose standards? Why are they an authority on this subject? "Don't snitch" is a mere preference.
I thought you would have seen what I was talking about by now, but since you didn't, I can use the same logic to "prove" that 1 + 1 does not equal 2.
Imagine someone believes that 1 + 1 = 2. Someone else does not agree with them, and insists that it is 3. The person who thinks that 1 + 1 = 3 suggests that the other person would believe that it is 3 if they were in the same situation (whatever that situation is) than them. That person then concludes that the person who thinks that 1 + 1 = 2 is wrong solely based on this reason.
Do you think that's valid logic? You're saying that someone's conclusion is wrong because they might believe something else if they were in a different situation. How can this possibly be anything but a non sequitur?
You might be talking about different people there...
What? Are you suggesting we assume people are guilty until they're proven innocent?
That doesn't sound like a very intelligent thing to do to me. But it does sound like it's right around the line of thinking of people who throw "for the children" arguments out left and right.
The fact that he would want people to snitch if it helped catch those that hurt him or his family makes him a hypocrite and does make his current view wrong.
No, no it doesn't. That's called bias.
As I said, your logic can be applied to literally anyone (even you). If you were in his situation, you'd agree with him. Therefore, all of your arguments are completely incorrect. I can use your logic to say that absolutely anyone who would believe something else if they were in a different situation than they are now (probably many people) is wrong. Hell, you might want to be the judge, jury, and executioner of the accused murderer of your family, but does that mean it should be allowed (you could use the argument that anyone who says that you shouldn't be allowed to do so would feel differently if they were in your situation)?
I believe it's nonsense that can be applied to any person in existence.
makes him a hypocrite
If this is what you're saying makes him wrong, then this is just the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.
I wish people like you would stop justifying assholes like the GGP.
Yes, they're factually wrong and you're 100% right.
Yeah heaven forbid someone turn in a murderer or meth dealer.
Heaven forbid the latter since I think all drugs should be legal (and by extension, the selling of drugs).
Also, this comment applies to your comment as well, since you used the same logic.
The fact that you would believe differently than you do now if you were in a different situation does not mean that your current views are wrong.
I can apply that logic to you, or anyone. In fact, it even applies to the guy you just replied to. "I bet you would be singing a different tune if the police needed leads on the people who gang raped your mother, wife, and daughter." The guy in your scenario would believe differently if that didn't happen to him. Therefore, his views are wrong.
I wish people would stop spouting this "if you were in a different situation..." nonsense.
There are no "brilliant" guys. Otherwise, I doubt they'd be getting caught so easily.
I was surprised to hear that any were still alive after the massacre...
Done.
I know. That was my exact point: this security theater isn't even necessary. But even if it was effective, I wouldn't want it anyway.
They invade citizens' privacy, and because of that, I think they should be gone.
"For the children," "to stop the terrorists," "ban technology X because of the actions of a few," they're all the same thing. All that's needed is increased cockpit security and citizen awareness. No privacy violations are necessary or even wanted.
and this is all just rationalization
Meaning what? Is rationalizing (explaining or attempting to justify, the latter of which is a subjective matter) something pure evil or something? I see a lot of people mentioning "rationalization" when speaking of copyright infringement, but I've never understood it. If you're in an argument with someone, how can you even avoid rationalization?
Example from the non-virtual world - you take someone's car without their permission and return it a few hours later. They still have their car, but you're still a thief.
But that's a false analogy because, even if only temporarily, they lost the car.
Not only have you stolen the questions, you've also stolen the scholarship.
How did you steal the questions? Or, for that matter, the scholarship? I'm not seeing the theft in this example. You cheated, yes, but I don't see any theft.
I dump a load of garbage in your parking space
Suddenly your space is being used up. A resource. Not stolen, but used up.
You also have to pay to have it cleaned up.
What kinds of analogies are you trying to make here? Now I especially fail to see what this has to do with copyright infringement since nothing of the sort happens there.
So, I've stolen money from you as well
I'd say you harmed them, but I wouldn't say you stole their money.
But - you still have your original parking spot, so I didn't "really" steal anything from you, right?
Stealing a parking spot would be quite difficult. Rather, you used it up and inflicted harm upon them by doing so. Can we talk about copyright infringement now?