By the same measure, much bigger majority of people aren't child abusers as compared to just parents.
Yes...?
Every government, by definition must oppress to some extent.
Indeed. Government is a necessary evil. But that absolutely does not mean we should give them unlimited power. What power we do give them must be necessary and small. We must never let them engage in collective punishment (even if it's "for the children"), and we must never let them infringe upon our rights (again, even if it's "for the children").
Then again, I'm not really sure what your point was. But I've seen people who believe that because the government has the ability to do X, it should also have the ability to do Y (even if X and Y are quite different and one is a more oppressive power than the other), too.
We have a very good example of how that works in Somalia.
The US is not and likely never will be Somalia just from limiting the government's power and not allowing it to violate our rights.
Like communism, it would work very if people were beings naturally inclined to think of greater good over short term personal benefit.
And that's exactly why giving the government too much power is a bad thing (note that I said "too much"). This has more to do with human nature and history. We've all seen just how much damage governments (and a complete lack of government, for that matter) can do.
I think it becomes a problem when the government is harassing entire groups of people (in this hypothetical case, parents) because of what a minority of them do.
where today's children face far bigger threat from their parents' and relatives' abuse
I suspect it isn't much of a threat, since a grand majority of people aren't murderers/rapists/abusers.
A subject that's very unsexy to talk about in libertrarian pipe dreams, I know.
Is it really just a libertarian pipe dream to want to be free from corrupt governments? Is it really just a libertarian pipe dream to accept that some casualties happen, but not everyone needs to be punished/harassed by the government because of it?
I don't think that's a very good analogy. First, much more is at risk when you allow people without degrees to be doctors. Second of all, I suspect it's far more difficult to teach yourself how to be a doctor than it is to teach yourself to be, for instance, a programmer (or something else). There is no easy way to get that experience without training.
Not if you take it to mean, "I'd much rather have it remain as it is [where just felons and minors under 18 can't vote] than start taking away other people's right to vote, too." In other words, I was simply saying that I didn't want the situation to get even worse than it is now (although it getting better would be perfectly fine).
If they can't prove that it was you in the car, then yes. I've always thought that it's ridiculous that you're basically punished before you even see a judge. The cop should have to provide actual evidence before being able to dish out punishment (although they'd need to stop you to get your name to begin with).
If someone is slandering your family and your reputation out in public, being sensitive is most certainly a positive thing.
Not really. Being sensitive could lead you to be emotional. Few can think logically when they're too emotional.
You do not need to be sensitive to take care of such threats.
And an argument taken to extremes loses the essence of the original discussion.
Claiming it's "extreme" means nothing. Extremes can be correct.
People can be offended by just about anything. There is no objective reason I should worry about every little thing.
Can you honestly say that you've never self-censored yourself before?
Irrelevant. I self-censor when I wish to do so. You're free to do the same. Of course, if I don't wish to do so, I'm free to not do so.
But I guarantee you, though, that I'm not going to refrain from mentioning the name of a piece of software. There's not even an intent to offend there.
No one is forcing you to do anything, they just might not like you if you don't.
It's not random anymore once the majority agrees, then it becomes socially accepted behavior.
Okay. Then I guess I'm in the minority. I don't really care.
A little bit of sensitivity doesn't = weakness.
How do you figure that? How is getting offended not a weakness? Granted, some people can't help it, but I wouldn't construe it as a positive thing.
Words have different meanings to different people, why do some people discard that fact and assuming that their understanding of a word is the correct and only one that should stand?
Good question.
If you happen to find the word "gimp" offensive for any reason, I'll do you the personal favor and not use it regardless of whether I think you need to suck it up or not.
Good for you. You're free to self-censor. But if someone finds the word "the" offensive, I for one am not going to cease my use of it.
Not everyone is as emotionally stable as a rock, and it's not necessarily a trait that can be learned.
I agree. That is unfortunate. But it is also necessary to recognize that not everyone is going to cater to your arbitrary needs.
I'd prefer that it stayed a right. Everyone has their own opinions on what is 'best' for the country, and their goals might simply be different than other people's. Changing the country by voting is one of the least violent ways to do so. Take even that illusion away and people might resort to violence. I wouldn't blame them; they live in this country, pay taxes, and are greatly affected by the government's decisions. It doesn't sit well with me to arbitrary decide to take away certain people's right to vote.
but we already take away people's right to vote (felons)
Yeah, I think that's pure idiocy. Rather than taking it to the next step, I think we need to remove this restriction.
Even if you have no sensitivity issues to a word, it's being insensitive to use it and spread its use if you know others might be (some of them with good reason).
I'm not going to worry about random oversensitive people. I couldn't speak if that were the case, since some people really do get offended over just about anything. I'll keep speaking as I do now (though I don't think many would consider my manner of speech offensive anyway).
It's not like your life will end if you suddenly stopped using the word "gimp".
My life also wouldn't end if someone stole my computer, tv, and various other things. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.
Would you rather get tazed, or subjected to the mysterious treatment behind door number 3?
Or indefinitely retained. Or molested at airports. Or spied on. None of the 3rd parties could be much worse, honestly. They aren't horrible dictators with some master plan to take over America (impossible, anyway).
Anyway, the problem likely isn't the parties, it's the voters.
My comment implied that. All of the candidates for the main parties are pretty much garbage.
We don't trust someone with dementia to drive, for example, or to practice medicine, so why do we trust their opinion on who should run the country, or how?
That's a pretty slippery slope. Especially considering how difficult it is to actually determine someone's intelligence. Voting is also a right, and even someone deemed "uneducated" can be correct. Taking away that right would require a constitutional amendment.
To counter the potential for abuse would require extensive protections
I don't see how. Once we let them start making exceptions on who can and can't vote, we're already going down the slope. Considering how stupid the government itself can be (they're humans, after all), I wouldn't trust them with such a power.
and it's important to remember that our existing system is not at all immune to abuse.
I'd much rather have it remain as it is than revoke people's right to vote.
No, you don't use the word "Nigger" because you know if you use it in front of the wrong person, he's going to beat the dogshit out of you for being a fucktard.
Appeal to force. Just because someone would beat you up if you did/said something, that doesn't mean what you did/said was wrong.
And you don't name your software "NIGGER" because you know that this is the equivalent of naming it "THIS SOFTWARE IS MADE BY A FUCKTARD."
As I said, I honestly don't care what they name the software. It's a wise decision to not piss off random people if you're a business, but it doesn't really matter to me, specifically.
I agree. Some people are needlessly oversensitive. It would be a smart business decisions to avoid defending them. But I never really meant otherwise.
It's just that I can't believe people honestly get offended by things that aren't even intended to offend to begin with. They don't even care about context or meaning, just strings of letters.
About as much as I use the word "fuck." That is, not often. Not because I think it's offensive, but because I just don't feel like using it. But even if I heard someone use it, I really wouldn't care.
Or perhaps because it has developed a meaning which means something bad.
It has many uses, just like "fuck." It could be used in a joke, for instance. But I guess some people just can't help being oversensitive. Truly a shame. The best thing to do is to ignore them completely.
Do you come home and call your wife "bitch"?
What does not using a word have to do with finding it offensive? There are many words that I do not use, but that doesn't mean it's because I find them offensive or bad. I use them when I feel it is appropriate. Your analogies are nonsense.
Well, I don't know. I just... use it. I've seriously never once thought about or even cared about the name. Do some people really get hung up on that kind of thing?
(2) For those who did vote for a president who makes/made terrible decisions, they couldn't have possibly known all the actions the future president was going to take just from his campaign.
It should be widely known by now that the two main parties are pure garbage. There is no excuse for continuing to vote for them.
Rather, we should lock them up in a bubble where they'll be shielded from the harsh, harsh realities of the world. That way they'll be sure to succeed in the future. If we don't, they'll become criminals or something. Or be scarred for life. Something like that...
Very well. Cars have to go; some people commit crimes with cars, after all. The same thing goes for kitchen knives, toys, and pretty much anything one could think of.
unprofessional
People keep throwing this ambiguous word out there as if it will spell the end of the argument. It means absolutely nothing, and its true meaning varies from person to person. Is it really "unprofessional"? Why? The real question is, why should the practice be considered bad in all cases? No vague explanations, though.
Besides, if education is your primary concern, then most US public schools are not places you'd want to send your children to begin with. A teacher friending them on Facebook (an action which has no noticeable effect on anything, despite vague objections to the practice) should be the least of your concerns. Robotic teachers are the last thing we need to fix this problem.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you, some sort of terrorist!?
By the same measure, much bigger majority of people aren't child abusers as compared to just parents.
Yes...?
Every government, by definition must oppress to some extent.
Indeed. Government is a necessary evil. But that absolutely does not mean we should give them unlimited power. What power we do give them must be necessary and small. We must never let them engage in collective punishment (even if it's "for the children"), and we must never let them infringe upon our rights (again, even if it's "for the children").
Then again, I'm not really sure what your point was. But I've seen people who believe that because the government has the ability to do X, it should also have the ability to do Y (even if X and Y are quite different and one is a more oppressive power than the other), too.
We have a very good example of how that works in Somalia.
The US is not and likely never will be Somalia just from limiting the government's power and not allowing it to violate our rights.
Like communism, it would work very if people were beings naturally inclined to think of greater good over short term personal benefit.
And that's exactly why giving the government too much power is a bad thing (note that I said "too much"). This has more to do with human nature and history. We've all seen just how much damage governments (and a complete lack of government, for that matter) can do.
I think it becomes a problem when the government is harassing entire groups of people (in this hypothetical case, parents) because of what a minority of them do.
where today's children face far bigger threat from their parents' and relatives' abuse
I suspect it isn't much of a threat, since a grand majority of people aren't murderers/rapists/abusers.
A subject that's very unsexy to talk about in libertrarian pipe dreams, I know.
Is it really just a libertarian pipe dream to want to be free from corrupt governments? Is it really just a libertarian pipe dream to accept that some casualties happen, but not everyone needs to be punished/harassed by the government because of it?
I don't think that's a very good analogy. First, much more is at risk when you allow people without degrees to be doctors. Second of all, I suspect it's far more difficult to teach yourself how to be a doctor than it is to teach yourself to be, for instance, a programmer (or something else). There is no easy way to get that experience without training.
Not if you take it to mean, "I'd much rather have it remain as it is [where just felons and minors under 18 can't vote] than start taking away other people's right to vote, too." In other words, I was simply saying that I didn't want the situation to get even worse than it is now (although it getting better would be perfectly fine).
Once that is in place, the argument no longer holds and we are back to square one.
A single computer can be used by more than one person, wireless connections hijacked, etc. Not to mention viruses
If they can't prove that it was you in the car, then yes. I've always thought that it's ridiculous that you're basically punished before you even see a judge. The cop should have to provide actual evidence before being able to dish out punishment (although they'd need to stop you to get your name to begin with).
It's time to show everyone my true ferocity!
My true ferocity has been revealed!
And while no one is forcing them to play, the US does have a policy of banning certain activities for the detrimental effects on willing participants.
Yeah, we really need to stop doing that.
It's fun to some people. If they want to take that risk, I'm not going to stop them. I guess I just don't think about the children enough...
If someone is slandering your family and your reputation out in public, being sensitive is most certainly a positive thing.
Not really. Being sensitive could lead you to be emotional. Few can think logically when they're too emotional.
You do not need to be sensitive to take care of such threats.
And an argument taken to extremes loses the essence of the original discussion.
Claiming it's "extreme" means nothing. Extremes can be correct.
People can be offended by just about anything. There is no objective reason I should worry about every little thing.
Can you honestly say that you've never self-censored yourself before?
Irrelevant. I self-censor when I wish to do so. You're free to do the same. Of course, if I don't wish to do so, I'm free to not do so.
But I guarantee you, though, that I'm not going to refrain from mentioning the name of a piece of software. There's not even an intent to offend there.
No one is forcing you to do anything, they just might not like you if you don't.
Okay.
It's not random anymore once the majority agrees, then it becomes socially accepted behavior.
Okay. Then I guess I'm in the minority. I don't really care.
A little bit of sensitivity doesn't = weakness.
How do you figure that? How is getting offended not a weakness? Granted, some people can't help it, but I wouldn't construe it as a positive thing.
Words have different meanings to different people, why do some people discard that fact and assuming that their understanding of a word is the correct and only one that should stand?
Good question.
If you happen to find the word "gimp" offensive for any reason, I'll do you the personal favor and not use it regardless of whether I think you need to suck it up or not.
Good for you. You're free to self-censor. But if someone finds the word "the" offensive, I for one am not going to cease my use of it.
Not everyone is as emotionally stable as a rock, and it's not necessarily a trait that can be learned.
I agree. That is unfortunate. But it is also necessary to recognize that not everyone is going to cater to your arbitrary needs.
It's a right, but it doesn't have to be.
I'd prefer that it stayed a right. Everyone has their own opinions on what is 'best' for the country, and their goals might simply be different than other people's. Changing the country by voting is one of the least violent ways to do so. Take even that illusion away and people might resort to violence. I wouldn't blame them; they live in this country, pay taxes, and are greatly affected by the government's decisions. It doesn't sit well with me to arbitrary decide to take away certain people's right to vote.
but we already take away people's right to vote (felons)
Yeah, I think that's pure idiocy. Rather than taking it to the next step, I think we need to remove this restriction.
Even if you have no sensitivity issues to a word, it's being insensitive to use it and spread its use if you know others might be (some of them with good reason).
I'm not going to worry about random oversensitive people. I couldn't speak if that were the case, since some people really do get offended over just about anything. I'll keep speaking as I do now (though I don't think many would consider my manner of speech offensive anyway).
It's not like your life will end if you suddenly stopped using the word "gimp".
My life also wouldn't end if someone stole my computer, tv, and various other things. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.
Would you rather get tazed, or subjected to the mysterious treatment behind door number 3?
Or indefinitely retained. Or molested at airports. Or spied on. None of the 3rd parties could be much worse, honestly. They aren't horrible dictators with some master plan to take over America (impossible, anyway).
Anyway, the problem likely isn't the parties, it's the voters.
My comment implied that. All of the candidates for the main parties are pretty much garbage.
We don't trust someone with dementia to drive, for example, or to practice medicine, so why do we trust their opinion on who should run the country, or how?
That's a pretty slippery slope. Especially considering how difficult it is to actually determine someone's intelligence. Voting is also a right, and even someone deemed "uneducated" can be correct. Taking away that right would require a constitutional amendment.
To counter the potential for abuse would require extensive protections
I don't see how. Once we let them start making exceptions on who can and can't vote, we're already going down the slope. Considering how stupid the government itself can be (they're humans, after all), I wouldn't trust them with such a power.
and it's important to remember that our existing system is not at all immune to abuse.
I'd much rather have it remain as it is than revoke people's right to vote.
No, you don't use the word "Nigger" because you know if you use it in front of the wrong person, he's going to beat the dogshit out of you for being a fucktard.
Appeal to force. Just because someone would beat you up if you did/said something, that doesn't mean what you did/said was wrong.
And you don't name your software "NIGGER" because you know that this is the equivalent of naming it "THIS SOFTWARE IS MADE BY A FUCKTARD."
As I said, I honestly don't care what they name the software. It's a wise decision to not piss off random people if you're a business, but it doesn't really matter to me, specifically.
I agree. Some people are needlessly oversensitive. It would be a smart business decisions to avoid defending them. But I never really meant otherwise.
It's just that I can't believe people honestly get offended by things that aren't even intended to offend to begin with. They don't even care about context or meaning, just strings of letters.
It seems you missed my point. I can say, "Ethics 101 says X." That doesn't make it a good thing. It's just an appeal to authority.
So I assume you use the word "nigger" often?
About as much as I use the word "fuck." That is, not often. Not because I think it's offensive, but because I just don't feel like using it. But even if I heard someone use it, I really wouldn't care.
Or perhaps because it has developed a meaning which means something bad.
It has many uses, just like "fuck." It could be used in a joke, for instance. But I guess some people just can't help being oversensitive. Truly a shame. The best thing to do is to ignore them completely.
Do you come home and call your wife "bitch"?
What does not using a word have to do with finding it offensive? There are many words that I do not use, but that doesn't mean it's because I find them offensive or bad. I use them when I feel it is appropriate. Your analogies are nonsense.
it's about the bad connotations of the word.
Well, I don't know. I just... use it. I've seriously never once thought about or even cared about the name. Do some people really get hung up on that kind of thing?
The pirates are rapists. They rape my intellectual property.
(2) For those who did vote for a president who makes/made terrible decisions, they couldn't have possibly known all the actions the future president was going to take just from his campaign.
It should be widely known by now that the two main parties are pure garbage. There is no excuse for continuing to vote for them.
Kids don't need to see adult stuff.
Rather, we should lock them up in a bubble where they'll be shielded from the harsh, harsh realities of the world. That way they'll be sure to succeed in the future. If we don't, they'll become criminals or something. Or be scarred for life. Something like that...
Wait, why?
Yes.
Very well. Cars have to go; some people commit crimes with cars, after all. The same thing goes for kitchen knives, toys, and pretty much anything one could think of.
unprofessional
People keep throwing this ambiguous word out there as if it will spell the end of the argument. It means absolutely nothing, and its true meaning varies from person to person. Is it really "unprofessional"? Why? The real question is, why should the practice be considered bad in all cases? No vague explanations, though.
Besides, if education is your primary concern, then most US public schools are not places you'd want to send your children to begin with. A teacher friending them on Facebook (an action which has no noticeable effect on anything, despite vague objections to the practice) should be the least of your concerns. Robotic teachers are the last thing we need to fix this problem.