Re:Very similar to smoking bans
on
Comics Code Dead
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Huh? How did that rebuttal make any sense whatsoever?
First off, we are not talking about public parts. We are talking about private businesses. So already, you're using a strawman fallacy to attack a completely different situations than the one I'm talking about.
Second off, IF I OWNED MY OWN ESTABLISHMENT that consenting could enter into, and take a dump on the table - AND THIS IS WHAT MY CLIENTELE WANTED TO DO - Who the fuck are you to tell me I can't? If I open MY doors to the public, all of a sudden the public gets to tell me what to do?
But yea, anonymous coward, way to talk about something completely different and irrelevant. You win the internet.
Re:Very similar to smoking bans
on
Comics Code Dead
·
· Score: 0
Nobody is forced to breathe in a chemical at a bar they voluntarily go to, just as no one is forced to look at breasts because there's a strip club up the street from you.
Re:Very similar to smoking bans
on
Comics Code Dead
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Smoking bans aren't typically in public areas, they are typically in private areas open to the public. Trying to call privately owned bars "public" is misleading rhetoric. Bans are typically are not in place in actual public areas like streets and park;, they are in bars that are privately owned.
Nobody is forcing you to go into that bar, anymore than anyone is forcing you to read a comic book with a gay character. But thanks for pointing out the douchey tyranny of the majority - You are against freedom. The freedom for a property owner to own property and say "this is what I want to happen on my own property". Your mentality is also the exact same mentality that stomps out adult stops, strip clubs, and sex clubs. "Something is going on that I don't like, so I'm going to whine to the government to control the behavior of consenting adults." Whether you realize it or acknowledge it, you are anti-freedom. People like you are why I would never open a business.
It's about fucking time! The Comics Code never had a place in a democratic society anyway; it was simply Tyranny Of The Majority.
People didn't like what other people did WITH THEIR OWN COMIC BUSINESS THAT THEY OWNED, so they petitioned the government to control their behavior and fit their idea of what is healthy for society.
Really, I don't see much of a difference between this and smoking bans.
1) Someone does something you don't have to participate in.
2) Someone else participates in it anyway. You/they perceive harm, real or imagined, it doesn't matter.
3) You petition the govenrment to control their behavior.
Sorry, that's a dick move. Glad to see Bongo (Simpsons Comics) and even Archie finally dropping this bullshit censorship code from our parents' days.
Which is the cumulative cost of all screwing I've done for the first 36 years of my life.
Age 1-30 - use tools taken from my parents
Age 30-36 - bought a $2 box of standard screwdriver bits to put into wife's screwdriver-that-takes-bits, so when they get beat up, i can use that. She got from her parents I think.
Age 36 - last year - $7 screwdriver set bought from Home Depot. Now I can finally get into her car's steering column.
So yeah, I've spent about $9 on all screws in my entire life. Now I'm supposed to double that to open my iPhone?
Actually, I don't own a working iphone [I have a free one with no service plan that I only use to play mp3s, given to me by apple people who paid $600 for it and hundreds more for its replacement] and will never pay a cent for one.
I'm just amazed at how Apple users not only throw away their money, but celebrate it.
Why would you type your home address into a social networking site anyway? Facebook is a tool, not an evil parasite. It can't do anything with info you don't give it. Wah wah wah wah, all the way home.
But notice: The paragraph says "for certain offenders". So already, sampling bias up the wazoo. Yes, for certain human beings there is a 100% chance they are a fucking asshole, but that's simply not the number for human beings as a whole. "Certain offenders" is already a subset of who knows which certain ones.
But yes, that aside, the point still stands that it's not true for most of them.
Question: Is there a table of all crimes with recidivism rates listed next to them? I wonder.
Stop spreading bullshit. The rate is 5 percent. According to the Office of Justice Programs of the United States Department of Justice, in New York State the recidivism rates for sex offenders have been shown to be lower than any other crime except murder. Another report from the OJP that studied recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 in 15 states accounting for two-thirds of all prisoners released in the United States that year,[4] reached the same conclusion. Read some facts yourself, then verify them with google.
It doesn't matter if something is a right or privilege. Very, very, very few things that we do are a right. You don't have a right to eat chocolate. You don't have a right to drink Sprite. Just because something is not a right doesn't mean that the government interfering with it is not characteristic of a police state.
Now that we've established that, I'll demonstrate that rights are actually infringed regardless of your "right vs privilege" false dichotomy:
Furthermore, you are taking a very shallow viewpoint without thinking about all the RIGHTS (yes, real, legal rights) that have been eroded specifically because of DUI backlash. I suggest reading this article: http://www.duicentral.com/dui/the_dui_exception.html.
If you don't understand how the law works, you shouldn't be posting comments about the law online. The newspapers in no way shape or form broke any federal law. The only violation of federal law is the person who originally released classified info. Once it's released, the whole planet knows it. A newspaper publishing this is not telling anybody anything that can't be found. This legal precedent has been set time and time again. You can claim 2 + 2 = 5, but it does not.
You missed my point. Instead of cherry picking the one example that you could poke a hole in (which, by the way, has nothing to do with copyright, which is what the discussion is about), look at both examples I provided and try to understand the mentality of the point I was actually making.
This is the problem with points. They are illustrated better with metaphors -- the more the better -- but each metaphor introduces an opportunity to poke holes in the example [instead of what it is a metaphor of]. I've been wondering if there's a better way to communicate. Throw out all metaphors and just make a point? But then people often don't get it. Provide too many metaphors? But then people get caught up in the minutiae of the metaphor instead of the actual point.
By your logic, if I built a bridge, I would be owed royalties every time someone drove over it. If I built you a chair, I would be owed royalties every time you sat on it. If I wrote software, I would be owed royalties every time it's run (oh damn do I wish that was true, haha). Amazing concept: People get paid for working, not for past work that they already completed.
No, you said wikileaks itself is shrouded in secrecy. It was obvious then that you were not talking about Assange, because his location is not secret. You talked about wikileaks - "Where they are based". Your words.
Anyway, here are some links for you:
one, two, three.
I can see why you are against Wikileaks. You don't even follow normal news, so why would anybody need more?
It's funny how you shifted your question from being about wikileaks to being about Assange. You also might want to read the news more; we assassinate people -- including American citizens -- all the time. In short, you are too ignorant for me to continue replying to you.
Except Wikileaks didn't release all the cables at once (most still aren't released, we're only about 3% into it), and redacts a lot of information (some 15,000 war reports from Afghanistan, for example). And how shrouded in secrecy are they, exactly?
Except Wikileaks didn't release all the cables at once (most still aren't released, we're only about 3% into it), and redacts a lot of information (some 15,000 war reports from Afghanistan, for example).
They confiscated his gun for pointing out safety flaws? I guess constitutional rights don't apply to people who embarrass a government? Can you imagine if they said you weren't allowed to go to church or vote because you embarrassed the government? But it's okay if it's the 2nd amendment? What the fuck, america. Pussies.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, we are not talking about public parts. We are talking about private businesses. So already, you're using a strawman fallacy to attack a completely different situations than the one I'm talking about.
Second off, IF I OWNED MY OWN ESTABLISHMENT that consenting could enter into, and take a dump on the table - AND THIS IS WHAT MY CLIENTELE WANTED TO DO - Who the fuck are you to tell me I can't? If I open MY doors to the public, all of a sudden the public gets to tell me what to do?
But yea, anonymous coward, way to talk about something completely different and irrelevant. You win the internet.
Nobody is forced to breathe in a chemical at a bar they voluntarily go to, just as no one is forced to look at breasts because there's a strip club up the street from you.
Nobody is forcing you to go into that bar, anymore than anyone is forcing you to read a comic book with a gay character. But thanks for pointing out the douchey tyranny of the majority - You are against freedom. The freedom for a property owner to own property and say "this is what I want to happen on my own property". Your mentality is also the exact same mentality that stomps out adult stops, strip clubs, and sex clubs. "Something is going on that I don't like, so I'm going to whine to the government to control the behavior of consenting adults." Whether you realize it or acknowledge it, you are anti-freedom. People like you are why I would never open a business.
People didn't like what other people did WITH THEIR OWN COMIC BUSINESS THAT THEY OWNED, so they petitioned the government to control their behavior and fit their idea of what is healthy for society.
Really, I don't see much of a difference between this and smoking bans.
1) Someone does something you don't have to participate in. 2) Someone else participates in it anyway. You/they perceive harm, real or imagined, it doesn't matter. 3) You petition the govenrment to control their behavior.
Sorry, that's a dick move. Glad to see Bongo (Simpsons Comics) and even Archie finally dropping this bullshit censorship code from our parents' days.
Age 1-30 - use tools taken from my parents
Age 30-36 - bought a $2 box of standard screwdriver bits to put into wife's screwdriver-that-takes-bits, so when they get beat up, i can use that. She got from her parents I think.
Age 36 - last year - $7 screwdriver set bought from Home Depot. Now I can finally get into her car's steering column.
So yeah, I've spent about $9 on all screws in my entire life. Now I'm supposed to double that to open my iPhone?
Actually, I don't own a working iphone [I have a free one with no service plan that I only use to play mp3s, given to me by apple people who paid $600 for it and hundreds more for its replacement] and will never pay a cent for one.
I'm just amazed at how Apple users not only throw away their money, but celebrate it.
hahaha :)
Okay, I probably didn't get that right verbatim, but you get the gist.
God you're a whiner. Your email address is no more a secret than your phone number.
Why would you type your home address into a social networking site anyway? Facebook is a tool, not an evil parasite. It can't do anything with info you don't give it. Wah wah wah wah, all the way home.
But notice: The paragraph says "for certain offenders". So already, sampling bias up the wazoo. Yes, for certain human beings there is a 100% chance they are a fucking asshole, but that's simply not the number for human beings as a whole. "Certain offenders" is already a subset of who knows which certain ones.
But yes, that aside, the point still stands that it's not true for most of them.
Question: Is there a table of all crimes with recidivism rates listed next to them? I wonder.
Not being full of bullshit: an easy process.
I forgot that when laws said things shouldn't exist, they stopped existing. That drug war was pretty easy. So was the war on rape and murder ;)
Me and 3 buddies say different. Now send me your address. ;) [this is a joke! please don't take it seriously!]
You use that word, but I don't think you know what it means.
Now that we've established that, I'll demonstrate that rights are actually infringed regardless of your "right vs privilege" false dichotomy:
Furthermore, you are taking a very shallow viewpoint without thinking about all the RIGHTS (yes, real, legal rights) that have been eroded specifically because of DUI backlash. I suggest reading this article: http://www.duicentral.com/dui/the_dui_exception.html.
If you don't understand how the law works, you shouldn't be posting comments about the law online. The newspapers in no way shape or form broke any federal law. The only violation of federal law is the person who originally released classified info. Once it's released, the whole planet knows it. A newspaper publishing this is not telling anybody anything that can't be found. This legal precedent has been set time and time again. You can claim 2 + 2 = 5, but it does not.
This is the problem with points. They are illustrated better with metaphors -- the more the better -- but each metaphor introduces an opportunity to poke holes in the example [instead of what it is a metaphor of]. I've been wondering if there's a better way to communicate. Throw out all metaphors and just make a point? But then people often don't get it. Provide too many metaphors? But then people get caught up in the minutiae of the metaphor instead of the actual point.
By your logic, if I built a bridge, I would be owed royalties every time someone drove over it. If I built you a chair, I would be owed royalties every time you sat on it. If I wrote software, I would be owed royalties every time it's run (oh damn do I wish that was true, haha). Amazing concept: People get paid for working, not for past work that they already completed.
Anyway, here are some links for you: one, two, three.
I can see why you are against Wikileaks. You don't even follow normal news, so why would anybody need more?
It's funny how you shifted your question from being about wikileaks to being about Assange. You also might want to read the news more; we assassinate people -- including American citizens -- all the time. In short, you are too ignorant for me to continue replying to you.
Do you really think in only 1 dimension?
And if they gave that info, do you really think they wouldn't have been bombed by now?
Except Wikileaks didn't release all the cables at once (most still aren't released, we're only about 3% into it), and redacts a lot of information (some 15,000 war reports from Afghanistan, for example). And how shrouded in secrecy are they, exactly?
Except Wikileaks didn't release all the cables at once (most still aren't released, we're only about 3% into it), and redacts a lot of information (some 15,000 war reports from Afghanistan, for example).
They confiscated his gun for pointing out safety flaws? I guess constitutional rights don't apply to people who embarrass a government? Can you imagine if they said you weren't allowed to go to church or vote because you embarrassed the government? But it's okay if it's the 2nd amendment? What the fuck, america. Pussies.