Can you read? I know you oppose government control over what can be read, but do *you* know *how* to read? Can you actually comprehend what it is that you are reading?
I was being facetious. But seriously, there are tons of shitty people calling themselves libertarians. At some point it might be prudent for good libertarians to abandon that label and get a new one to distinguish themselves from the republican party.
The 2nd amendment also allows individuals to have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Maybe the guy who makes his own anthrax will use it to defend the 1st amendment. Or maybe he will use it on people drawing pictures of Muhammad.
Speech advocating the abolition of freedom of speech is not the end of freedom of speech. If anything it is a testament to it. Nobody is going around silencing anyone who wants to abolish freedom of speech. They are free to advocate their position without being hindered.
The first question should be "Is the truth of this statement relevant". The statement "Kim Kardashian did X, Y, and Z" may be true, but who gives a shit.
Democrats are Opposite People. Whatever they are saying is always the opposite of what they actually do in practice.
Sort of like how Republicans for smaller government?
You can bash democrats all you want. They probably deserve it. What I can;t stand is the implication that republicans are somehow better. And this goes for republican bashing as well.
If you think either side of the republicrat party is any good, you need to have your head examined.
Although there is nothing terribly libertarian about demanding the right to go to a publicly funded school. Also, a true extreme libertarian would allow the kids to decide if they want vaccines.
"shouting down others"? That sounds like an accusation form some pussy liberal. This is a public forum. How does his speech in any way prevent the speech of others?
There are in fact some people that are not really Scotsman. Like people who have never been to Scotland, but consider themselves Scottish because they are white and liked Braveheart.
If you want to restrict freedom, you are by definition not a "liberal".
That's not to say that there aren't plenty of examples of people with incorrect labels, self applied or applied by others.
So if you want to take the definition of liberal to mean "Someone shitty", then sure, they are liberals.
Liberal literally refers to "liber" (latin for free). Even if they consider themselves liberals, they are not. Whether they are left right up or down, they sure as shit aren't liberals. There are plenty of people on all political sides trying to ban what they find to be obscene. Fuck them all.
I have been running this regex on the whole internet since it's inception and it has never matched anything
".* passes.* rules, succeeds in closing all loopholes"
Sometimes it's possible to have abstract thoughts and determine what would or should happen in hypothetical situations. In these situations analogies make sense even if the examples used in the analogies are not reflective of reality currently.
Is it really that hard to imagine what one should make of this statement, *if* it were in the constitution?
It could be argued that militias can no longer fulfill the purpose *because* they basically don't exist anymore. In the unlikely event of an invasion, it really might be nice that people in local communities actually know how to operate basic firearms. We used 2 atomic bombs on Japan to avoid having to kill and be killed by Japanese civilians with butcher knives.
I think a populace armed to the teeth would be a pretty good deterrent to any would be invaders. The problem is that it's a defense mechanism that is getting lots of people killed in a time when there is very little risk of invasion.
If there were any books that might accidentally kill your neighbor if read improperly, I suppose it might make sense to regulate those books. Like if your new kindle e-reader could shoot a metal projectile faster than the speed of sound, it might make sense to have laws mandating that such "books" be kept in locked safes in households with children, etc.
Like if someone brought a toy gun into school and started to pretend to shoot it at people, and it had that terrible orange tag on the end still...
Either you have reason to believe it's a real gun and evacuate the school or you believe it's a fake gun and discipline the kid.
That's like saying "We think there is a leak in the nuclear reactor, but we aren't sure, so we didn't evacuate anybody, and we just gave the owner a fine".
Hey wait, lets say a kid 3d prints a replica handgun. spray paints it black, poorly. then brings it into school, and shows it to his shop teacher, who knows what it is and tells him he shouldn't wave it around, and then pretends to shoot it at a classmate in a class whose teacher doesn't know what it is?
Then you evacuate the fucking school because for all you know a kid is waiving a real gun around.
i imagine most people would say, yeah, give that kid something to think about, arrest him, make him remember that those kinds of jokes are in poor taste. And a certain subset read gun, and just thought, lynch the fucker.:)
I'd say arrest the teacher who decided to waste thousands of dollars in tax payer money just to teach a kid a lesson (something that's the school's job).
If bringing a kid bringing a fake gun to school is in bad taste, what is it when an adult perpetuates the prank by calling the cops even if he knows it's fake?
I am not even just talking about the teachers, who I agree with you, obviously either knew it wasn't a bomb, or are the dumbest people on the planet. I am talking about all the people weighing in on whether they think the device looks like a bomb, despite having zero clues about what a real life bomb actually looks like.
Slashdot Mirror
What will you do if I don't?
fight stupidity with more stupidity
It seems like you've already started
Can you read? I know you oppose government control over what can be read, but do *you* know *how* to read? Can you actually comprehend what it is that you are reading?
Do you like haggis?
What do you know about me?
I was being facetious. But seriously, there are tons of shitty people calling themselves libertarians. At some point it might be prudent for good libertarians to abandon that label and get a new one to distinguish themselves from the republican party.
The 2nd amendment also allows individuals to have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Maybe the guy who makes his own anthrax will use it to defend the 1st amendment. Or maybe he will use it on people drawing pictures of Muhammad.
Speech advocating the abolition of freedom of speech is not the end of freedom of speech. If anything it is a testament to it. Nobody is going around silencing anyone who wants to abolish freedom of speech. They are free to advocate their position without being hindered.
The first question should be "Is the truth of this statement relevant". The statement "Kim Kardashian did X, Y, and Z" may be true, but who gives a shit.
Fight the speech with more speech.
Democrats are Opposite People. Whatever they are saying is always the opposite of what they actually do in practice.
Sort of like how Republicans for smaller government?
You can bash democrats all you want. They probably deserve it. What I can;t stand is the implication that republicans are somehow better. And this goes for republican bashing as well.
If you think either side of the republicrat party is any good, you need to have your head examined.
Although there is nothing terribly libertarian about demanding the right to go to a publicly funded school. Also, a true extreme libertarian would allow the kids to decide if they want vaccines.
William F Buckley would be a bleeding heart liberal by today's standards. The era when we had rational conservatives is over.
"shouting down others"? That sounds like an accusation form some pussy liberal. This is a public forum. How does his speech in any way prevent the speech of others?
There are in fact some people that are not really Scotsman. Like people who have never been to Scotland, but consider themselves Scottish because they are white and liked Braveheart.
If you want to restrict freedom, you are by definition not a "liberal".
That's not to say that there aren't plenty of examples of people with incorrect labels, self applied or applied by others.
So if you want to take the definition of liberal to mean "Someone shitty", then sure, they are liberals.
Liberal literally refers to "liber" (latin for free). Even if they consider themselves liberals, they are not. Whether they are left right up or down, they sure as shit aren't liberals. There are plenty of people on all political sides trying to ban what they find to be obscene. Fuck them all.
Not anymore. Now libertarian means a shittier version of a republican.
So if I find a few conservatives who is a racist, it should be pretty safe to assume that conservatives are racists?
I have been running this regex on the whole internet since it's inception and it has never matched anything .* rules, succeeds in closing all loopholes"
".* passes
Sometimes it's possible to have abstract thoughts and determine what would or should happen in hypothetical situations. In these situations analogies make sense even if the examples used in the analogies are not reflective of reality currently.
Is it really that hard to imagine what one should make of this statement, *if* it were in the constitution?
Agreed.
It could be argued that militias can no longer fulfill the purpose *because* they basically don't exist anymore. In the unlikely event of an invasion, it really might be nice that people in local communities actually know how to operate basic firearms. We used 2 atomic bombs on Japan to avoid having to kill and be killed by Japanese civilians with butcher knives.
I think a populace armed to the teeth would be a pretty good deterrent to any would be invaders. The problem is that it's a defense mechanism that is getting lots of people killed in a time when there is very little risk of invasion.
If there were any books that might accidentally kill your neighbor if read improperly, I suppose it might make sense to regulate those books. Like if your new kindle e-reader could shoot a metal projectile faster than the speed of sound, it might make sense to have laws mandating that such "books" be kept in locked safes in households with children, etc.
Like if someone brought a toy gun into school and started to pretend to shoot it at people, and it had that terrible orange tag on the end still...
Either you have reason to believe it's a real gun and evacuate the school or you believe it's a fake gun and discipline the kid.
That's like saying "We think there is a leak in the nuclear reactor, but we aren't sure, so we didn't evacuate anybody, and we just gave the owner a fine".
Hey wait, lets say a kid 3d prints a replica handgun. spray paints it black, poorly. then brings it into school, and shows it to his shop teacher, who knows what it is and tells him he shouldn't wave it around, and then pretends to shoot it at a classmate in a class whose teacher doesn't know what it is?
Then you evacuate the fucking school because for all you know a kid is waiving a real gun around.
i imagine most people would say, yeah, give that kid something to think about, arrest him, make him remember that those kinds of jokes are in poor taste. And a certain subset read gun, and just thought, lynch the fucker. :)
I'd say arrest the teacher who decided to waste thousands of dollars in tax payer money just to teach a kid a lesson (something that's the school's job).
If bringing a kid bringing a fake gun to school is in bad taste, what is it when an adult perpetuates the prank by calling the cops even if he knows it's fake?
I am not even just talking about the teachers, who I agree with you, obviously either knew it wasn't a bomb, or are the dumbest people on the planet. I am talking about all the people weighing in on whether they think the device looks like a bomb, despite having zero clues about what a real life bomb actually looks like.