No. You know what's smart? Leaving people alone. Government thugs should not harass everyone, and they shouldn't selectively harass people, either; just leave people alone. I want the TSA gone, and I don't want it replaced with more government thugs; I want it 100% gone.
wasting the time of innocent people trying to catch their planes.
Blaming the victim, are we? Who's really wasting everyone's time here (and violating everyone's freedoms)? The government thugs who harass people who simply want to get on a plane, or the innocent people who... simply want to get on a plane. Heaven forbid anyone even do so much as slightly question evil authority figures; that might inconvenience the people in line behind you! Woe is them!
You can hate the TSA, but at least they're doing their job.
I'd rather them not do their job at all. In fact, I want them to simply vanish and stop violating people's rights. These people are lower than pieces of trash.
What amazes me is that we have a raging younger generation upset about loss of freedom
What, you mean... a minuscule amount of the younger generation is raging about the loss of our freedoms? They're a vocal minority. They're right to be mad, but most people either are simply apathetic, or support this garbage because they think it keeps us safe, and safety is obviously the most important thing in the 'land of the free.'
Violating people's freedoms and the constitution is not and never will be "sensible." Even if this nonsense did make us safer (And it doesn't; secured cockpit doors and the willingness of passengers to fight back are the important things that have changed, and neither violate anyone's rights.), freedom is more important than safety from some bogeyman.
Blame the terrorists for the government violating our rights! The government has nothing to do with it; really!
No, I'm not going to blame the bogeymen; I'm going to blame the people who are inconveniencing me, and if I believe their security is unreasonable, I simply won't buy anything from them.
You could do the same thing (talk about unlikely events) in any debate about surveillance. You could even use such cases to argue that everyone should have government-operated surveillance equipment installed in their homes.
This is about people choosing to install cameras on their private property to monitor people they hire to accomplish certain tasks, and not government surveillance, but I don't think pointing at rare cases of abuse is a very good argument for surveillance; all it does is get people riled up, not let them think rationally about the issue.
There are certain things you are prohibited from doing/selling due to patents, even if you use your own resources to put together a product. Patents infringe upon private property rights in this way.
Well, the alternative is to keep your invention secret and hope no one can reverse engineer it.
I don't care how they figure out how to make money; my concern is freedom, and I believe government-enforced monopolies over procedures harm private property rights. I feel that people who bring up innovation when defending patents/copyrights miss the point entirely. It's kind of like saying that the TSA keeps us safe; even if it's true, the TSA should not exist because it violates some of our important freedoms.
The patent system is clearly needed
Care to prove that? I've never seen anyone able to prove that the patent system actually is beneficial; people have speculated, sure, but can you provide anything more than just near-baseless speculation on what our society (not ones in the past that didn't have patents but were vastly different than our own in numerous other ways, in case that's the sort of thing you planned to mention) would be like in an alternate reality where patents simply don't exist?
The right of freedom of apeech and the right to speak privately have nothing to do with artificial property rights created to provide invention incentive by restricting copying.
Freedom of speech is actually relevant, given that authorities utilize censorship to try to combat copyright infringement.
I don't think saying "we already knew this" is clever. It's a fact. I knew this. And since I did not have any special access to information, I have to assume that everyone else who paid any attention also knew this.
Yes, and? Enough with the "Why are you surprised?"-type posts. I agree that it was obvious to anyone with a brain, so there's no point in acting like everyone is surprised (more angry after having seen evidence maybe, but not surprised).
Because smart people, who think stuff up, ought to be able to get paid for their ideas.
Only if they can find out a way to profit from them fairly; that's part of what the free market is about. Government-enforced monopolies over methods are not acceptable.
"just accept that some university programs are valuable"
You tried to tell me that I must accept that they are valuable. You did not specify that they are valuable to certain people, but instead told me that they're objectively valuable.
Whine about censorshop if you like, but when they earn a fortune from millions of page views of your loved ones being massacred, please come back and say you fully support their right to do so.
It sounds like you despise freedom. Besides, your argument is not logical; what I would or would not believe if I was in a different situation than I am now (where my loved ones had been massacred and someone posted a video of it on Facebook) is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not my stance on censorship is the correct one. If that is what you intended to convey, then it is a non sequitur; if it's not what you intended to convey, then you probably didn't have any real point.
I believe censorship is evil. Whether or not I would change my mind if my circumstances changed is irrelevant. What say you?
Of course, I think that a world without censorship would be better off, but since I have no proof I'm no better than those who call for censorship.
I believe that is incorrect. The ones who impose censorship are infringing upon others' freedoms, and without evidence. Since opposing censorship simply means not infringing upon people's right to free speech (a fundamental right), I believe you to be far better than cretins who call for censorship.
In fact, even if the world is a better place with censorship, freedom is speech is far more important than safety, so censorship shouldn't be allowed either way.
It's common sense that videos glorifying machete violence against humans should be banned.
"common sense"? What does that even mean? Are you saying that such a belief is common? If so, who cares? Are you saying that it makes sense? I don't agree with that, since I'm all for freedom of speech.
Saying that something is "common sense" is utterly worthless. In some places, it might have been "common sense" that the sun revolved around the Earth.
This is very much about freedom of speech, and especially so if by "banning," you mean that the government should ban such material.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, profiling is smart.
No. You know what's smart? Leaving people alone. Government thugs should not harass everyone, and they shouldn't selectively harass people, either; just leave people alone. I want the TSA gone, and I don't want it replaced with more government thugs; I want it 100% gone.
wasting the time of innocent people trying to catch their planes.
Blaming the victim, are we? Who's really wasting everyone's time here (and violating everyone's freedoms)? The government thugs who harass people who simply want to get on a plane, or the innocent people who... simply want to get on a plane. Heaven forbid anyone even do so much as slightly question evil authority figures; that might inconvenience the people in line behind you! Woe is them!
You can hate the TSA, but at least they're doing their job.
I'd rather them not do their job at all. In fact, I want them to simply vanish and stop violating people's rights. These people are lower than pieces of trash.
Poor schlub is just trying to take home a paycheck. He (or she) did not make the stupid rules; she (or he) just has smell feet all day.
"Just following orders" is not a valid excuse for violating people's freedoms and the constitution.
What amazes me is that we have a raging younger generation upset about loss of freedom
What, you mean... a minuscule amount of the younger generation is raging about the loss of our freedoms? They're a vocal minority. They're right to be mad, but most people either are simply apathetic, or support this garbage because they think it keeps us safe, and safety is obviously the most important thing in the 'land of the free.'
Violating people's freedoms and the constitution is not and never will be "sensible." Even if this nonsense did make us safer (And it doesn't; secured cockpit doors and the willingness of passengers to fight back are the important things that have changed, and neither violate anyone's rights.), freedom is more important than safety from some bogeyman.
Blame the criminals.
Blame the terrorists for the government violating our rights! The government has nothing to do with it; really!
No, I'm not going to blame the bogeymen; I'm going to blame the people who are inconveniencing me, and if I believe their security is unreasonable, I simply won't buy anything from them.
You could do the same thing (talk about unlikely events) in any debate about surveillance. You could even use such cases to argue that everyone should have government-operated surveillance equipment installed in their homes.
This is about people choosing to install cameras on their private property to monitor people they hire to accomplish certain tasks, and not government surveillance, but I don't think pointing at rare cases of abuse is a very good argument for surveillance; all it does is get people riled up, not let them think rationally about the issue.
There are certain things you are prohibited from doing/selling due to patents, even if you use your own resources to put together a product. Patents infringe upon private property rights in this way.
Well, the alternative is to keep your invention secret and hope no one can reverse engineer it.
I don't care how they figure out how to make money; my concern is freedom, and I believe government-enforced monopolies over procedures harm private property rights. I feel that people who bring up innovation when defending patents/copyrights miss the point entirely. It's kind of like saying that the TSA keeps us safe; even if it's true, the TSA should not exist because it violates some of our important freedoms.
The patent system is clearly needed
Care to prove that? I've never seen anyone able to prove that the patent system actually is beneficial; people have speculated, sure, but can you provide anything more than just near-baseless speculation on what our society (not ones in the past that didn't have patents but were vastly different than our own in numerous other ways, in case that's the sort of thing you planned to mention) would be like in an alternate reality where patents simply don't exist?
The right of freedom of apeech and the right to speak privately have nothing to do with artificial property rights created to provide invention incentive by restricting copying.
Freedom of speech is actually relevant, given that authorities utilize censorship to try to combat copyright infringement.
Of course you are going to spy on your allies.
I suppose that's why the US government spies on its own citizens. A cowardly way of thinking, but definitely not an excuse thugs would be above using.
I don't think saying "we already knew this" is clever. It's a fact. I knew this. And since I did not have any special access to information, I have to assume that everyone else who paid any attention also knew this.
Yes, and? Enough with the "Why are you surprised?"-type posts. I agree that it was obvious to anyone with a brain, so there's no point in acting like everyone is surprised (more angry after having seen evidence maybe, but not surprised).
Because smart people, who think stuff up, ought to be able to get paid for their ideas.
Only if they can find out a way to profit from them fairly; that's part of what the free market is about. Government-enforced monopolies over methods are not acceptable.
What? You're becoming an eyesore to me.
"just accept that some university programs are valuable"
You tried to tell me that I must accept that they are valuable. You did not specify that they are valuable to certain people, but instead told me that they're objectively valuable.
With such attitude likelihood of him leaking sensitive information was high - he had to go.
Yeah, that would be horrible; we might find out what the criminals who claim to represent us are really up to.
can you teach yourself to understand wtf i'm saying?
Perhaps you should speak more carefully. You said that the programs are valuable, and you stated that as a fact, as if it's always true.
the good programs actually give you a **shovel**
You're making the ridiculous assumption that formal education is for everyone; it isn't. Some people simply don't do well there.
just accept that some university programs are valuable
Just accept that self-education can be valuable if done right, and that your precious formal education doesn't work out for everyone.
Merely being opposed to certain uses of a technology does not make one a Luddite.
Whine about censorshop if you like, but when they earn a fortune from millions of page views of your loved ones being massacred, please come back and say you fully support their right to do so.
It sounds like you despise freedom. Besides, your argument is not logical; what I would or would not believe if I was in a different situation than I am now (where my loved ones had been massacred and someone posted a video of it on Facebook) is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not my stance on censorship is the correct one. If that is what you intended to convey, then it is a non sequitur; if it's not what you intended to convey, then you probably didn't have any real point.
I believe censorship is evil. Whether or not I would change my mind if my circumstances changed is irrelevant. What say you?
Of course, I think that a world without censorship would be better off, but since I have no proof I'm no better than those who call for censorship.
I believe that is incorrect. The ones who impose censorship are infringing upon others' freedoms, and without evidence. Since opposing censorship simply means not infringing upon people's right to free speech (a fundamental right), I believe you to be far better than cretins who call for censorship.
In fact, even if the world is a better place with censorship, freedom is speech is far more important than safety, so censorship shouldn't be allowed either way.
A civilized society can draw a line.
One that despises free speech, you mean.
Allowing material that glorifies or incites people to murder over religious beliefs is nothing but cowardice.
Censorship is cowardice. Sacrificing freedom because you believe you'll get some degree of safety in return is cowardice.
The fact that you think allowing people to have free speech is cowardice only shows your disdain for freedom.
It's common sense that videos glorifying machete violence against humans should be banned.
"common sense"? What does that even mean? Are you saying that such a belief is common? If so, who cares? Are you saying that it makes sense? I don't agree with that, since I'm all for freedom of speech.
Saying that something is "common sense" is utterly worthless. In some places, it might have been "common sense" that the sun revolved around the Earth.
This is very much about freedom of speech, and especially so if by "banning," you mean that the government should ban such material.
To be fair, there is a point though.
A completely illogical one.