but this is the real world and sometimes ideology has to take a back seat to practicality and an angry mob of parents.
This mentality just makes everything worse, or at any rate, it doesn't improve the situation. In the US, the TSA molests people at airports. If we had more people who cared about freedom and principles, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Therefore, this 'abandon ideology and surrender to the status quo' mentality is absolutely poisonous.
I don't care for people to be prosecuted under unjust laws. Besides, as long as you don't go around telling everyone why you did what you did, I don't think there's much they can do about it.
You can still act dumb or crazy because of your principles.
It's possible, but if no one sticks up for their principles, nothing will change. Sticking up for your principles just means you're willing to take some risks. Personally, I wish we had more people who cared about principles; garbage like the NSA spying, the TSA, etc. would probably be gone.
Whether you think it's wrong or not is irrelevant to whether or not it should be illegal. I for one have a hard time swallowing the fact that showing certain images/videos to people of certain ages is illegal.
So actual history apparently isn't good enough for you, because it happened in the past and now, we've like Amended that shit.
No, it's that you're equating the ability to stop oppression to the ability to oppress. A well-designed system rarely would allow such a thing without serious checks and balances, and your examples aren't examples of where it does. I have zero patience for long, pointless comments, so I'll cut it off here.
So you're okay with people calling in fake bomb threats?
Yeah. Lots of fake bomb threats would perhaps have the positive effect of desensitizing people to this nonsense, so that workplaces, schools, and other environments wouldn't be interrupted by this bullshit. People are too paranoid about the unlikely.
Like it or not, human beings are still biological animals
Like it or not, your excuses for irrational behavior fall on deaf ears.
So if the person instigating the event *knew* that their actions could lead to injury, then they *absolutely should* be held responsible for actions they instigated.
As opposed to the people who actually caused the damage, which are the tramplers?
Just because it's the bullets that actually killed someone, doesn't mean the shooter is not to blame.
Not even remotely comparable, as bullets are inanimate objects, not people who choose their own course of action (or follow their instincts).
If theater owners don't like people shouting random bullshit, again, they're free to kick them out. There is no problem.
How about taking a step outside your little world where everyone acts rationally
I don't live in such a world (I'm always complaining about irrational people.) and never mentioned such a thing.
Humans are not vulcans
Nor do they need to be. Your excuses fall on deaf ears; the people doing the trampling are at fault for doing the trampling. A simple concept, no? No one's actions are excused simply because they panicked.
At any rate, freedom is more important than this sort of 'safety.'
and you're doing a great disservice to your credibility by insisting that these situations are in any way comparable.
I don't care what you think about my "credibility"; it has no relevance to how correct my arguments are. In any case, they are comparable for me; in both situations, I reject 'safety' in favor of freedom. That is what I meant, and that is usually what I mean when I bring these things up.
But hey, if the property owners don't like it (and I doubt they like people screaming random shit in theaters), they can always kick them off. The 'screaming fire in a crowded theater' example is and always has been a non-problem.
Idiots? - When you are part of a crowd of tightly packed humans that suddenly stampede in response to a universally recognised alarm call you have two choices, join in or get trampled.
The words just possess them, force them to believe the words, and then make them stampede over everyone else, and then it's somehow the fault of the speaker.
How about a little personal responsibility, rather than pretending words are magic? The person got up and joined the stampede. All of them should be held responsible for any damage they caused, if it can be proven they caused any (unlikely, but perhaps possible). It was an accident? You break a window by accident, and you have to pay for it.
The only idiots in the equation are the free speech extremists who think there must be a third choice because they are absolutely convinced their dogma trumps human nature.
I just think free speech is far more important than coddling retards who believe everything they hear. Just like I think the fourth amendment and privacy are more important than being safe from potential terrorists. Disliking freedom would be fine if one kept it to themselves.
Freedom of speech only goes so far. We all know that shouting fire when there is none can get you in a raft of trouble.
In trouble for other people's actions (the idiots who would trample others). That's because the government hates freedom and ignores the first amendment, though.
To be honest, it sounds like you kind of have a problem with authority.
Rather, it's that other people are unthinking drones, so I may seem extreme by comparison. All I'm saying is that I don't mindlessly follow orders; that's all.
But if your attitude is essentially "I do things exactly the way I want to do them or I'm out of here" then you're not someone I'd want as part of a team.
That's not quite it. But I work in teams all the time and seem to do just fine. Maybe I just found a non-shitty work environment.
Slashdot Mirror
but this is the real world and sometimes ideology has to take a back seat to practicality and an angry mob of parents.
This mentality just makes everything worse, or at any rate, it doesn't improve the situation. In the US, the TSA molests people at airports. If we had more people who cared about freedom and principles, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Therefore, this 'abandon ideology and surrender to the status quo' mentality is absolutely poisonous.
The real problem is that puritan morons can successfully sue someone because their kids accessed something on the Internet that they don't like.
Pornography and inappropriate images
A better idea would be to discard this puritan nonsense and stop pretending that what one person thinks is "inappropriate" is objectively correct.
I don't care for people to be prosecuted under unjust laws. Besides, as long as you don't go around telling everyone why you did what you did, I don't think there's much they can do about it.
I would just play dumb to avoid getting thrown off. Unless you wanted to get excused, of course.
You can still act dumb or crazy because of your principles.
It's possible, but if no one sticks up for their principles, nothing will change. Sticking up for your principles just means you're willing to take some risks. Personally, I wish we had more people who cared about principles; garbage like the NSA spying, the TSA, etc. would probably be gone.
Sometimes principle has too high of a price.
Other people can't decide that for you.
That's not dumb or crazy; it might just be that you have principles, unlike most people, who simply do whatever authority figures say.
And yet again you simply assert that it is humanly possible to design such a system without giving any evidence that it is
To some degree, we already have it. If you're looking for perfection, you should look to your own imagination.
People are as dumb now as they were in the past. Useless test scores and other such trivialities don't change that fact.
Whether you think it's wrong or not is irrelevant to whether or not it should be illegal. I for one have a hard time swallowing the fact that showing certain images/videos to people of certain ages is illegal.
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
because we all agreed that he showed his daughters porn.
So?
Similarly, if it were permissible for children to photograph any age, then adults would simply coerce children to do the dirty work.
So we end up in a situation where worthless pieces of trash (most people) kneejerk and ban everything to 'protect' crotch fruit. How mundane.
Are people who stick up for their principles so rare these days that they're labeled "dumb" or "crazy"?
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
So actual history apparently isn't good enough for you, because it happened in the past and now, we've like Amended that shit.
No, it's that you're equating the ability to stop oppression to the ability to oppress. A well-designed system rarely would allow such a thing without serious checks and balances, and your examples aren't examples of where it does. I have zero patience for long, pointless comments, so I'll cut it off here.
So you're okay with people calling in fake bomb threats?
Yeah. Lots of fake bomb threats would perhaps have the positive effect of desensitizing people to this nonsense, so that workplaces, schools, and other environments wouldn't be interrupted by this bullshit. People are too paranoid about the unlikely.
Like it or not, human beings are still biological animals
Like it or not, your excuses for irrational behavior fall on deaf ears.
So if the person instigating the event *knew* that their actions could lead to injury, then they *absolutely should* be held responsible for actions they instigated.
As opposed to the people who actually caused the damage, which are the tramplers?
Just because it's the bullets that actually killed someone, doesn't mean the shooter is not to blame.
Not even remotely comparable, as bullets are inanimate objects, not people who choose their own course of action (or follow their instincts).
If theater owners don't like people shouting random bullshit, again, they're free to kick them out. There is no problem.
Okay, then prosecute the idiots who cause the damage, not random people who didn't.
How about taking a step outside your little world where everyone acts rationally
I don't live in such a world (I'm always complaining about irrational people.) and never mentioned such a thing.
Humans are not vulcans
Nor do they need to be. Your excuses fall on deaf ears; the people doing the trampling are at fault for doing the trampling. A simple concept, no? No one's actions are excused simply because they panicked.
At any rate, freedom is more important than this sort of 'safety.'
and you're doing a great disservice to your credibility by insisting that these situations are in any way comparable.
I don't care what you think about my "credibility"; it has no relevance to how correct my arguments are. In any case, they are comparable for me; in both situations, I reject 'safety' in favor of freedom. That is what I meant, and that is usually what I mean when I bring these things up.
I was being narrow minded. I even self selected myself into making myself not like music. I would say it and make it true...
Yeah, narrow minded. It's unbelievable that someone could not like things that I like! Such a thing just isn't possible.
But hey, if the property owners don't like it (and I doubt they like people screaming random shit in theaters), they can always kick them off. The 'screaming fire in a crowded theater' example is and always has been a non-problem.
Idiots? - When you are part of a crowd of tightly packed humans that suddenly stampede in response to a universally recognised alarm call you have two choices, join in or get trampled.
The words just possess them, force them to believe the words, and then make them stampede over everyone else, and then it's somehow the fault of the speaker.
How about a little personal responsibility, rather than pretending words are magic? The person got up and joined the stampede. All of them should be held responsible for any damage they caused, if it can be proven they caused any (unlikely, but perhaps possible). It was an accident? You break a window by accident, and you have to pay for it.
The only idiots in the equation are the free speech extremists who think there must be a third choice because they are absolutely convinced their dogma trumps human nature.
I just think free speech is far more important than coddling retards who believe everything they hear. Just like I think the fourth amendment and privacy are more important than being safe from potential terrorists. Disliking freedom would be fine if one kept it to themselves.
Which libertarian are you referring to? Hopefully you don't think the guy you replied to is a libertarian.
Freedom of speech only goes so far. We all know that shouting fire
when there is none can get you in a raft of trouble.
In trouble for other people's actions (the idiots who would trample others). That's because the government hates freedom and ignores the first amendment, though.
To be honest, it sounds like you kind of have a problem with authority.
Rather, it's that other people are unthinking drones, so I may seem extreme by comparison. All I'm saying is that I don't mindlessly follow orders; that's all.
But if your attitude is essentially "I do things exactly the way I want to do them or I'm out of here" then you're not someone I'd want as part of a team.
That's not quite it. But I work in teams all the time and seem to do just fine. Maybe I just found a non-shitty work environment.