I would derive no benefit from it, just like I derive no benefit from your comment. However, I do not want government thugs censoring anything, as I care far more about free speech than I do about stopping the child porn bogeyman. If you want to talk about going after rapists, fine, but if you're trying to convince me that censorship is okay, don't bother.
There is pretty much *nothing* that doesn't have at least an indirect effect on other people. People often get hurt while playing sports, climbing mountains for fun, or doing plenty of other activities that are allowed, and when they do, it can have adverse effects on those around them and even cost taxpayers money. Does that mean everything that isn't strictly necessary for survival or health should be banned? No, because this attitude is anti-freedom. In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we should be willing to accept harm in the name of freedom.
We have fairly strong evidence that some creative works would suffer under a no-copyright regime.
We have zero evidence of what the world would be like without copyright. The only way to find out would be to either get rid of copyright, and peer into an alternate dimension. Look, baseless speculation based on what our system is currently like is not *scientific evidence of anything*.
So, in the most direct fair comparison I know, not having copyright fails to provide economically important things.
It's obvious that you're not very scientific and would rather defend laws without a shred of real evidence.
My point is that if you want to live in a society and make use of its support structure (currency, public services, etc.) then you ned to abide by its rules.
There is something called "civil disobedience," so at the very least, this is not always true. Me? I recommend that people not be mindless drones.
Just because you think pedophilia is OK, does not mean that you are free to prey on other's children who do not think it is OK.
First, the sort of thing I'm talking about has nothing to do with preying on anyone. Second, just because they think it's not okay doesn't mean that it's wrong for someone to do it.
For example, I encourage people to treat copyright law as if it doesn't exist. It is unjust, and to me, might as well be nonexistent.
What, exactly, is your point? To point out the obvious? To point out that, even in our republic, we're still subject to the tyranny of the majority? I'm already aware.
Rather than me leaving, I wonder why all these people live in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave" to begin with?
I found your post, but I see nothing that contradicts what I said. A video was censored, and it was a government thug that ordered it to happen, making this a free speech issue.
I suppose you think I am the type of person who would sacrifice freedom for safety? If so, I will say this: I am not. Now, go get molested by the TSA.
People withdrawing their works is a time honored tradition.
Censorship is also a "time honored tradition," but it's still completely intolerable. I hope our society someday grows out of this and realizes that free speech is a fundamental right that shouldn't be infringed upon like this.
But I gain some enjoyment when I think about how they can't possibly censor it all. This video is absolutely everywhere at this point, and the censorship crowd has lost, even if they won a small victory by getting it removed (for now) from Youtube.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong by the simple fact that most people would see you as a sicko, not me.
Appeal to popularity. Nice try, but it's a fallacy.
And as usual, you people assume (most of the time, incorrectly) that anyone who questions your stupid logic must be a pedophile. I defend people's right to mountain climb, but I'm not a mountain climber. I defend gay marriage, but I'm not gay. I may question your "for the children" nonsense, but I myself am not interested in children.
The reason there are laws governing when a person is considered an adult are precisely because children are not capable of making serious choices for themselves
Strange, because many adults don't seem to be able to do that either! If you're going to argue that people should be forbidden from making choices because they may make mistakes, then you should go all the way. Just admit that you're a freedom-hating authoritarian and be done with it.
or would you equally apply your batshit insane logic to allowing children to purchase guns and sign up for the military?
Why do we need to rid ourselves entirely of copyright before we can draw any useful conclusions?
Because, otherwise, you're relying on baseless speculation and putting restrictions on people without even so much as having a shred of evidence that what you're doing is beneficial.
As I observed before, there is nothing about copyright law that requires a copyright holder to enforce their rights
But they do, and this restricts individuals. We have a culture where copyright is overall considered important. What would happen if there is no copyright to enforce? *That* is the question.
There should be ample evidence
Again, all you have is mere speculation of what the world would be like without copyright; that is wildly unacceptable.
Given that the economic damage from removing copyright and then finding that it was actually working as intended could be much greater than the recent global financial crisis
Justice isn't easy, but that doesn't mean we should give up on it. If all you're concerned about is safety and harm reduction, then you don't belong in any free country, as that mentality is responsible for evil policies/organizations like the TSA, the NSA, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, constitution-free zones, unfettered border searches, free speech zones, etc. I'm tired of this "Safety above all else" nonsense. Freedom and justice are what's important, and that's why taking such a 'risk' is more than worth it.
A child is a child because they are incapable of making choices for themselves.
That is simply incorrect. Children make choices for themselves all the time, and they also make mistakes. Likewise, adults do the same. Adults have sex with people and then later regret, and sometimes severely. Most adults are only a little bit less shortsighted than children, and yet they're allowed to have sex.
But the bottom line is this: In each individual case, the prosecution should have to prove that rape took place. We should revise our nonsensical consent laws and such, as well. This is all mainly caused by irrational "for the children" people like you who spew forth circular arguments and then make moral judgements and pretend as if their morals should be enforced through the law.
I just have little time for someone whose only argument appears to be that no position has any merit unless an experiment he already acknowledged was impossible is conducted.
The experiment could be conducted to a satisfactory degree by ridding ourselves of copyright.
So if you want to convince anyone outside the choir you preach to, you'd better bring more than "the burden of proof is entirely on you and you haven't conducted an impossible experiment so I reject anything resembling rational evidence".
Again, even though your post is so long, you presented *zero* evidence that these things are being made due to copyright, or that the situation would be worse without it. You can't, because to do that to any significant degree, we'd have to get rid of copyright.
Which we should, because laws shouldn't exist without scientific proof that they're beneficial. You're the one trying to restrict people and defend laws that do so, and while I'd reject copyright no matter what, you'd at least be less intolerable if demanded that we have actual proof before we make laws or keep unproven laws on the books.
You can't assume that it's *because* of our system.
That is, for all you know, it could actually be harmful. Since you're defending a law, you need evidence. Speculation and ignorance are not evidence. The only way to truly find out would be to get rid of copyright, but since you don't have a scientific mindset, you'll be opposed to that.
Slashdot Mirror
FIFY
Yeah, I never even saw that coming.
based on..what?
Based on simple logic. We have enough trash and orphans as it is.
How long until people start hand picking the genes for the next super generation. The next super athlete, scientist, beauty queen...
I honestly don't care if they do.
Individual liberties be damned.
Well, you can see how well solving problems by attacking them with feelings works for you if you want.
That's exactly how most people work, basically. Intelligent? Not at all.
What is a "12 grade intelligence"? Most people are incurably unintelligent, so a "12 grade intelligence" is never going to be impressive.
I didn't ask what benefit you derived personally, but what benefit you imagine imagine society derives from such a video remaining online.
Sorry, but I don't think things should be banned merely because society doesn't benefit from them; I see that as tyranny.
The harm to the affected people is evident
The rape is what's harmful, if they were raped. I do not believe mere speech can be harmful.
Not to you, but to anyone.
Anyone? Some people find great pleasure in child porn. Not just pedophiles, either.
As far as I'm concerned, studying it wasn't to gain knowledge or mathematical skills, it was more of an exercise in mental flexibility.
In public schools, it's more of a rote memorization exercise.
Schools need to put more focus on writing and mathematics.
Hopefully they stop teaching mathematics like it's a rote memorization game.
Those are the subjects that support all others.
Most people won't ever use the more 'advanced' mathematics, but still, I guess that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to educate the unintelligent masses.
I would derive no benefit from it, just like I derive no benefit from your comment. However, I do not want government thugs censoring anything, as I care far more about free speech than I do about stopping the child porn bogeyman. If you want to talk about going after rapists, fine, but if you're trying to convince me that censorship is okay, don't bother.
That's idiotic.
There is pretty much *nothing* that doesn't have at least an indirect effect on other people. People often get hurt while playing sports, climbing mountains for fun, or doing plenty of other activities that are allowed, and when they do, it can have adverse effects on those around them and even cost taxpayers money. Does that mean everything that isn't strictly necessary for survival or health should be banned? No, because this attitude is anti-freedom. In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we should be willing to accept harm in the name of freedom.
I don't want government thugs taking down any website. I thought that was clear from my comments.
We have fairly strong evidence that some creative works would suffer under a no-copyright regime.
We have zero evidence of what the world would be like without copyright. The only way to find out would be to either get rid of copyright, and peer into an alternate dimension. Look, baseless speculation based on what our system is currently like is not *scientific evidence of anything*.
So, in the most direct fair comparison I know, not having copyright fails to provide economically important things.
It's obvious that you're not very scientific and would rather defend laws without a shred of real evidence.
Have you ever heard of the term "might makes right"?
Have you ever heard the term "bandwagon fallacy"?
You're just a "protect the children" loser with no capability of making logical arguments.
My point is that if you want to live in a society and make use of its support structure (currency, public services, etc.) then you ned to abide by its rules.
There is something called "civil disobedience," so at the very least, this is not always true. Me? I recommend that people not be mindless drones.
Just because you think pedophilia is OK, does not mean that you are free to prey on other's children who do not think it is OK.
First, the sort of thing I'm talking about has nothing to do with preying on anyone. Second, just because they think it's not okay doesn't mean that it's wrong for someone to do it.
For example, I encourage people to treat copyright law as if it doesn't exist. It is unjust, and to me, might as well be nonexistent.
What, exactly, is your point? To point out the obvious? To point out that, even in our republic, we're still subject to the tyranny of the majority? I'm already aware.
Rather than me leaving, I wonder why all these people live in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave" to begin with?
I found your post, but I see nothing that contradicts what I said. A video was censored, and it was a government thug that ordered it to happen, making this a free speech issue.
I suppose you think I am the type of person who would sacrifice freedom for safety? If so, I will say this: I am not. Now, go get molested by the TSA.
Censorship is not only pointless, but intolerable. Look, if you don't like freedom of speech, then just say so.
People withdrawing their works is a time honored tradition.
Censorship is also a "time honored tradition," but it's still completely intolerable. I hope our society someday grows out of this and realizes that free speech is a fundamental right that shouldn't be infringed upon like this.
But I gain some enjoyment when I think about how they can't possibly censor it all. This video is absolutely everywhere at this point, and the censorship crowd has lost, even if they won a small victory by getting it removed (for now) from Youtube.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong by the simple fact that most people would see you as a sicko, not me.
Appeal to popularity. Nice try, but it's a fallacy.
And as usual, you people assume (most of the time, incorrectly) that anyone who questions your stupid logic must be a pedophile. I defend people's right to mountain climb, but I'm not a mountain climber. I defend gay marriage, but I'm not gay. I may question your "for the children" nonsense, but I myself am not interested in children.
The reason there are laws governing when a person is considered an adult are precisely because children are not capable of making serious choices for themselves
Strange, because many adults don't seem to be able to do that either! If you're going to argue that people should be forbidden from making choices because they may make mistakes, then you should go all the way. Just admit that you're a freedom-hating authoritarian and be done with it.
or would you equally apply your batshit insane logic to allowing children to purchase guns and sign up for the military?
I don't really care what they do.
Why do we need to rid ourselves entirely of copyright before we can draw any useful conclusions?
Because, otherwise, you're relying on baseless speculation and putting restrictions on people without even so much as having a shred of evidence that what you're doing is beneficial.
As I observed before, there is nothing about copyright law that requires a copyright holder to enforce their rights
But they do, and this restricts individuals. We have a culture where copyright is overall considered important. What would happen if there is no copyright to enforce? *That* is the question.
There should be ample evidence
Again, all you have is mere speculation of what the world would be like without copyright; that is wildly unacceptable.
Given that the economic damage from removing copyright and then finding that it was actually working as intended could be much greater than the recent global financial crisis
Justice isn't easy, but that doesn't mean we should give up on it. If all you're concerned about is safety and harm reduction, then you don't belong in any free country, as that mentality is responsible for evil policies/organizations like the TSA, the NSA, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, constitution-free zones, unfettered border searches, free speech zones, etc. I'm tired of this "Safety above all else" nonsense. Freedom and justice are what's important, and that's why taking such a 'risk' is more than worth it.
A child is a child because they are incapable of making choices for themselves.
That is simply incorrect. Children make choices for themselves all the time, and they also make mistakes. Likewise, adults do the same. Adults have sex with people and then later regret, and sometimes severely. Most adults are only a little bit less shortsighted than children, and yet they're allowed to have sex.
But the bottom line is this: In each individual case, the prosecution should have to prove that rape took place. We should revise our nonsensical consent laws and such, as well. This is all mainly caused by irrational "for the children" people like you who spew forth circular arguments and then make moral judgements and pretend as if their morals should be enforced through the law.
Censorship is intolerable, and this decision is unjustifiable. If you care about freedom of speech, you agree with me 100%.
I just have little time for someone whose only argument appears to be that no position has any merit unless an experiment he already acknowledged was impossible is conducted.
The experiment could be conducted to a satisfactory degree by ridding ourselves of copyright.
So if you want to convince anyone outside the choir you preach to, you'd better bring more than "the burden of proof is entirely on you and you haven't conducted an impossible experiment so I reject anything resembling rational evidence".
Again, even though your post is so long, you presented *zero* evidence that these things are being made due to copyright, or that the situation would be worse without it. You can't, because to do that to any significant degree, we'd have to get rid of copyright.
Which we should, because laws shouldn't exist without scientific proof that they're beneficial. You're the one trying to restrict people and defend laws that do so, and while I'd reject copyright no matter what, you'd at least be less intolerable if demanded that we have actual proof before we make laws or keep unproven laws on the books.
You can't assume that it's *because* of our system.
That is, for all you know, it could actually be harmful. Since you're defending a law, you need evidence. Speculation and ignorance are not evidence. The only way to truly find out would be to get rid of copyright, but since you don't have a scientific mindset, you'll be opposed to that.