But what you can't argue is that evidence exists that there is no such thing as a god.
Nor does there need to be. The fact that I can't absolutely disprove it does not mean that I won't think that the notion of god, the flying spaghetti monster, santa, or some other such thing, are purely nonsense. I argue that there is zero reason to believe such a thing exists, and that it is irrational to do so.
But I have found that by far the majority of people today are more intellectually dull than they were 40, 30, even 20 years ago (I am not old enough to go back more than that).
This was always true. You have the 'Kids these days...' syndrome.
Which is broken by design, since they don't need to file suit to get the content removed to begin with, which, at the very least, they should. Instead, they get to fire off takedown notices, which websites have to comply with if they want safe harbor, with impunity, or at least until someone challenges them in court, but even then, it's unlikely they'll actually get in real trouble due to the way the DMCA was written.
Also, if you file suit against them, it would be the government that would decide the result and enforce it; that's what courts are.
Then maybe you should move elsewhere and start a tyrannical government. All of you authoritarians can go start a country where mob rule reigns supreme and you can decide that certain offensive things are illegal. Leave the rest of us who care about things such as freedom of speech alone. I'd rather not have people's subjective emotional harm being used as an excuse for censorship, which is always intolerable.
What you're describing here are pedantic objections, though, of which there will always be some to any question that isn't qualified to absurdity.
This is exactly the problem with crappy one-size-fits-all tests; they expect a certain answer, even when there are multiple ways to interpret the question. It is simply absurd.
Ask any high school or college age person why they believe in antibiotics and they won't be able to answer. Ask any high school or college age person why they believe in general relativity and they won't be able to answer. Ask any high school or college age person why they believe in the semiconductor physics that power their computers and they won't be able to answer. Ask any high school or college age person why they believe in evolution and they won't be able to answer.
"Any"? All it would take is a single example to prove your statements false.
If you have to redefine terms and ignore context to say that these things exist, you're probably doing it wrong. Just say "Ghosts are imaginary."; that's what you said. Saying "Ghosts clearly exist" will just confuse people because you're ignoring how other people will interpret those words, which is always a recipe for disaster.
The reason for the Courts looking at historical evidence is that the constitution isn't drafted in sufficiently precise terms to enforce it on its own.
I've felt this for a while, but we really do need to significantly alter the constitution so that it protects all of our fundamental rights (and explicitly forbids things such as what the NSA is doing by forbidding the government from getting data from companies without a warrant) and clarifies things. They made a mistake by relying on common law.
Look at the text of the First Amendment for an example - read literally it would seem to mean that Congress could not prohibit human sacrifice, if that were necessary for the free exercise of a religion
That is only true if you only take the first amendment into account. Citizens have other fundamental rights (such as life) that that would infringe upon.
and could not prohibit false advertising, which would be free speech; but that seems an unlikely intention and an undesirable result.
How about this: Courts don't get to rewrite the constitution. As soon as the first amendment was adopted (and later the 14th, which applies similar restrictions to states), any previous restrictions of free speech became unconstitutional, no matter what judges said.
Common law isn't written by Congress so taken litterally, the first amendment doesn't forbid common law from restricting speach.
Courts only interpret laws (and the constitution is the highest law of the land). They *cannot* take anything away; they have no authority to do so.
If the first amendment was not intended to legalize such behavior, then they should not have written it in the way that they did. Simply put, if you want it another way, stop appealing to authority figures and fix the damn thing.
Our legal tradition didn't start with the Constitution and you understanding of it can't start there either.
That is irrelevant. The government is supposed to follow the constitution. Following random crap that doesn't have anything to do with it is a sign of a broken system and makes the constitution useless. But then again, with the TSA, the NSA surveillance, constitution-free zones, free speech zones, unfettered border searches, etc., we already know our system is broken.
You don't. Your interpretation is unequivocally wrong.
Your interpretation is unequivocally wrong, because you read text in the constitution that does not exist.
FUCK YEAH! You gotta fight... for your right... to be a BIIIIIIGOTTTTT!
Exactly. People should be free to express their opinions, bigots or no. You have to fight for your rights. I know I don't want random people deciding that certain opinions or words are outright banned.
So you fully support what Senator Joe McCarthy did?
Fully supporting it is different from saying that people have the freedom to do something. In any case, I support absolute freedom of speech, so I do think they should be able to do everything you asked.
But shouting down a person who has been detained for questioning is interfering with a police investigation andis a stupid thing to support. You really believe that it would be alright to interrupt a judge in a courtroom during proceedings?
Yes. The idea of making it an offense to interrupt an authority figure is absolutely disgusting. Freedom is what's important.
Are you 12? Or just mentally ill?
Right back at you. Attacking me that way will not make me wrong.
Slander someone? Libel them? Threaten immediate bodily harm? Extort? Divulge information during a trial despite court order? Reveal medical or financial information you become privy to in an official capacity?
I think you should be free to do all of that.
Speak against the authority of a judge or other court official in proceedings? Display contempt for said judge in open court? Swear at or otherwise intimidate a person being constrained to remain on the spot by law enforcement?,Just interrupt or speak over the speech of a person being questioned by law enforcement at the time? Verbally challenge the policeman him or herself during his or her otherwise legitimate excercise of police powers? Give verbal aid or comfort to an enemy nation during time of war
And it's absolutely disgusting that all of these things are not considered egregious violations of free speech rights. Seriously, even if you want free speech to be at least partially restricted, how can you support this utter bullshit?
Oh yeah, the First Amendment supports your right to do any or all of those, and a pig buzzed me at Mach 3 yesterday.
Perhaps you should read the actual first amendment, rather than the text written in invisible ink that authoritarian judges added to it.
Show me where it is written in the first amendment where it states that individuals cannot pray in schools or pray at work or pray anywhere however they choose whether that be silent or allowed?
Nowhere.
Where is in written that people are not allowed to assemble to worship?
Nowhere.
Where are these restrictions that you would impose on others written into the first amendment.
I would not put any restrictions on anyone, and certainly not the ones you described. Those are mere straw men.
I will, however, call out anyone who tries to use the government to force their religious garbage down people's throats.
You are free to NOT express your freedom of religion but not to prevent others from expressing their right.
I don't understand where you're getting this idea that I want to stop people from praying, among other things.
which means no one, besides you, would vote for them
Demonstrably false. There are thousands who vote for third parties. That's not many in the grand scheme of things, but it's certainly more than just myself.
the country will not elect an entire Congress + Presidency AND all state/local governments of first-timers
Literally anything would be better than what we have now. You seem to revel in the fact that we have corrupt career politician scumbags who have been politicians for decades ruling everything.
But it wouldn't happen that quickly to begin with, because of how our system works.
a predictable scumbag is better than a completely unpredicatble and unknown scumbag
Really? So voting in people who have shown themselves to be evil scumbags is better than voting in people who haven't shown themselves to be evil scumbags? Nothing should ever change?
remember these are your words I don't think this way
I don't recall saying "a predictable scumbag is better than a completely unpredicatble and unknown scumbag."
but using your words and your logic YOU STILL FAIL
Obviously, then, you don't understand my words or logic.
youre wrong all the way...a sizable minority are not "scumbags" at all
If by "sizable minority" you mean about one or two. But then again, your definition of "scumbag" probably differs significantly from mine. I have extremely high standards, and care about freedom above all else.
You seem to show hostility to change. Why? Why do you like a system that basically only allows corrupt thugs to have any sort of real power?
I already answered your nonsensical question a few posts ago, and you seem to be misunderstanding my actual position.
"I'm saying that we know The One Party to be full of worthless scumbags, so we should at least give other people a chance, rather than voting in known scumbags."
you typed words but they arent an answer...you say it yourself...
Just because you say I didn't counter your points doesn't mean that I didn't. I provided answers of my own. My answer is that, while it may be difficult (not impossible) to get a third party to actually win, voting for them sends a message to the two main parties, and furthermore, even if it's not viable, it is immoral to vote for evil. You may not like that answer, but it is my answer.
your ideas are not viable...**because** there is no "how"...
There is a how. You just can't read.
you're promoting a fantasy that ensures we will always be slaves to Oligarchs
What, you mean like when you support evil scumbags, ensuring that we'll always be screwed?
One of the huge problems in the geek community is the propensity to assume other people are stupid. Despite it's being true in many cases.
I am not assuming anything. I have observed the world we live in and came to a conclusion that is almost certainly true.
That is, if you assume everyone around you is an idiot, then you feel better about yourself.
Not necessarily. Even if you think everyone around you is unintelligent, that doesn't mean you think you're particularly intelligent. If you think your level of intelligence is underwhelming, it may not make you feel better to think that most other people are idiots, although it might.
It becomes a problem when it causes you to become blind to your own ignorance.
I am by no means blind to my own ignorance.
How many of us bemoan our lack of dates? How many of us have issues with social interaction?
I bemoan neither of those things, and am not interested in them.
The point is, think carefully before pointing your finger at someone and crying, "Stupid!"
Ignorance is not the same as lacking intelligence. You can cure ignorance.
And I do think carefully. When I see people supporting the TSA, the NSA surveillance, DUI checkpoints, and other such things that violate our freedoms, they are almost certainly unprincipled and unintelligent. There are many people like that, but those are by no means the only sign that someone is unintelligent.
Whether I am a part of the group of people who are unintelligent is irrelevant to whether or not my observation reflects reality. But I don't think I am, no. Big surprise.
Slashdot Mirror
But what you can't argue is that evidence exists that there is no such thing as a god.
Nor does there need to be. The fact that I can't absolutely disprove it does not mean that I won't think that the notion of god, the flying spaghetti monster, santa, or some other such thing, are purely nonsense. I argue that there is zero reason to believe such a thing exists, and that it is irrational to do so.
But I have found that by far the majority of people today are more intellectually dull than they were 40, 30, even 20 years ago (I am not old enough to go back more than that).
This was always true. You have the 'Kids these days...' syndrome.
Which is broken by design, since they don't need to file suit to get the content removed to begin with, which, at the very least, they should. Instead, they get to fire off takedown notices, which websites have to comply with if they want safe harbor, with impunity, or at least until someone challenges them in court, but even then, it's unlikely they'll actually get in real trouble due to the way the DMCA was written.
Also, if you file suit against them, it would be the government that would decide the result and enforce it; that's what courts are.
A video that contains copyrighted music that was made by some one else is by definition not "original content."
False dichotomy. A video can contain both original content and content that was made by others.
Then maybe you should move elsewhere and start a tyrannical government. All of you authoritarians can go start a country where mob rule reigns supreme and you can decide that certain offensive things are illegal. Leave the rest of us who care about things such as freedom of speech alone. I'd rather not have people's subjective emotional harm being used as an excuse for censorship, which is always intolerable.
Other than the fact that Google has these crappy copyright policies to begin with?
But it's because the DMCA takedowns exist that these automated systems exist.
Your school system maybe. I got physics and chemistry and biology and the scientific method from age 12 if not earlier.
Merely having the classes does not mean that those classes are good. The existence of such classes is not what's being debated.
What you're describing here are pedantic objections, though, of which there will always be some to any question that isn't qualified to absurdity.
This is exactly the problem with crappy one-size-fits-all tests; they expect a certain answer, even when there are multiple ways to interpret the question. It is simply absurd.
Ask any high school or college age person why they believe in antibiotics and they won't be able to answer.
Ask any high school or college age person why they believe in general relativity and they won't be able to answer.
Ask any high school or college age person why they believe in the semiconductor physics that power their computers and they won't be able to answer.
Ask any high school or college age person why they believe in evolution and they won't be able to answer.
"Any"? All it would take is a single example to prove your statements false.
If you have to redefine terms and ignore context to say that these things exist, you're probably doing it wrong. Just say "Ghosts are imaginary."; that's what you said. Saying "Ghosts clearly exist" will just confuse people because you're ignoring how other people will interpret those words, which is always a recipe for disaster.
The reason for the Courts looking at historical evidence is that the constitution isn't drafted in sufficiently precise terms to enforce it on its own.
I've felt this for a while, but we really do need to significantly alter the constitution so that it protects all of our fundamental rights (and explicitly forbids things such as what the NSA is doing by forbidding the government from getting data from companies without a warrant) and clarifies things. They made a mistake by relying on common law.
Look at the text of the First Amendment for an example - read literally it would seem to mean that Congress could not prohibit human sacrifice, if that were necessary for the free exercise of a religion
That is only true if you only take the first amendment into account. Citizens have other fundamental rights (such as life) that that would infringe upon.
and could not prohibit false advertising, which would be free speech; but that seems an unlikely intention and an undesirable result.
I'd have no problem with this one.
How about this: Courts don't get to rewrite the constitution. As soon as the first amendment was adopted (and later the 14th, which applies similar restrictions to states), any previous restrictions of free speech became unconstitutional, no matter what judges said.
Common law isn't written by Congress so taken litterally, the first amendment doesn't forbid common law from restricting speach.
Courts only interpret laws (and the constitution is the highest law of the land). They *cannot* take anything away; they have no authority to do so.
If the first amendment was not intended to legalize such behavior, then they should not have written it in the way that they did. Simply put, if you want it another way, stop appealing to authority figures and fix the damn thing.
Hahahahahahahahahhaha! Wow! Good one. No one has ever been as original and intelligent as you.
Our legal tradition didn't start with the Constitution and you understanding of it can't start there either.
That is irrelevant. The government is supposed to follow the constitution. Following random crap that doesn't have anything to do with it is a sign of a broken system and makes the constitution useless. But then again, with the TSA, the NSA surveillance, constitution-free zones, free speech zones, unfettered border searches, etc., we already know our system is broken.
You don't. Your interpretation is unequivocally wrong.
Your interpretation is unequivocally wrong, because you read text in the constitution that does not exist.
FUCK YEAH! You gotta fight... for your right... to be a BIIIIIIGOTTTTT!
Exactly. People should be free to express their opinions, bigots or no. You have to fight for your rights. I know I don't want random people deciding that certain opinions or words are outright banned.
That reply is so deliciously content-free.
So you fully support what Senator Joe McCarthy did?
Fully supporting it is different from saying that people have the freedom to do something. In any case, I support absolute freedom of speech, so I do think they should be able to do everything you asked.
But shouting down a person who has been detained for questioning is interfering with a police investigation andis a stupid thing to support. You really believe that it would be alright to interrupt a judge in a courtroom during proceedings?
Yes. The idea of making it an offense to interrupt an authority figure is absolutely disgusting. Freedom is what's important.
Are you 12? Or just mentally ill?
Right back at you. Attacking me that way will not make me wrong.
Slander someone? Libel them? Threaten immediate bodily harm? Extort? Divulge information during a trial despite court order? Reveal medical or financial information you become privy to in an official capacity?
I think you should be free to do all of that.
Speak against the authority of a judge or other court official in proceedings? Display contempt for said judge in open court? Swear at or otherwise intimidate a person being constrained to remain on the spot by law enforcement? ,Just interrupt or speak over the speech of a person being questioned by law enforcement at the time? Verbally challenge the policeman him or herself during his or her otherwise legitimate excercise of police powers? Give verbal aid or comfort to an enemy nation during time of war
And it's absolutely disgusting that all of these things are not considered egregious violations of free speech rights. Seriously, even if you want free speech to be at least partially restricted, how can you support this utter bullshit?
Oh yeah, the First Amendment supports your right to do any or all of those, and a pig buzzed me at Mach 3 yesterday.
Perhaps you should read the actual first amendment, rather than the text written in invisible ink that authoritarian judges added to it.
Show me where it is written in the first amendment where it states that individuals cannot pray in schools or pray at work or pray anywhere however they choose whether that be silent or allowed?
Nowhere.
Where is in written that people are not allowed to assemble to worship?
Nowhere.
Where are these restrictions that you would impose on others written into the first amendment.
I would not put any restrictions on anyone, and certainly not the ones you described. Those are mere straw men.
I will, however, call out anyone who tries to use the government to force their religious garbage down people's throats.
You are free to NOT express your freedom of religion but not to prevent others from expressing their right.
I don't understand where you're getting this idea that I want to stop people from praying, among other things.
which means no one, besides you, would vote for them
Demonstrably false. There are thousands who vote for third parties. That's not many in the grand scheme of things, but it's certainly more than just myself.
the country will not elect an entire Congress + Presidency AND all state/local governments of first-timers
Literally anything would be better than what we have now. You seem to revel in the fact that we have corrupt career politician scumbags who have been politicians for decades ruling everything.
But it wouldn't happen that quickly to begin with, because of how our system works.
a predictable scumbag is better than a completely unpredicatble and unknown scumbag
Really? So voting in people who have shown themselves to be evil scumbags is better than voting in people who haven't shown themselves to be evil scumbags? Nothing should ever change?
remember these are your words I don't think this way
I don't recall saying "a predictable scumbag is better than a completely unpredicatble and unknown scumbag."
but using your words and your logic YOU STILL FAIL
Obviously, then, you don't understand my words or logic.
youre wrong all the way...a sizable minority are not "scumbags" at all
If by "sizable minority" you mean about one or two. But then again, your definition of "scumbag" probably differs significantly from mine. I have extremely high standards, and care about freedom above all else.
You seem to show hostility to change. Why? Why do you like a system that basically only allows corrupt thugs to have any sort of real power?
I already answered your nonsensical question a few posts ago, and you seem to be misunderstanding my actual position.
"I'm saying that we know The One Party to be full of worthless scumbags, so we should at least give other people a chance, rather than voting in known scumbags."
doesnt mean you actually countered my points
you typed words but they arent an answer...you say it yourself...
Just because you say I didn't counter your points doesn't mean that I didn't. I provided answers of my own. My answer is that, while it may be difficult (not impossible) to get a third party to actually win, voting for them sends a message to the two main parties, and furthermore, even if it's not viable, it is immoral to vote for evil. You may not like that answer, but it is my answer.
your ideas are not viable...**because** there is no "how"...
There is a how. You just can't read.
you're promoting a fantasy that ensures we will always be slaves to Oligarchs
What, you mean like when you support evil scumbags, ensuring that we'll always be screwed?
One of the huge problems in the geek community is the propensity to assume other people are stupid. Despite it's being true in many cases.
I am not assuming anything. I have observed the world we live in and came to a conclusion that is almost certainly true.
That is, if you assume everyone around you is an idiot, then you feel better about yourself.
Not necessarily. Even if you think everyone around you is unintelligent, that doesn't mean you think you're particularly intelligent. If you think your level of intelligence is underwhelming, it may not make you feel better to think that most other people are idiots, although it might.
It becomes a problem when it causes you to become blind to your own ignorance.
I am by no means blind to my own ignorance.
How many of us bemoan our lack of dates? How many of us have issues with social interaction?
I bemoan neither of those things, and am not interested in them.
The point is, think carefully before pointing your finger at someone and crying, "Stupid!"
Ignorance is not the same as lacking intelligence. You can cure ignorance.
And I do think carefully. When I see people supporting the TSA, the NSA surveillance, DUI checkpoints, and other such things that violate our freedoms, they are almost certainly unprincipled and unintelligent. There are many people like that, but those are by no means the only sign that someone is unintelligent.
Whether I am a part of the group of people who are unintelligent is irrelevant to whether or not my observation reflects reality. But I don't think I am, no. Big surprise.