People who would ignore the validity of someone's arguments because they don't like how they worded it are idiots who aren't worth having on your side, anyway.
I don't expect republicans or democrats to be champions of the constitution or individual liberties; they've shown time and time again that they're both full of evil scumbags.
I mentioned more than just free speech zones. And no, Bush did not create them; they were in use in colleges and universities before Bush, and were even used for political purposes at times. As far as I know, anyway. Doesn't change the fact that both parties are scum, or that Bush made use of free speech zones.
Nonsense. If that's the case, they should be going after actual guns (Not that I would support them, but if that's their goal, then this doesn't make sense.), not science projects. This does nothing to curb violence. It's all about controlling people with their nonsensical zero tolerance policies.
There is very little to be done to justify balance in the world. That's a thing most well adjusted individuals accept as fact.
Nice job showing that such "balance" is necessary. "Well adjusted individuals" all accept what you have to say, even when you don't provide any proof whatsoever.
No, I attacked you for coming across as mouthbreathing ranting moron, there is a difference.
There is no use lying; your posts are there for all to see. If you did not intend to attack me for saying that I am opposed to these rights violations, then you should not have done exactly that.
You're a truly worthless individual. You can't even comprehend my power.
Actually I did no such thing. I said such a balance was necessary
You did nothing to justify that, either.
i never said we had the right balance now.
On a number of occasions, you attacked me for saying that a number of rights violations were bad. Forgive me for ever thinking that you were defending them.
If you don't want people to think you're defending rights violations, state your point in such a way that it doesn't make it seem as if you're doing exactly that. You have no one to blame but yourself.
No, like most grown-ups I realize I'm part of a society and that the world doesn't revolve around me and my delusions.
You seem to act like the world revolves around you and your delusions of safety and false rights. I guess caring about freedom is the same as being selfish and deluded, but in a world where principled people are extremely rare, that's to be expected. Your use of the term "grown-ups" and your mention of popularity (as if they're relevant) only further reveal your own stupidity.
That building a functioning society requires everyone to work together.
Therefore, slavery is okay; accept it. Therefore, the TSA is okay; accept it. You could justify any infringement upon people's liberties by spewing forth this status-quo-worshiping bullshit. You've done nothing to justify the specific rights violations you're defending, and indeed, there's nothing you can do to justify them.
You have no brain, and mindlessly worship the status quo and try to justify it by saying that everyone needs to work together. In a world where keeping your freedoms (Not a high priority for you, obviously, but freedom is what's most important.) depends on your ability to question absolutely everything the government does, your mentality is the most dangerous of all.
This is a prime example of how bugs get through anyhow, major bugs.
It happens with proprietary software, too. The difference is, people who aren't part of the organization making the code don't have much of a chance of checking out the source code. Wow, that's so much better!
Yes because acknowledging a need for a balance between competing rights is just like being in North Korea.
There are no rights that deserve to compete with freedom of speech. Copyright is trivial and shouldn't exist. Hate speech laws are disgusting. Etc.
You're just that far gone.
It is you who's too far gone; you despise freedom.
I should have realized that analogies were beyond you. Define imaginary rights?
Rights that I believe should not exist. I do not consider copyright as something that should exist.
I would suggest you probably go separate yourself up a mountain somewhere, away from people.
I would suggest that you stop trying to ruin this country with anti-free market, anti-free speech nonsense like copyright.
but you should probably wear some kind of mask or something when you go outside of your mother's basement.
I'm not going to tell you to get out of your mother's basement, but I will tell you to move to somewhere else and start your own authoritarian piece of shit country.
Not at all, but it seems like you'd like to create some kind of hippy utopia, good luck with that.
No, I just don't want the government to violate people's basic rights; that's all. You, however, would be better served by living in North Korea.
Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
Cool, but no one is swinging their fists. You're talking about imaginary rights that simply shouldn't exist, unlike free speech, which is a fundamental right.
Hint: shouldn't they be allowed some measure of control over the things they create?
Copyright is a government-enforced monopoly over ideas that creates artificial scarcity and infringes upon free speech and private property rights; it's unacceptable. So, no, because it's immoral. People should be able to copy data as they please. I do not think copyright assholes should have control over what others do with the data on their own equipment.
the government doesn't interfere. The copyright holder uses the legal system to address your infringing on his rights.
The legal system *is* government interference, you fool. Copyright itself is an abomination, as I just made clear.
You say I'm a lunatic, but I say you're a lunatic for not giving a shit about freedom and then trying to rationalize this by saying that we limit these basic rights so other people don't have their imaginary rights infringed upon. Between copyright and free speech, I'd have to go with free speech. Anyone who cares about freedom agrees 100%.
It has nothing to do with being offended. Free speech is restricted all the time
Our rights are violated all the time. The TSA, the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, draconian copyright laws, the drug war, etc., all show that. What's your point, other than to state the obvious fact that the government is full of evil thugs who do not care about freedom? It seems that's the way you want it.
Hate speech, inciting riots, etc.
You might be okay with that, but I'm not.
You're free to say whatever you want. No one will stop you, but you also have to face the consequences of saying those things.
You don't know what it means to be free. Using your logic, people from China or North Korea have just as much free speech as people in the US; sure, if they say the wrong thing, the government might severely punish them, but they're still technically free to speak.
Hint: If free speech didn't mean being free from government thugs punishing you for your speech, the first amendment would be pointless, and the world would be far more unpleasant than it is now. You people are the ones who don't understand what it means to be free.
Now, if by "consequences," you mean normal people forming opinions of you and perhaps criticizing you, then you're right; your speech can have such consequences. However, if you meant government interference, then you're wrong. Free speech is completely different from the mere ability to speak.
There is no "balance"; you have no moral right to infringe upon other people's free speech because you're offended, feel your reputation has been damaged, or whatever other lazy excuse you use to justify discarding people's fundamental liberties like they're trash. I don't care if you feel it's "lazy" or whatever other subjective nonsense you want to call it; all that matters is free speech.
Likewise people simply think "If I draw something funny, or make a stupid version of the name, it's fine I can do whatever I want". That's not true.
That's because the government is filled with evil scumbags who don't care about fundamental liberties such as free speech or the constitution they swore to defend. They, along with those who defend blatantly evil behavior, make me want to vomit.
Just as the strongest argument against communism is to simply point at every attempt to implement it, likewise the strongest argument against Eugenics is to look at all the times we (US, Germany, etc) attempted it.
Yeah, a few times. The strongest argument against it seems to be that it could be abused (like everything in the god damn world). I see no reason this means it should be banned, but I do see it as a reason that it shouldn't be in the hands of government.
Tell me how it works out for you when you try to get on a plane by going through an airport that the TSA manages without having your fourth amendment rights violated. It won't, but that doesn't mean the government isn't wrong. Might doesn't make right.
What part of the constitution is the right attacking?
Both parties are attacking the constitution. Look at all the scumbags who voted for the Patriot Act (especially the first time around): Many from both parties, and most people the first time around. Who's trying to get rid of the TSA? A select few from both parties. Bush used free speech zones, too. Furthermore, we have DUI checkpoints, the TSA, constitution-free zones, unrestricted border searches, the NSA surveillance, etc., and none of those things were started solely by one party; it's a bipartisan effort to infringe upon our rights, and both parties are filled with evil scumbags.
That's the sad reality of things; the government will revoke your freedoms whenever they wish, and make up some bullshit rationalization ("You still technically have free speech, but only when you're in free speech zones!") to try and fool idiots into accepting it. Try getting onto most planes in the US and you'll have your rights violated by our good friends at the TSA, and the justification for that is something very similar.
I don't care what his intent was; that's utterly irrelevant. He revealed the government's wrongdoings, and that's all I care about. He certainly didn't betray anyone who gives a fuck about morals, individual liberties, and/or the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
But the other guy's bullshit doesn't need any citations.
People who would ignore the validity of someone's arguments because they don't like how they worded it are idiots who aren't worth having on your side, anyway.
More importantly, it infringes upon people's individual liberties. "Land of the free and the home of the brave" my ass.
I don't expect republicans or democrats to be champions of the constitution or individual liberties; they've shown time and time again that they're both full of evil scumbags.
We need English majors to satisfy useless pedants? They're even more useless than I thought.
It meant he could think, in the concrete and the abstract.
The degree itself doesn't guarantee anything about his level of intelligence.
I mentioned more than just free speech zones. And no, Bush did not create them; they were in use in colleges and universities before Bush, and were even used for political purposes at times. As far as I know, anyway. Doesn't change the fact that both parties are scum, or that Bush made use of free speech zones.
Certainly, there are probably some who feel this way, but I don't think even most pro-gun control people accept this idiocy.
Nonsense. If that's the case, they should be going after actual guns (Not that I would support them, but if that's their goal, then this doesn't make sense.), not science projects. This does nothing to curb violence. It's all about controlling people with their nonsensical zero tolerance policies.
Then they are not competent at doing their jobs.
Because lawmaking isn't a skill magically bequeathed upon people merely because they won an election.
The current system makes that painfully obvious; none of these losers are anything but incompetent.
There is very little to be done to justify balance in the world. That's a thing most well adjusted individuals accept as fact.
Nice job showing that such "balance" is necessary. "Well adjusted individuals" all accept what you have to say, even when you don't provide any proof whatsoever.
No, I attacked you for coming across as mouthbreathing ranting moron, there is a difference.
There is no use lying; your posts are there for all to see. If you did not intend to attack me for saying that I am opposed to these rights violations, then you should not have done exactly that.
You're a truly worthless individual. You can't even comprehend my power.
Actually I did no such thing. I said such a balance was necessary
You did nothing to justify that, either.
i never said we had the right balance now.
On a number of occasions, you attacked me for saying that a number of rights violations were bad. Forgive me for ever thinking that you were defending them.
If you don't want people to think you're defending rights violations, state your point in such a way that it doesn't make it seem as if you're doing exactly that. You have no one to blame but yourself.
No, like most grown-ups I realize I'm part of a society and that the world doesn't revolve around me and my delusions.
You seem to act like the world revolves around you and your delusions of safety and false rights. I guess caring about freedom is the same as being selfish and deluded, but in a world where principled people are extremely rare, that's to be expected. Your use of the term "grown-ups" and your mention of popularity (as if they're relevant) only further reveal your own stupidity.
That building a functioning society requires everyone to work together.
Therefore, slavery is okay; accept it. Therefore, the TSA is okay; accept it. You could justify any infringement upon people's liberties by spewing forth this status-quo-worshiping bullshit. You've done nothing to justify the specific rights violations you're defending, and indeed, there's nothing you can do to justify them.
You have no brain, and mindlessly worship the status quo and try to justify it by saying that everyone needs to work together. In a world where keeping your freedoms (Not a high priority for you, obviously, but freedom is what's most important.) depends on your ability to question absolutely everything the government does, your mentality is the most dangerous of all.
This is a prime example of how bugs get through anyhow, major bugs.
It happens with proprietary software, too. The difference is, people who aren't part of the organization making the code don't have much of a chance of checking out the source code. Wow, that's so much better!
Yes because acknowledging a need for a balance between competing rights is just like being in North Korea.
There are no rights that deserve to compete with freedom of speech. Copyright is trivial and shouldn't exist. Hate speech laws are disgusting. Etc.
You're just that far gone.
It is you who's too far gone; you despise freedom.
I should have realized that analogies were beyond you. Define imaginary rights?
Rights that I believe should not exist. I do not consider copyright as something that should exist.
I would suggest you probably go separate yourself up a mountain somewhere, away from people.
I would suggest that you stop trying to ruin this country with anti-free market, anti-free speech nonsense like copyright.
but you should probably wear some kind of mask or something when you go outside of your mother's basement.
I'm not going to tell you to get out of your mother's basement, but I will tell you to move to somewhere else and start your own authoritarian piece of shit country.
Not at all, but it seems like you'd like to create some kind of hippy utopia, good luck with that.
No, I just don't want the government to violate people's basic rights; that's all. You, however, would be better served by living in North Korea.
Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
Cool, but no one is swinging their fists. You're talking about imaginary rights that simply shouldn't exist, unlike free speech, which is a fundamental right.
Hint: shouldn't they be allowed some measure of control over the things they create?
Copyright is a government-enforced monopoly over ideas that creates artificial scarcity and infringes upon free speech and private property rights; it's unacceptable. So, no, because it's immoral. People should be able to copy data as they please. I do not think copyright assholes should have control over what others do with the data on their own equipment.
the government doesn't interfere. The copyright holder uses the legal system to address your infringing on his rights.
The legal system *is* government interference, you fool. Copyright itself is an abomination, as I just made clear.
You say I'm a lunatic, but I say you're a lunatic for not giving a shit about freedom and then trying to rationalize this by saying that we limit these basic rights so other people don't have their imaginary rights infringed upon. Between copyright and free speech, I'd have to go with free speech. Anyone who cares about freedom agrees 100%.
It has nothing to do with being offended. Free speech is restricted all the time
Our rights are violated all the time. The TSA, the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, draconian copyright laws, the drug war, etc., all show that. What's your point, other than to state the obvious fact that the government is full of evil thugs who do not care about freedom? It seems that's the way you want it.
Hate speech, inciting riots, etc.
You might be okay with that, but I'm not.
You're free to say whatever you want. No one will stop you, but you also have to face the consequences of saying those things.
You don't know what it means to be free. Using your logic, people from China or North Korea have just as much free speech as people in the US; sure, if they say the wrong thing, the government might severely punish them, but they're still technically free to speak.
Hint: If free speech didn't mean being free from government thugs punishing you for your speech, the first amendment would be pointless, and the world would be far more unpleasant than it is now. You people are the ones who don't understand what it means to be free.
Now, if by "consequences," you mean normal people forming opinions of you and perhaps criticizing you, then you're right; your speech can have such consequences. However, if you meant government interference, then you're wrong. Free speech is completely different from the mere ability to speak.
There is no "balance"; you have no moral right to infringe upon other people's free speech because you're offended, feel your reputation has been damaged, or whatever other lazy excuse you use to justify discarding people's fundamental liberties like they're trash. I don't care if you feel it's "lazy" or whatever other subjective nonsense you want to call it; all that matters is free speech.
Likewise people simply think "If I draw something funny, or make a stupid version of the name, it's fine I can do whatever I want". That's not true.
That's because the government is filled with evil scumbags who don't care about fundamental liberties such as free speech or the constitution they swore to defend. They, along with those who defend blatantly evil behavior, make me want to vomit.
Just as the strongest argument against communism is to simply point at every attempt to implement it, likewise the strongest argument against Eugenics is to look at all the times we (US, Germany, etc) attempted it.
Yeah, a few times. The strongest argument against it seems to be that it could be abused (like everything in the god damn world). I see no reason this means it should be banned, but I do see it as a reason that it shouldn't be in the hands of government.
Tell me how it works out for you when you try to get on a plane by going through an airport that the TSA manages without having your fourth amendment rights violated. It won't, but that doesn't mean the government isn't wrong. Might doesn't make right.
What part of the constitution is the right attacking?
Both parties are attacking the constitution. Look at all the scumbags who voted for the Patriot Act (especially the first time around): Many from both parties, and most people the first time around. Who's trying to get rid of the TSA? A select few from both parties. Bush used free speech zones, too. Furthermore, we have DUI checkpoints, the TSA, constitution-free zones, unrestricted border searches, the NSA surveillance, etc., and none of those things were started solely by one party; it's a bipartisan effort to infringe upon our rights, and both parties are filled with evil scumbags.
That's the sad reality of things; the government will revoke your freedoms whenever they wish, and make up some bullshit rationalization ("You still technically have free speech, but only when you're in free speech zones!") to try and fool idiots into accepting it. Try getting onto most planes in the US and you'll have your rights violated by our good friends at the TSA, and the justification for that is something very similar.
I don't care what his intent was; that's utterly irrelevant. He revealed the government's wrongdoings, and that's all I care about. He certainly didn't betray anyone who gives a fuck about morals, individual liberties, and/or the constitution.