The problem with legislating against most kinds of mental harm is that it's so utterly subjective and can be caused by anything that it could be applied to anything. And yet it's applied so inconsistently.
spreading intimate photos can have tangible consequences for the victim, such as losing their job or their whole career.
Let me ask this of you: Who is the one doing the harm?
If someone sees the photo, and decides not to hire that person, who made that decision? The one who decided not to hire the person. If anyone 'should' be punished, then at the very least, it should be the people causing the harm.
I don't advocate for censorship, and indeed, censorship is merely a fantasy, as it'll never work. Practically, your 'side' has already lost this battle.
But as far as I know, the picture was not released online.
Speaking of logic, no one said "good engineers are a dime dozen".
I actually was aware of that, and corrected it myself. I do not think it is fair to compare just "engineers" to "good communicators." People who are good at whatever it is they do are usually more rare than people who just do whatever it is in general.
And you're an engineer? In the West? Good luck with that long term.
You know, even if I had gotten that wrong, these sentences would still be idiotic. Being an engineer isn't about perfectly interpreting every possible sentence and never making a single mistake in language; it's about intelligence and logic. Do note that you don't have to be perfect, and that no one is perfect.
The mathematics papers were much more about pattern-spotting than rote technique
That's the same thing. You learn to spot certain patterns.
What I speak of is actually understanding the reason *why* the math even works. To have an intuitive understanding of it such that you know why it can't be any other way.
That's not to say that you don't have that understanding. And I haven't seen the specific exams in question, but I have seen exams described exactly as you described yours, and they involved rote memorization.
Every profession is one part memorisation
No one said that memorization is never necessary. Without the ability to retain some amount of information, we'd be useless.
With that said, 99% of the time, things don't need to be memorized, but it does depend on the field.
and one part social skill.
Depends on the profession. In some professions, you can get away with having terrible communication skills quite easily.
I agree that way too much emphasis today is put on memorisation, but it is still essential to make you useful in academia or commerce.
What's also useful is intelligence and understanding. And sadly, those are in short supply.
But yeah, way too much emphasis on memorization. Far, far, far too much.
The ability to control oneself and behave in a manner that does not offend other employees is important to building and maintaining a productive workplace rather than, say, a hostile work environment.
If you feel like you're on a razor thin wire because the people around you are oversensitive, controlling assholes and feel the need to control how other people use language, then that *is* a hostile work environment.
Just because someone has an irrational hatred of certain words and has bought into the religious and illogical notion that some words are inherently 'bad' doesn't mean they should be able to stop everyone else from saying those words.
Conforming to some minimum standard of politeness shows that one can work as part of a team and is not some aggressive "loose canon" that will disrupt the workplace and become a liability.
If "politeness" is controlling how other people use language in order to create a facade where everyone acts and speaks exactly as you want them to, then I don't want to be polite. I don't care about being polite, and apparently neither does my employer.
Those types of artificial environments are hostile to any intelligent person's well-being.
There is really no way that any real company would hire a guy who mouths off like this.
Maybe not all employers are authoritarian imbeciles? Mine isn't, at least. I have no clue if he's actually a CIO.
So yeah, as I said, those are not the types of employers you want to work for. Find someone who isn't a complete moron.
If you think being an engineer is about mindlessly obeying illogical social conventions, then I doubt you even understand what an engineer does. Obeying illogical social conventions is not important to being an engineer at all. And let me tell you, being an engineer is about logic.
What this is is someone trying to control the very use of language by arbitrarily deciding that certain words are inherently 'bad.' This is religious fundamentalist-level garbage.
And engineers are a dime a dozen, while good communicators are rare.
You have that backwards. Good engineers are extremely scarce, while people capable of communicating well enough with others aren't hard to find at all.
And no, someone isn't a 'bad' communicator just because they use words that you have some irrational hatred of. In fact, you used the word "communicating," which I hate. Therefore, you're bad at communicating with others.
Yes, I read the part where you said that you don't allow people to take pictures of you. I asked how you do that. Which part of that isn't clear?
"when I can help it."
It's very simple. I avoid places where my picture is likely to be taken. I ask people not to take my picture, and they will often respect my wishes. I ask people to let me get out of the way of their camera before they take a picture. I cover my face. Etc.
Why are you complicating it?
I'm not. You know my position; stop playing dumb.
As I don't understand why you think you have any right to privacy.
Privacy is not merely a right, but a concept. If I'm sitting in my home and no one is around, I effectively have privacy in my home. It's about effective privacy.
And I don't understand why you're so obsessed with the word "hypocrite." You sound like Fox News, or MSNBC, or CNN. They're obsessed with that word, and it's idiotic because being a hypocrite doesn't actually debunk anyone's arguments.
but you are a hypocrite if you expect any individual or government to respect your desire to keep any and all information about you out of public hands.
The government has limits to its powers and is paid for by tax dollars. Very different situation. If this was about the government collecting information en masse, I would find it acceptable for the information to be deleted. You might call me a "hypocrite," but in reality, that's a completely different situation from a private individual taking a photo. I know you were waiting for a "gotcha" like that, but no one can possibly predict 100% of the scenarios that someone might bring up when they're choosing their words, so your 'victory' is hollow.
His reply tried to point out your hypocrisy. Which you still won't address.
Where is the hypocrisy? I don't see it. Never once did I say everyone should take naked pictures of themselves.
I brought up two things: 1) The government shouldn't be involved. 2) Naked pictures shouldn't be treated as special.
Which one of these things have I myself violated?
I see the misunderstanding. You seem to think that the word "hypocrisy" is a synonym for "contradicting oneself". It's not.
Tell me what you think "hypocrisy" means.
You also don't seem to understand the difference between "hypothetical situation" and "straw man."
When he brings up a hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with my reply, and then acts as if I've been debunked before giving me a chance to reply, that is a straw man.
It's just sad that we rely on pieces of paper to 'prove' our worth, even when most of the people with pieces of paper don't know what they're doing (Most of the people without don't either.). It's also sad that you need to waste your time in rote memorization facilities in order to get scholarships. It's just a huge waste of time and effort.
You know what you are? Bitter.
I would be bitter too if I got rejected just because I didn't have a certain piece of paper. That's illogical garbage.
But being "bitter" doesn't debunk his little rant. But yeah, I don't see why he would decline to hire someone just because they're rich; it seems like the same sort of petty nonsense that leads to employers not hiring people because they're lacking pieces of paper.
You appear to be not only brilliant, but extremely eloquent as well. I can't imagine why all those employers declined to hire you.
If an employer is petty enough to not hire someone because they use 'swear words' instead of something that amounts to the same thing, they're illogical and not someone you want to work for.
How do you not allow people to take pictures of you?
Did you even read what you replied to?
So if I did have lots of pictures of "compromising" pictures of you, some of which were taken on private property without your knowledge or consent, you wouldn't ask the government to step in?
No. Other people have had pictures of me that I didn't want them to have, but I never asked the government to step in. Granted, I wasn't naked, and the pictures were taken without asking me, and were posted online, but I still did not want them to exist.
Do you seriously not see any difference between clothed photos, provocative photos, nude photos, sex photos, etc.? In all situations, at all times, all circumstances? I don't see how this reconciles with your concept of privacy.
The difference is that in some pictures, the person isn't wearing clothes. What I do not understand is why a court treats naked pictures as special, and forces their removal. In fact, had I my way, no pictures would be removed. But in this case, she should be able to have all the pictures removed, not just the naked ones.
That kind of reply is meant to put yourself in a similar situation so that you can understand the logic (or hypocrisy).
His reply had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I never once demanded that everyone take pictures of themselves and post them online.
Just saying "I don't allow any photos" is a copout and a cover for your hypocrisy.
The only way I could ever be a hypocrite is if I directly contradicted myself; I never have. I've never used the government to get rid of photos before, and unless you can prove that I would, you people are spewing forth nonsensical straw men and pulling information out of your asses. Don't tell me what I think, or I'll have to start doing the same to you.
Put your money where your mouth is and post a naked picture of yourself and a link.
That makes absolutely zero sense. I wouldn't even put up clothed pictures of myself, and indeed, I don't allow people to take pictures of me at all when I can help it. But it's for privacy reasons, and I do not use the government to force others to remove pictures stored on their own property.
Furthermore, my argument was not that everyone should post naked pictures of themselves; that's your own straw man. Rather, I do not understand why the court specifically ruled that naked pictures are special, when someone could object to clothed pictures as well. It's puritan nonsense, and so is your illogical reply.
I can't fathom how anyone thinks "Well, you should do it too! What, you don't want to? Then you're wrong!" replies debunk anything.
There is no "conflict of rights." Furthermore, removing a conflict that wasn't even violent to begin with by force, and was related to someone storing certain pictures on their own property, is absurd.
Or are you of the opinion that every "conflict" needs to be solved through the use of government force, and we should get the government involved in everything that could be perceived as a "rights" issue (That is, everything!)?
There isn't any thing that can considered respectful about holding onto those images when asked for them.
It works both ways. There isn't any thing that can be considered respectful about expecting another person to get rid of images that they value stored on their own private property.
What's even less respectful is getting government thugs involved in the whole thing, and forcing the deletion of the images.
Studies (just the other day there were reports about a recent one, I believe even here on/.) have shown that people with high intelligence
Stop right there. We don't even have a way to measure someone's level of intelligence, so that's bullshit. IQ, if you were going to bring it up, is nothing but bad science. IQ was designed to test how well someone would fit into the formal education environment, which likely has little to do with intelligence.
I would have thought people with "high intelligence" would be able to see these studies as the bullshit that they are. I'm not even saying anything about weed or drugs here.
This isn't the Intelligence community vs the people. This is the Legislative vs the Executive. The intelligence community just does what the Executive branch of government tells it to do. Ultimately, this whole surveillance program was a construct by the Executive branch (started under Bush, continued and expanded under Obama), who got enough of the Legislature on board with it to pass the laws they needed to keep this quasi-legal.
"Just following orders" is not a valid excuse. If they were truly concerned, they'd go the way of Snowden, or refuse to work there. But they're morally bankrupt.
Really, it's the fault of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, as well as the fault of the people in the intelligence community who mindlessly obey orders, and also the fault of voters who continue to vote for republicans and democrats, which have shown themselves to be evil scumbags.
How do I sound like a fascist when I'm criticizing those who demonstrably (much like Bush and his authoritarian asshole buddies) violate the constitution and people's fundamental liberties? How is that anything but an enemy of freedom, especially when they show no signs of stopping unless forced to?
Please explain how there are any similarities between the two situations.
Google just cannot compare to Bing. I'm a rabid, frothing Binger for one reason: There is nothing that Bing cannot find! Bing found a cure for my uncle's cancer. Bing found the answer to all well-known unsolved math problems. Wherever you go, people prefer Bing over Google.
Oh noes, a murder is murdering people, which is what murderers do!!! How terrible that a murderer murdered someone!!!
You know, just because it's 'expected', that doesn't make it okay. Spying on innocent people is wrong regardless of what the NSA's job is or what country those people live in. The NSA should be focusing on actual enemies, and not sapping up data en masse merely because some people could be enemies. And no, "Other countries do it too!" is no excuse, and has never been an excuse.
Anyone who says otherwise is an authoritarian piece of trash.
It's not different at all. No government in the world can be trusted with all this data, and no one who even has a modicum of knowledge about how hundreds of millions of people throughout history (Including some in the US!) were abused and/or killed by corrupt governments would say that it's even close to in anyone's best interests to allow human beings with power access to such data. In order to suggest otherwise, you must not only trust this government to do the 'right' thing, but all future governments as well. Needless to say, that's ridiculously idiotic.
But violating people's fundamental liberties and privacy in this way is evil in and of itself, and also isn't in anyone's best interests, regardless of corruption.
If those dictators weren't dictators, and they were trying to protect the very document that allows their constitutional Republic government to exist in the first place, as well as trying to protect people's fundamental liberties, then you might have a point. But you don't; at all.
ToS shit means nothing; it's not necessarily legally binding at all.
And bullshit. If our legal system is setup such that someone can successfully sue you for making software that people voluntarily download so they can cheat in a video game by taking advantage of data that the server voluntarily sends them, then our legal system needs to be reworked from the bottom up. I don't care if they sell it; it makes no difference to me. He can try to profit off of his work all he likes.
Your version of morality is simply your point-of-view, I want to live in a society where people dont get to be pricks to eachother just because they have the freedom to do so
That makes no sense. Either they have the freedom to do so, or they don't. Being a "prick" is such a subjective and nonsensical label, and yet you want to make it illegal, apparently.
and the unfortunate reality is that humanity has not yet evolved to the point at which we don't need laws in place to stop that.
I think humanity will be fine without laws that punish people for producing software that people voluntarily run on their own computers that let them cheat in video games, all thanks to a server controlled by someone else sending them data that enables them to cheat to begin with. In fact, I think such a society would be better, since it would have basic respect for free speech and private property rights.
Your definition of a "prick" does not interest me; freedom interests me. If Blizzard does not like this, then they can ban cheaters from their own servers, which would be an example of someone exercising their basic private property rights.
The fact that you think it's a good idea to make it illegal to cheat in video games while not seeing how this would impact basic freedoms is nothing short of comical. You and that other authoritarian anonymous asshole might want to consider moving to North Korea; they'd be happy to have you. Not the people, but the government, which is always in need of more authoritarians who don't care about the principles of private property rights or freedom in general.
No. I dont live in your shit country so Im not subjected to most of that nonsense that you do nothing about.
Your country has plenty of problems regarding rights violations; I guarantee it.
By the same idiotic notion you want government thugs to punish somebody for exercising their right to fire a weapon because you support punishing people for the shooting murder of other people.
That makes no sense. Probably because you don't understand what this case is about. You didn't actually debunk anything I said.
Right, freedom to be an asshole.
Being an "asshole" (which is a subjective notion) has never been illegal. If you think that being such a vague, subjective thing should be illegal, then again, you are encouraging tyranny.
And what has that actually solved?
Because most of the country is opposed to freedom, not much. If your suggestion is that I should do nothing because my opposition has not yet yielded the desired results, then you're a damned fool.
You call me the whiner, but you seem to be whining much more, and even mocking people who try to fix the problems. If your only accomplishment is mocking those who try to fix problems merely because the massive problems haven't been fixed in an extremely short period of time, you may just be an idiot.
It includes those who try to subvert the principles this country is supposed to stand for, those who violate the highest law of the land, and those who claim to want us to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and yet support policies and take actions that take us in the exact opposite direction.
They're not merely enemies of the people; they're enemies of the very concept of freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides mental harm
The problem with legislating against most kinds of mental harm is that it's so utterly subjective and can be caused by anything that it could be applied to anything. And yet it's applied so inconsistently.
spreading intimate photos can have tangible consequences for the victim, such as losing their job or their whole career.
Let me ask this of you: Who is the one doing the harm?
If someone sees the photo, and decides not to hire that person, who made that decision? The one who decided not to hire the person. If anyone 'should' be punished, then at the very least, it should be the people causing the harm.
I don't advocate for censorship, and indeed, censorship is merely a fantasy, as it'll never work. Practically, your 'side' has already lost this battle.
But as far as I know, the picture was not released online.
Speaking of logic, no one said "good engineers are a dime dozen".
I actually was aware of that, and corrected it myself. I do not think it is fair to compare just "engineers" to "good communicators." People who are good at whatever it is they do are usually more rare than people who just do whatever it is in general.
And you're an engineer? In the West? Good luck with that long term.
You know, even if I had gotten that wrong, these sentences would still be idiotic. Being an engineer isn't about perfectly interpreting every possible sentence and never making a single mistake in language; it's about intelligence and logic. Do note that you don't have to be perfect, and that no one is perfect.
The mathematics papers were much more about pattern-spotting than rote technique
That's the same thing. You learn to spot certain patterns.
What I speak of is actually understanding the reason *why* the math even works. To have an intuitive understanding of it such that you know why it can't be any other way.
That's not to say that you don't have that understanding. And I haven't seen the specific exams in question, but I have seen exams described exactly as you described yours, and they involved rote memorization.
Every profession is one part memorisation
No one said that memorization is never necessary. Without the ability to retain some amount of information, we'd be useless.
With that said, 99% of the time, things don't need to be memorized, but it does depend on the field.
and one part social skill.
Depends on the profession. In some professions, you can get away with having terrible communication skills quite easily.
I agree that way too much emphasis today is put on memorisation, but it is still essential to make you useful in academia or commerce.
What's also useful is intelligence and understanding. And sadly, those are in short supply.
But yeah, way too much emphasis on memorization. Far, far, far too much.
The ability to control oneself and behave in a manner that does not offend other employees is important to building and maintaining a productive workplace rather than, say, a hostile work environment.
If you feel like you're on a razor thin wire because the people around you are oversensitive, controlling assholes and feel the need to control how other people use language, then that *is* a hostile work environment.
Just because someone has an irrational hatred of certain words and has bought into the religious and illogical notion that some words are inherently 'bad' doesn't mean they should be able to stop everyone else from saying those words.
Conforming to some minimum standard of politeness shows that one can work as part of a team and is not some aggressive "loose canon" that will disrupt the workplace and become a liability.
If "politeness" is controlling how other people use language in order to create a facade where everyone acts and speaks exactly as you want them to, then I don't want to be polite. I don't care about being polite, and apparently neither does my employer.
Those types of artificial environments are hostile to any intelligent person's well-being.
There is really no way that any real company would hire a guy who mouths off like this.
Maybe not all employers are authoritarian imbeciles? Mine isn't, at least. I have no clue if he's actually a CIO.
So yeah, as I said, those are not the types of employers you want to work for. Find someone who isn't a complete moron.
If you think being an engineer is about mindlessly obeying illogical social conventions, then I doubt you even understand what an engineer does. Obeying illogical social conventions is not important to being an engineer at all. And let me tell you, being an engineer is about logic.
What this is is someone trying to control the very use of language by arbitrarily deciding that certain words are inherently 'bad.' This is religious fundamentalist-level garbage.
And engineers are a dime a dozen, while good communicators are rare.
You have that backwards. Good engineers are extremely scarce, while people capable of communicating well enough with others aren't hard to find at all.
And no, someone isn't a 'bad' communicator just because they use words that you have some irrational hatred of. In fact, you used the word "communicating," which I hate. Therefore, you're bad at communicating with others.
Now fuck off.
Yes, I read the part where you said that you don't allow people to take pictures of you. I asked how you do that. Which part of that isn't clear?
"when I can help it."
It's very simple. I avoid places where my picture is likely to be taken. I ask people not to take my picture, and they will often respect my wishes. I ask people to let me get out of the way of their camera before they take a picture. I cover my face. Etc.
Why are you complicating it?
I'm not. You know my position; stop playing dumb.
As I don't understand why you think you have any right to privacy.
Privacy is not merely a right, but a concept. If I'm sitting in my home and no one is around, I effectively have privacy in my home. It's about effective privacy.
And I don't understand why you're so obsessed with the word "hypocrite." You sound like Fox News, or MSNBC, or CNN. They're obsessed with that word, and it's idiotic because being a hypocrite doesn't actually debunk anyone's arguments.
but you are a hypocrite if you expect any individual or government to respect your desire to keep any and all information about you out of public hands.
The government has limits to its powers and is paid for by tax dollars. Very different situation. If this was about the government collecting information en masse, I would find it acceptable for the information to be deleted. You might call me a "hypocrite," but in reality, that's a completely different situation from a private individual taking a photo. I know you were waiting for a "gotcha" like that, but no one can possibly predict 100% of the scenarios that someone might bring up when they're choosing their words, so your 'victory' is hollow.
His reply tried to point out your hypocrisy. Which you still won't address.
Where is the hypocrisy? I don't see it. Never once did I say everyone should take naked pictures of themselves.
I brought up two things:
1) The government shouldn't be involved.
2) Naked pictures shouldn't be treated as special.
Which one of these things have I myself violated?
I see the misunderstanding. You seem to think that the word "hypocrisy" is a synonym for "contradicting oneself". It's not.
Tell me what you think "hypocrisy" means.
You also don't seem to understand the difference between "hypothetical situation" and "straw man."
When he brings up a hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with my reply, and then acts as if I've been debunked before giving me a chance to reply, that is a straw man.
It's just sad that we rely on pieces of paper to 'prove' our worth, even when most of the people with pieces of paper don't know what they're doing (Most of the people without don't either.). It's also sad that you need to waste your time in rote memorization facilities in order to get scholarships. It's just a huge waste of time and effort.
You know what you are? Bitter.
I would be bitter too if I got rejected just because I didn't have a certain piece of paper. That's illogical garbage.
But being "bitter" doesn't debunk his little rant. But yeah, I don't see why he would decline to hire someone just because they're rich; it seems like the same sort of petty nonsense that leads to employers not hiring people because they're lacking pieces of paper.
You appear to be not only brilliant, but extremely eloquent as well. I can't imagine why all those employers declined to hire you.
If an employer is petty enough to not hire someone because they use 'swear words' instead of something that amounts to the same thing, they're illogical and not someone you want to work for.
How do you not allow people to take pictures of you?
Did you even read what you replied to?
So if I did have lots of pictures of "compromising" pictures of you, some of which were taken on private property without your knowledge or consent, you wouldn't ask the government to step in?
No. Other people have had pictures of me that I didn't want them to have, but I never asked the government to step in. Granted, I wasn't naked, and the pictures were taken without asking me, and were posted online, but I still did not want them to exist.
Do you seriously not see any difference between clothed photos, provocative photos, nude photos, sex photos, etc.? In all situations, at all times, all circumstances? I don't see how this reconciles with your concept of privacy.
The difference is that in some pictures, the person isn't wearing clothes. What I do not understand is why a court treats naked pictures as special, and forces their removal. In fact, had I my way, no pictures would be removed. But in this case, she should be able to have all the pictures removed, not just the naked ones.
That kind of reply is meant to put yourself in a similar situation so that you can understand the logic (or hypocrisy).
His reply had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I never once demanded that everyone take pictures of themselves and post them online.
Just saying "I don't allow any photos" is a copout and a cover for your hypocrisy.
The only way I could ever be a hypocrite is if I directly contradicted myself; I never have. I've never used the government to get rid of photos before, and unless you can prove that I would, you people are spewing forth nonsensical straw men and pulling information out of your asses. Don't tell me what I think, or I'll have to start doing the same to you.
Also, hypocrisy doesn't debunk anything.
Put your money where your mouth is and post a naked picture of yourself and a link.
That makes absolutely zero sense. I wouldn't even put up clothed pictures of myself, and indeed, I don't allow people to take pictures of me at all when I can help it. But it's for privacy reasons, and I do not use the government to force others to remove pictures stored on their own property.
Furthermore, my argument was not that everyone should post naked pictures of themselves; that's your own straw man. Rather, I do not understand why the court specifically ruled that naked pictures are special, when someone could object to clothed pictures as well. It's puritan nonsense, and so is your illogical reply.
I can't fathom how anyone thinks "Well, you should do it too! What, you don't want to? Then you're wrong!" replies debunk anything.
There is no "conflict of rights." Furthermore, removing a conflict that wasn't even violent to begin with by force, and was related to someone storing certain pictures on their own property, is absurd.
Or are you of the opinion that every "conflict" needs to be solved through the use of government force, and we should get the government involved in everything that could be perceived as a "rights" issue (That is, everything!)?
There isn't any thing that can considered respectful about holding onto those images when asked for them.
It works both ways. There isn't any thing that can be considered respectful about expecting another person to get rid of images that they value stored on their own private property.
What's even less respectful is getting government thugs involved in the whole thing, and forcing the deletion of the images.
No body plans to break up while going into a relationship normally.
Irrelevant. If the pictures aren't stored on their private property, then too bad for them.
And what makes naked pictures special? What is this puritan nonsense?
You make the account holder select it themselves, just as they did when they made the account.
Studies (just the other day there were reports about a recent one, I believe even here on /.) have shown that people with high intelligence
Stop right there. We don't even have a way to measure someone's level of intelligence, so that's bullshit. IQ, if you were going to bring it up, is nothing but bad science. IQ was designed to test how well someone would fit into the formal education environment, which likely has little to do with intelligence.
I would have thought people with "high intelligence" would be able to see these studies as the bullshit that they are. I'm not even saying anything about weed or drugs here.
This isn't the Intelligence community vs the people. This is the Legislative vs the Executive. The intelligence community just does what the Executive branch of government tells it to do. Ultimately, this whole surveillance program was a construct by the Executive branch (started under Bush, continued and expanded under Obama), who got enough of the Legislature on board with it to pass the laws they needed to keep this quasi-legal.
"Just following orders" is not a valid excuse. If they were truly concerned, they'd go the way of Snowden, or refuse to work there. But they're morally bankrupt.
Really, it's the fault of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, as well as the fault of the people in the intelligence community who mindlessly obey orders, and also the fault of voters who continue to vote for republicans and democrats, which have shown themselves to be evil scumbags.
How do I sound like a fascist when I'm criticizing those who demonstrably (much like Bush and his authoritarian asshole buddies) violate the constitution and people's fundamental liberties? How is that anything but an enemy of freedom, especially when they show no signs of stopping unless forced to?
Please explain how there are any similarities between the two situations.
Google just cannot compare to Bing. I'm a rabid, frothing Binger for one reason: There is nothing that Bing cannot find! Bing found a cure for my uncle's cancer. Bing found the answer to all well-known unsolved math problems. Wherever you go, people prefer Bing over Google.
Don't believe me? Bing it on, you insignificant insect! Luddites such as you are unwelcome in the 21st century!
Oh noes, a murder is murdering people, which is what murderers do!!! How terrible that a murderer murdered someone!!!
You know, just because it's 'expected', that doesn't make it okay. Spying on innocent people is wrong regardless of what the NSA's job is or what country those people live in. The NSA should be focusing on actual enemies, and not sapping up data en masse merely because some people could be enemies. And no, "Other countries do it too!" is no excuse, and has never been an excuse.
Anyone who says otherwise is an authoritarian piece of trash.
It's not different at all. No government in the world can be trusted with all this data, and no one who even has a modicum of knowledge about how hundreds of millions of people throughout history (Including some in the US!) were abused and/or killed by corrupt governments would say that it's even close to in anyone's best interests to allow human beings with power access to such data. In order to suggest otherwise, you must not only trust this government to do the 'right' thing, but all future governments as well. Needless to say, that's ridiculously idiotic.
But violating people's fundamental liberties and privacy in this way is evil in and of itself, and also isn't in anyone's best interests, regardless of corruption.
And Hitler liked puppies. Do you have a point?
If those dictators weren't dictators, and they were trying to protect the very document that allows their constitutional Republic government to exist in the first place, as well as trying to protect people's fundamental liberties, then you might have a point. But you don't; at all.
ToS shit means nothing; it's not necessarily legally binding at all.
And bullshit. If our legal system is setup such that someone can successfully sue you for making software that people voluntarily download so they can cheat in a video game by taking advantage of data that the server voluntarily sends them, then our legal system needs to be reworked from the bottom up. I don't care if they sell it; it makes no difference to me. He can try to profit off of his work all he likes.
Blizzard is a scumbag company.
Your version of morality is simply your point-of-view, I want to live in a society where people dont get to be pricks to eachother just because they have the freedom to do so
That makes no sense. Either they have the freedom to do so, or they don't. Being a "prick" is such a subjective and nonsensical label, and yet you want to make it illegal, apparently.
and the unfortunate reality is that humanity has not yet evolved to the point at which we don't need laws in place to stop that.
I think humanity will be fine without laws that punish people for producing software that people voluntarily run on their own computers that let them cheat in video games, all thanks to a server controlled by someone else sending them data that enables them to cheat to begin with. In fact, I think such a society would be better, since it would have basic respect for free speech and private property rights.
Your definition of a "prick" does not interest me; freedom interests me. If Blizzard does not like this, then they can ban cheaters from their own servers, which would be an example of someone exercising their basic private property rights.
The fact that you think it's a good idea to make it illegal to cheat in video games while not seeing how this would impact basic freedoms is nothing short of comical. You and that other authoritarian anonymous asshole might want to consider moving to North Korea; they'd be happy to have you. Not the people, but the government, which is always in need of more authoritarians who don't care about the principles of private property rights or freedom in general.
No. I dont live in your shit country so Im not subjected to most of that nonsense that you do nothing about.
Your country has plenty of problems regarding rights violations; I guarantee it.
By the same idiotic notion you want government thugs to punish somebody for exercising their right to fire a weapon because you support punishing people for the shooting murder of other people.
That makes no sense. Probably because you don't understand what this case is about. You didn't actually debunk anything I said.
Right, freedom to be an asshole.
Being an "asshole" (which is a subjective notion) has never been illegal. If you think that being such a vague, subjective thing should be illegal, then again, you are encouraging tyranny.
And what has that actually solved?
Because most of the country is opposed to freedom, not much. If your suggestion is that I should do nothing because my opposition has not yet yielded the desired results, then you're a damned fool.
You call me the whiner, but you seem to be whining much more, and even mocking people who try to fix the problems. If your only accomplishment is mocking those who try to fix problems merely because the massive problems haven't been fixed in an extremely short period of time, you may just be an idiot.
It includes those who try to subvert the principles this country is supposed to stand for, those who violate the highest law of the land, and those who claim to want us to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and yet support policies and take actions that take us in the exact opposite direction.
They're not merely enemies of the people; they're enemies of the very concept of freedom.