We dont need your subjective nonsense attempting to change our existing law/precedent.
You mean like the TSA, NSA surveillance, free speech zones, obscenity laws, stop-and-frisk, unfettered border searches, and the host of other freedom-violating nonsense people like you generally support? Your acceptance of government thugs getting involved in cases like this and bullying people you don't like is what allows all this tyranny. I hope you're satisfied.
The fact is, you want government thugs to enforce a court's decision that punishes someone for making software that handles data voluntarily sent to them in a certain way. That is disgusting.
But they will if you start selling something explicitly designed to fuck with blizzards equipment.
You're an absolute moronic piece of trash that has no idea what's happening here. Blizzard's equipment is not being modified at all.
Here's how it works: Someone joins one of Blizzard's servers with some software on their own equipment that allows them to have an advantage over others by handling the data the *server voluntarily sends to them* in such a way that things that the normal client wouldn't see are displayed. That's it. All of this happens on their own equipment, and Blizzard's equipment is never screwed with.
Dont support blizzard then.
I don't, since I always knew they were scumbags. They proved that long before this lawsuit.
Obey the law or work to change the law, but youre just a lazy fuck who just wants to complain.
I'll say to you what I said to the other moron (Or are you the same person? Your writing is just like his.): "Interesting how you claim to know what I do when I'm not arguing with moronic insects like you online. I actually do join protests, vote for people who aren't evil scumbags (i.e. no republicans or democrats), boycott lousy companies, send letters to my 'representatives', and suggest others do the same. I'm not the leader of some movement, but to accuse me of doing nothing is just false."
And obeying the law isn't necessarily a good thing. No one should mindlessly obey unjust laws, and no intelligent person would even suggest that.
Then go do something about it instead of psuedonymously bitching about it online. But you arent really an activist, you just play one on the internet.
Interesting how you claim to know what I do when I'm not arguing with moronic insects like you online. I actually do join protests, vote for people who aren't evil scumbags (i.e. no republicans or democrats), boycott lousy companies, send letters to my 'representatives', and suggest others do the same. I'm not the leader of some movement, but to accuse me of doing nothing is just false.
They dont need to, how I feel is already the way the system is.
I hope you're doing something to change the immoral status quo.
Lots of species herd - clearly forming herds is often a survival advantage.
Appealing to popularity does nothing. Not everything the majority does is logical, and in fact, much of it is the exact opposite. But in the case you mentioned, forming herds does help with survival.
However, look at what I said and look at the context. We're talking about mindlessly believing absolute bullshit just because lots of other people do so. That's what's garbage.
As I said, any 'benefits' (I doubt I'd say it's a benefit.) that you've yet to show (And history has shown otherwise.) is vastly outweighed by the detriment: Complete and utter irrationality and ignorance.
It's not reductive; it's the truth. The player isn't accessing confidential information on someone else's computer, or doing anything of the sort. They're merely handling information the server voluntarily sends to them in a different way than most clients do so they can have an advantage over others. It's absurd to sue someone over this, let alone the person who merely made the software.
If we want to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," Blizzard better get told to fuck right off.
I actually had an entire post typed out, but then the browser crashed before I could submit it. You accused me of being lazy before, but now I might really be lazy; I don't feel like typing it out again.
It has been extended to protect freedom of expression in the arts from governmental interference.
You mean the same government that will enforce this decision? You think the government isn't involved when someone is being sued?
It has never been defined as an unfettered right to lie, cheat and steal.
There is no lying, cheating, or stealing here in the traditional sense. Just someone who made software that allows other people to handle data sent to them in certain ways - that's all.
Anyone who thinks suing (and winning) for this is even remotely okay is anti-freedom.
But most often it is simply a means to achieve some more mundane purpose. To turn on the lights. To flush the toilet.
That makes no difference. Code, as well as your comment, is merely data.
The first amendment comes after the copyright clause.
Also, the concept of free speech is different from the first amendment; the first amendment is merely a means of protecting free speech.
And copyright is pretty much always related to free speech. That is, as long as you try to enforce copyright, you'll be infringing upon people's free speech rights and promoting censorship, which is intolerable. Fortunately, copyright has pretty much lost that battle, as it's an unrealistic goal.
A) Freedom of speech is freedom from legal suppression.
Who do you think enforces all of this? Government thugs.
B) Just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater
That court decision resulted in war protestors being arrested. Stop citing it as an example of something that's morally right. And the first amendment says no such thing.
you can't release code whose intent or effect is to infringe on someone else's rights.
Sure you can. Anyone who says otherwise despises freedom of speech and the constitution.
And going after people just because they have certain software on their computers that allows them to handle data sent to them in certain ways is fucking absurd. No, this is even worse, as this is a case where someone who made such software is being taken to court, not the people who use it to do things that you don't like.
Under your perverse logic, anti-virus software would be "unconstitutional censorship."
Anti-virus software is a choice. It would only be censorship if governments forced censorship upon people. But make no mistake: The government is involved, as this is being argued in a court.
We don't need your subjective nonsense getting into law/precedent. Just because someone does something you don't like with their own equipment doesn't mean government thugs should get involved. Your feels shouldn't count for shit.
If Blizzard doesn't like it, they can just try to ban the people from their own servers. Getting government thugs involved is just disgusting.
Agreed, in which case most people in most cultures wouldn't believe it. It was your example.
The point is, herd mentality is often poisonous. Any 'benefits' it has is overshadowed by the detriments. The detriment is often nothing more than the promotion of extreme ignorance.
The fact that you can't see a reason doesn't mean that a reason doesn't exist. Most people in most cultures seem to believe in the existence of a creator. Why is that?
Because they're irrational.
And once again, history shows just the opposite. Many people in the past whined and cried about having their creator-granted rights violated, but to no avail. It does absolutely no good because it's trivial to disagree and just make up your own little story about a creator, or just deny their claims about a creator.
There are scientific explanations for why people want certain rights: Instincts. Self-preservation. I don't think it's necessary or at all desirable to play a game of pretend in order to argue that you think people should have certain rights. There's absolutely no reason to think it would be so, just like there's no reason to believe in a deity. There simply isn't any evidence, even though there should be, given history's countless examples of government abuse.
lol.. Of course my opinion. I'm the one you are trying to speak to aren't I?
Yes, but you did not state it as an opinion.
What would cause a group of people, some completely independent from each other to have the same desires if it wasn't hardwired within them or part of their existence?
That depends on what you mean by "hardwired." I would say it is due to instincts and self-preservation. Not wanting to get thrown in prison because you criticized your government is pretty damn rational, in my opinion.
So are you saying they disappeared and a claim that they are infringing on your rights would be fallacious?
If you have a system like ours that is intended to guarantee people certain rights, perhaps not. But if society as a whole rejects the idea of a certain right, it could be considered mighty silly to say your right was infringed upon. But if you're thinking of your own ideal society, you could say that your right is being infringed upon in the view of that imaginary society. That often gets shortened to, "My rights were infringed upon." It's all semantics and depends on how you define the words.
You seem to be dodging the question.. did those rights exist before society granted them?
As desires, maybe. But that's it. One could think they become more 'concrete' once society at large recognizes a certain right, but it's still just an idea.
Why would society grant rights if many people didn't have the same desires?
That doesn't happen often. But it can happen due to compromises. There's nothing magic or inalienable about it.
They are hardwired into people. They come from a power higher than society or government, they exist because you exist.
That's totally radical, dude.
Your reasoning is the reasons rights are taken and why people become oppressed.
I thought you said rights couldn't be taken.
And furthermore, you have offered zero actual proof that my secular attitude is the reason that rights are 'taken.' History isn't on your side, either, as there were many people who believe as you do, and yet rights were violated all the time, and continue to be.
So, please provide scientific evidence that not believing that rights are inherent somehow leads to tyranny. This isn't one of those silly "philosophical" questions, but one that asks for actual proof. Because it sure seems to be like it is people who don't care about certain rights that are the cause of these problems. I think people who accept the TSA, free speech zones, censorship, the NSA's mass surveillance, etc. are the problem, because they're directly fighting against certain rights. But I disagree with all of those things and do my best to fight against them, so in what way is my attitude the problem? Even some of the people who agree with these things believe in the whole creator-granted rights concept.
Like I said, it is poor form. If you cannot be assed to direct your comments to me directly, I'm not going to consider them important enough to waste my time on.
Poor form only in your opinion. Copying and pasting would've been barely any different from my perspective.
You sure are.. It's somewhat funny too.. Well funny in a pathetic type of way. Except what you are saying is wrong.
Of course you would say so.
It doesn't mean those rights do not exist, it means they are oppressed.
Those rights don't exist in any meaningful form, except perhaps as personal desires.
So, when those societies took those rights, did they disappear or where they simply violated?
They may have been rights that people wished they had, but other than that, they didn't exist in any meaningful form.
Yes, not at all. The difference is as soon as they stop oppressing your rights, they are there for you to enjoy.
More like, as soon as society recognized a right, they would be there for you to enjoy. Of course, your desire to have a certain right recognized would've been there.
Here is your problem. Rights and the existence of rights is philosophical, not scientific.
Again, where do these rights come from, and in what form do they exist? And how can you verify which things are rights? Saying it's "philosophical" means absolutely nothing to me, much like arguments for the existence of deities.
So if society said it was ok, then you would be fine with raping someone (you or a loved one) with a baseball bat?
Not me personally, but society would. That's why I keep saying it's up to individuals with goals to get certain rights recognized. That's the only way that rights 'exist': In people's heads, and as agreements between people.
And if most people in most cultures believed that 1+1=3, I'd think it would be an interesting experiment to try to determine if that belief confers an advantage.
If they had something that basic wrong, their society would most likely be a technology-free wasteland.
People tend to have a herd mentality.
And people can have a herd mentality about anything. Why not just give them logical reasons for the existence of certain rights, and mutter something about patriotism if you must? There's no reason that I see that it has to be some sort of "creator," and history shows that it doesn't really make a difference; if someone doesn't like you, you'll be destroyed if they have more power.
Many examples of this exist, but those in power get their power because people are willing to follow them. Ideology has the potential to influence people.
Which is true regardless of whether or not you invoke creators or some other such nonsense. You can make a completely secular case for many rights, and that would be your ideology.
Think about it another way - commonly held beliefs are commonly held for a reason.
And the reason may be completely ridiculous. In fact, it often seems that way.
I'm not one to be influenced by a belief just because the majority believe it.
Do societies that hold to them have a competitive advantage over those which do not?
If most people in a society believe that 1 + 1 = 3, does that society have a competitive advantage over those which do not?
When did I ever claim such a thing? I'm merely saying that this was the perspective the US Constitution was written from, and to understand what was meant you need to understand what the writers were thinking.
I was not referring to you specifically. Understanding what they meant was easy enough, but the fact is that our government is bound by the constitution regardless of any "Rights come from a creator." theories. The constitution isn't even littered with such statements, anyway.
Well, I'm not sure if we can conclude whether accepting reality does or doesn't cause more abuse.
Again, given history, we have no reason to believe it does. One can claim that their rights exist in some form no matter what, but history shows that it's trivial for those with power to ignore their pleas and just do as they please.
Is a convenient lie that saves lives better than an inconvenient truth?
Because it's basically just a copy/paste? I don't understand how that would affect the validity of what I said in the other comment.
The declaration of independence uses terminology that set you off into a knee jerk reaction though.
No one is knee jerking.
Is that such a hard concept to follow?
I don't think what I'm saying is such a hard concept to follow, either.
What rights? If the right is granted by the government, it disappears when the government takes it away.
And it does disappear in the sense that many people don't recognize that right of society at large doesn't, but there would still be individuals who personally believe they should have that right, and it is they who could fight to get it back.
Wrong.. If society gives you the rights, society can take them from you.
They can. That has happened many times in the past. By "take them," I take that to mean that society at large will generally ignore your pleas.
No, not at all. It's like you are bared from enjoying or exercising those rights but the rights are still there when they come from a power higher then government.
No? Not at all? How do they differ, then? Where do these rights come from, and in what form do they exist? Can you scientifically validate their existence? If society at large doesn't recognize that a certain right exists and acts accordingly, how can it be said to exist?
Those beliefs were that certain rights were bestowed by a power greater than government.
Yes, they believed that, but it's irrelevant. It was the will to stand up and create a system of government that would recognize those rights that counted, not the belief that the rights were bestowed by some higher power.
Those rights still exist when the government tramples on them.
What exists is people's personal beliefs, not the rights themselves. Unless you mean in people's heads.
Utterly subjective. That you were too 'lazy' to follow the link isn't my problem, since it just amounts to a copy and paste anyway.
Whether you like it or not, the founders created the country as fact. It is fact that the US was created with the understanding that we have rights supreme to government and society, and the founders use the specific terminology endowed by their creator to express it.
No one is disputing that the founders created the country. What I am saying is that the effects of the constitution are completely clear, and since the government is bound by the constitution, one can view it through a completely secular mindset.
The personal beliefs of the founders may be notable, but they're irrelevant to the effects of the constitution.
You tell me which is easier to get rid of.
Neither, because in both cases, you're just stating that you have some right. Why not respond to what I said? It is a fact that millions of people throughout history had their rights violated (Rights we currently believe people should have.), and in fact, it was like they didn't exist at all.
Furthermore, even if some god figure granted you rights, what good would it do to say so? Can you prove it? And what would stop someone else from denying it? It's fucking trivial and happened all the time.
If society gives it, then it is just for society to take them.
That's how we have a society that recognizes these rights to begin with; people stood up and did something about it. If we were the losers, we very well might not have these rights.
Your parents saying you cannot have it doesn't take that right away, they just take your ability away.
Please give me a logical explanation of how the two differ in cases where you do not even have a system setup that's supposed to guarantee you certain rights, or limit the power of authority figures. It's like those rights don't exist at all, in that case, and in cases where the system is completely broken.
This is what made America great
What made America great was its concept of a greatly limited government, which helped guarantee that many rights would be protected. The "My rights magically exist!" nonsense had nothing to do with it; anyone can make that claim about anything, but it doesn't stop other people from ignoring that if they have enough power.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, the reason we have rights is because people stood up for their beliefs and won. Where people think the rights came from is 100% irrelevant.
If society has a system setup to protect those rights. What we have in the US is an example of a system that tries to protect individual liberties.
What would it take for you to no longer have those rights?
If society no longer recognized them.
If your argument is that you only have rights insofar as other people grant them to you, then there is nothing immoral about everybody banding together and deciding that you don't have those rights
Morality is subjective. It could still be immoral to you, though as you later say, that's meaningless if you don't have the means to stop people from using force to do whatever 'immoral' things they want to do.
That is what I meant by "which can be used to justify all kinds of abuse."
No matter how much you whine and cry about how you have creator-given rights, or some other such thing, that has never prevented others from ignoring the rights you believe you should have. Never. History is literally filled with people getting abused and/or killed by governments, or others.
Accepting reality (that rights don't just magically exist) does not cause more abuse, and even if it did, that would, to me, be no excuse to back away from the truth.
The answer is that in reality if everybody bands together and decides that you don't have rights, then there is nothing you can do about it.
There is a difference between teaching the beliefs of the founding fathers, and teaching those beliefs as fact.
It is because of arguments like yours that we are less free.
You are mistaken. Throughout history, hundreds of millions of people were abused by governments, and to blame secularism or atheism is just ludicrous, especially given the number of people who didn't agree with either of those.
You pretend that acting like you have god-given rights will protect the rights you want to have. It never has, and it never will. Only action and perseverance have any chance of protecting those things.
The main problem with driverless cars isn't the idea itself, but the fact that governments and corporations will inevitably ruin them with privacy-invading nonsense, as well as proprietary software and DRM. Some newer cars practically have to be taken to certain 'certified' mechanics in order to be fixed.
and not outlawing the lifestyle choices of people who have done nothing to harm anyone.
Careful, or you'll leave the door open for someone to say, "But they harm me indirectly by making me pay more in taxes, or cause me emotional harm."
The problem with that is that it can be applied to just about every non-essential activity in existence. Want to go ice skating? What if you get hurt and cost tax payers money? And your family will be so sad! Oh, and how about, "These substances make people more likely to commit crimes, so they should be banned entirely." I love that one.
Yeah, there's no direct harm of others happening, but authoritarian assholes don't care about that. Land of the free, home of the brave.
The US Constitution was written by people who felt strongly that people were born with rights, and it was just the role of the government to help protect those rights.
And? I don't care if they believed that 1 + 1 = 3; I'm not going to believe that, and nor does it change what effects the constitution has.
Now, if you feel otherwise that is nice, but you can't read the US Constitution through that lens - it just doesn't make any sense. Heck, the 9th amendment makes no sense if you consider human rights to be merely an emergent result of restrictions imposed on government.
Sure I can. Because they created a government that could only do what the constitution said it could do, and couldn't do anything it was explicitly forbidden from doing, we have a reason to think our rights should be protected. It is through that means that our rights exist in the US.
The 9th amendment makes sense even without believing in any of that superstitious crap. Again, the government can only do what the constitution says it can do, so the amendment makes complete sense, and doesn't mention a creator at all, and nor does it need to.
or which can be used to justify all kinds of abuse
Please explain how that is so.
Furthermore, explain how the government is currently infringing upon nearly everyone's rights in one way or another, even though most people believe in that creator nonsense in the US.
The whole reason the 9th amendment was written was to prevent the absence of a clear prohibition on government power to be used as justification for the government having that power.
That is literally how the constitution was written to begin with. They likely wanted to clarify that the bill of rights did not mean the constitution was just a list of what rights we had.
Kiddy porn would be considered a crime or moral terpitude which can stop you from getting legal licenses and participation in parts of society.
It's considered a crime because our society doesn't actually care about the constitution. They don't want to go through the trouble of amending it when they want something changed; they just rely on judges to be 'creative' and modify the constitution with invisible ink. Otherwise, the prohibition on child porn would never fly. Nor would free speech zones, FCC censorship, or getting fined when you say a 'swear word' in public in front of kids, which happened in some states.
If someone wrongly accused you of it and one of these licenses was withheld or your business was suffering due to the public going elsewhere
If your 'license' was withheld because of a mere accusation, that just shows that our entire system needs to be reworked from the ground up, not that we need to abandon free speech.
As for businesses suffering, that's the fault of the people who blindly listen to accusations without anyone providing evidence.
you can blame those people all you want but the root cause would be whoever spread the rumors.
That would be true if the one who spread the rumors was controlling others like they were mindless automatons, but it's not. They chose to act based on someone else's speech, and for that, it is their fault that those actions happened.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are rich, you probably got that way by being educated
Or you got that way because of all the connections your rich parents had, or you yourself got rich by receiving money from your rich parents.
Intelligent people are few and far between, even among the rich.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Shouldn't an offended* party be allowed the opportunity to settle their grievances in a court of law?
That's where the "and winning" part comes in. They can sue, but they sure as fuck shouldn't win because their feelings were hurt, or whatever.
We dont need your subjective nonsense attempting to change our existing law/precedent.
You mean like the TSA, NSA surveillance, free speech zones, obscenity laws, stop-and-frisk, unfettered border searches, and the host of other freedom-violating nonsense people like you generally support? Your acceptance of government thugs getting involved in cases like this and bullying people you don't like is what allows all this tyranny. I hope you're satisfied.
The fact is, you want government thugs to enforce a court's decision that punishes someone for making software that handles data voluntarily sent to them in a certain way. That is disgusting.
But they will if you start selling something explicitly designed to fuck with blizzards equipment.
You're an absolute moronic piece of trash that has no idea what's happening here. Blizzard's equipment is not being modified at all.
Here's how it works: Someone joins one of Blizzard's servers with some software on their own equipment that allows them to have an advantage over others by handling the data the *server voluntarily sends to them* in such a way that things that the normal client wouldn't see are displayed. That's it. All of this happens on their own equipment, and Blizzard's equipment is never screwed with.
Dont support blizzard then.
I don't, since I always knew they were scumbags. They proved that long before this lawsuit.
Obey the law or work to change the law, but youre just a lazy fuck who just wants to complain.
I'll say to you what I said to the other moron (Or are you the same person? Your writing is just like his.): "Interesting how you claim to know what I do when I'm not arguing with moronic insects like you online. I actually do join protests, vote for people who aren't evil scumbags (i.e. no republicans or democrats), boycott lousy companies, send letters to my 'representatives', and suggest others do the same. I'm not the leader of some movement, but to accuse me of doing nothing is just false."
And obeying the law isn't necessarily a good thing. No one should mindlessly obey unjust laws, and no intelligent person would even suggest that.
Then go do something about it instead of psuedonymously bitching about it online. But you arent really an activist, you just play one on the internet.
Interesting how you claim to know what I do when I'm not arguing with moronic insects like you online. I actually do join protests, vote for people who aren't evil scumbags (i.e. no republicans or democrats), boycott lousy companies, send letters to my 'representatives', and suggest others do the same. I'm not the leader of some movement, but to accuse me of doing nothing is just false.
They dont need to, how I feel is already the way the system is.
I hope you're doing something to change the immoral status quo.
Lots of species herd - clearly forming herds is often a survival advantage.
Appealing to popularity does nothing. Not everything the majority does is logical, and in fact, much of it is the exact opposite. But in the case you mentioned, forming herds does help with survival.
However, look at what I said and look at the context. We're talking about mindlessly believing absolute bullshit just because lots of other people do so. That's what's garbage.
As I said, any 'benefits' (I doubt I'd say it's a benefit.) that you've yet to show (And history has shown otherwise.) is vastly outweighed by the detriment: Complete and utter irrationality and ignorance.
It's not reductive; it's the truth. The player isn't accessing confidential information on someone else's computer, or doing anything of the sort. They're merely handling information the server voluntarily sends to them in a different way than most clients do so they can have an advantage over others. It's absurd to sue someone over this, let alone the person who merely made the software.
If we want to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," Blizzard better get told to fuck right off.
I actually had an entire post typed out, but then the browser crashed before I could submit it. You accused me of being lazy before, but now I might really be lazy; I don't feel like typing it out again.
This didn't seem to be going anywhere, anyway.
It has been extended to protect freedom of expression in the arts from governmental interference.
You mean the same government that will enforce this decision? You think the government isn't involved when someone is being sued?
It has never been defined as an unfettered right to lie, cheat and steal.
There is no lying, cheating, or stealing here in the traditional sense. Just someone who made software that allows other people to handle data sent to them in certain ways - that's all.
Anyone who thinks suing (and winning) for this is even remotely okay is anti-freedom.
But most often it is simply a means to achieve some more mundane purpose. To turn on the lights. To flush the toilet.
That makes no difference. Code, as well as your comment, is merely data.
The first amendment comes after the copyright clause.
Also, the concept of free speech is different from the first amendment; the first amendment is merely a means of protecting free speech.
And copyright is pretty much always related to free speech. That is, as long as you try to enforce copyright, you'll be infringing upon people's free speech rights and promoting censorship, which is intolerable. Fortunately, copyright has pretty much lost that battle, as it's an unrealistic goal.
A) Freedom of speech is freedom from legal suppression.
Who do you think enforces all of this? Government thugs.
B) Just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater
That court decision resulted in war protestors being arrested. Stop citing it as an example of something that's morally right. And the first amendment says no such thing.
you can't release code whose intent or effect is to infringe on someone else's rights.
Sure you can. Anyone who says otherwise despises freedom of speech and the constitution.
And going after people just because they have certain software on their computers that allows them to handle data sent to them in certain ways is fucking absurd. No, this is even worse, as this is a case where someone who made such software is being taken to court, not the people who use it to do things that you don't like.
Under your perverse logic, anti-virus software would be "unconstitutional censorship."
Anti-virus software is a choice. It would only be censorship if governments forced censorship upon people. But make no mistake: The government is involved, as this is being argued in a court.
We don't need your subjective nonsense getting into law/precedent. Just because someone does something you don't like with their own equipment doesn't mean government thugs should get involved. Your feels shouldn't count for shit.
If Blizzard doesn't like it, they can just try to ban the people from their own servers. Getting government thugs involved is just disgusting.
Agreed, in which case most people in most cultures wouldn't believe it. It was your example.
The point is, herd mentality is often poisonous. Any 'benefits' it has is overshadowed by the detriments. The detriment is often nothing more than the promotion of extreme ignorance.
The fact that you can't see a reason doesn't mean that a reason doesn't exist. Most people in most cultures seem to believe in the existence of a creator. Why is that?
Because they're irrational.
And once again, history shows just the opposite. Many people in the past whined and cried about having their creator-granted rights violated, but to no avail. It does absolutely no good because it's trivial to disagree and just make up your own little story about a creator, or just deny their claims about a creator.
There are scientific explanations for why people want certain rights: Instincts. Self-preservation. I don't think it's necessary or at all desirable to play a game of pretend in order to argue that you think people should have certain rights. There's absolutely no reason to think it would be so, just like there's no reason to believe in a deity. There simply isn't any evidence, even though there should be, given history's countless examples of government abuse.
lol.. Of course my opinion. I'm the one you are trying to speak to aren't I?
Yes, but you did not state it as an opinion.
What would cause a group of people, some completely independent from each other to have the same desires if it wasn't hardwired within them or part of their existence?
That depends on what you mean by "hardwired." I would say it is due to instincts and self-preservation. Not wanting to get thrown in prison because you criticized your government is pretty damn rational, in my opinion.
So are you saying they disappeared and a claim that they are infringing on your rights would be fallacious?
If you have a system like ours that is intended to guarantee people certain rights, perhaps not. But if society as a whole rejects the idea of a certain right, it could be considered mighty silly to say your right was infringed upon. But if you're thinking of your own ideal society, you could say that your right is being infringed upon in the view of that imaginary society. That often gets shortened to, "My rights were infringed upon." It's all semantics and depends on how you define the words.
You seem to be dodging the question.. did those rights exist before society granted them?
As desires, maybe. But that's it. One could think they become more 'concrete' once society at large recognizes a certain right, but it's still just an idea.
Why would society grant rights if many people didn't have the same desires?
That doesn't happen often. But it can happen due to compromises. There's nothing magic or inalienable about it.
They are hardwired into people. They come from a power higher than society or government, they exist because you exist.
That's totally radical, dude.
Your reasoning is the reasons rights are taken and why people become oppressed.
I thought you said rights couldn't be taken.
And furthermore, you have offered zero actual proof that my secular attitude is the reason that rights are 'taken.' History isn't on your side, either, as there were many people who believe as you do, and yet rights were violated all the time, and continue to be.
So, please provide scientific evidence that not believing that rights are inherent somehow leads to tyranny. This isn't one of those silly "philosophical" questions, but one that asks for actual proof. Because it sure seems to be like it is people who don't care about certain rights that are the cause of these problems. I think people who accept the TSA, free speech zones, censorship, the NSA's mass surveillance, etc. are the problem, because they're directly fighting against certain rights. But I disagree with all of those things and do my best to fight against them, so in what way is my attitude the problem? Even some of the people who agree with these things believe in the whole creator-granted rights concept.
Like I said, it is poor form. If you cannot be assed to direct your comments to me directly, I'm not going to consider them important enough to waste my time on.
Poor form only in your opinion. Copying and pasting would've been barely any different from my perspective.
You sure are.. It's somewhat funny too.. Well funny in a pathetic type of way. Except what you are saying is wrong.
Of course you would say so.
It doesn't mean those rights do not exist, it means they are oppressed.
Those rights don't exist in any meaningful form, except perhaps as personal desires.
So, when those societies took those rights, did they disappear or where they simply violated?
They may have been rights that people wished they had, but other than that, they didn't exist in any meaningful form.
Yes, not at all. The difference is as soon as they stop oppressing your rights, they are there for you to enjoy.
More like, as soon as society recognized a right, they would be there for you to enjoy. Of course, your desire to have a certain right recognized would've been there.
Here is your problem. Rights and the existence of rights is philosophical, not scientific.
Again, where do these rights come from, and in what form do they exist? And how can you verify which things are rights? Saying it's "philosophical" means absolutely nothing to me, much like arguments for the existence of deities.
So if society said it was ok, then you would be fine with raping someone (you or a loved one) with a baseball bat?
Not me personally, but society would. That's why I keep saying it's up to individuals with goals to get certain rights recognized. That's the only way that rights 'exist': In people's heads, and as agreements between people.
And if most people in most cultures believed that 1+1=3, I'd think it would be an interesting experiment to try to determine if that belief confers an advantage.
If they had something that basic wrong, their society would most likely be a technology-free wasteland.
People tend to have a herd mentality.
And people can have a herd mentality about anything. Why not just give them logical reasons for the existence of certain rights, and mutter something about patriotism if you must? There's no reason that I see that it has to be some sort of "creator," and history shows that it doesn't really make a difference; if someone doesn't like you, you'll be destroyed if they have more power.
Many examples of this exist, but those in power get their power because people are willing to follow them. Ideology has the potential to influence people.
Which is true regardless of whether or not you invoke creators or some other such nonsense. You can make a completely secular case for many rights, and that would be your ideology.
Think about it another way - commonly held beliefs are commonly held for a reason.
And the reason may be completely ridiculous. In fact, it often seems that way.
I'm not one to be influenced by a belief just because the majority believe it.
Do societies that hold to them have a competitive advantage over those which do not?
If most people in a society believe that 1 + 1 = 3, does that society have a competitive advantage over those which do not?
When did I ever claim such a thing? I'm merely saying that this was the perspective the US Constitution was written from, and to understand what was meant you need to understand what the writers were thinking.
I was not referring to you specifically. Understanding what they meant was easy enough, but the fact is that our government is bound by the constitution regardless of any "Rights come from a creator." theories. The constitution isn't even littered with such statements, anyway.
Well, I'm not sure if we can conclude whether accepting reality does or doesn't cause more abuse.
Again, given history, we have no reason to believe it does. One can claim that their rights exist in some form no matter what, but history shows that it's trivial for those with power to ignore their pleas and just do as they please.
Is a convenient lie that saves lives better than an inconvenient truth?
In my opinion, no.
I guess you said nothing of importance then.
Because it's basically just a copy/paste? I don't understand how that would affect the validity of what I said in the other comment.
The declaration of independence uses terminology that set you off into a knee jerk reaction though.
No one is knee jerking.
Is that such a hard concept to follow?
I don't think what I'm saying is such a hard concept to follow, either.
What rights? If the right is granted by the government, it disappears when the government takes it away.
And it does disappear in the sense that many people don't recognize that right of society at large doesn't, but there would still be individuals who personally believe they should have that right, and it is they who could fight to get it back.
Wrong.. If society gives you the rights, society can take them from you.
They can. That has happened many times in the past. By "take them," I take that to mean that society at large will generally ignore your pleas.
No, not at all. It's like you are bared from enjoying or exercising those rights but the rights are still there when they come from a power higher then government.
No? Not at all? How do they differ, then? Where do these rights come from, and in what form do they exist? Can you scientifically validate their existence? If society at large doesn't recognize that a certain right exists and acts accordingly, how can it be said to exist?
Those beliefs were that certain rights were bestowed by a power greater than government.
Yes, they believed that, but it's irrelevant. It was the will to stand up and create a system of government that would recognize those rights that counted, not the belief that the rights were bestowed by some higher power.
Those rights still exist when the government tramples on them.
What exists is people's personal beliefs, not the rights themselves. Unless you mean in people's heads.
It's poor form
Utterly subjective. That you were too 'lazy' to follow the link isn't my problem, since it just amounts to a copy and paste anyway.
Whether you like it or not, the founders created the country as fact. It is fact that the US was created with the understanding that we have rights supreme to government and society, and the founders use the specific terminology endowed by their creator to express it.
No one is disputing that the founders created the country. What I am saying is that the effects of the constitution are completely clear, and since the government is bound by the constitution, one can view it through a completely secular mindset.
The personal beliefs of the founders may be notable, but they're irrelevant to the effects of the constitution.
You tell me which is easier to get rid of.
Neither, because in both cases, you're just stating that you have some right. Why not respond to what I said? It is a fact that millions of people throughout history had their rights violated (Rights we currently believe people should have.), and in fact, it was like they didn't exist at all.
Furthermore, even if some god figure granted you rights, what good would it do to say so? Can you prove it? And what would stop someone else from denying it? It's fucking trivial and happened all the time.
If society gives it, then it is just for society to take them.
That's how we have a society that recognizes these rights to begin with; people stood up and did something about it. If we were the losers, we very well might not have these rights.
Your parents saying you cannot have it doesn't take that right away, they just take your ability away.
Please give me a logical explanation of how the two differ in cases where you do not even have a system setup that's supposed to guarantee you certain rights, or limit the power of authority figures. It's like those rights don't exist at all, in that case, and in cases where the system is completely broken.
This is what made America great
What made America great was its concept of a greatly limited government, which helped guarantee that many rights would be protected. The "My rights magically exist!" nonsense had nothing to do with it; anyone can make that claim about anything, but it doesn't stop other people from ignoring that if they have enough power.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, the reason we have rights is because people stood up for their beliefs and won. Where people think the rights came from is 100% irrelevant.
So, just what rights do you have, exactly?
The rights society grants me.
How do you know that you have them?
If society has a system setup to protect those rights. What we have in the US is an example of a system that tries to protect individual liberties.
What would it take for you to no longer have those rights?
If society no longer recognized them.
If your argument is that you only have rights insofar as other people grant them to you, then there is nothing immoral about everybody banding together and deciding that you don't have those rights
Morality is subjective. It could still be immoral to you, though as you later say, that's meaningless if you don't have the means to stop people from using force to do whatever 'immoral' things they want to do.
That is what I meant by "which can be used to justify all kinds of abuse."
No matter how much you whine and cry about how you have creator-given rights, or some other such thing, that has never prevented others from ignoring the rights you believe you should have. Never. History is literally filled with people getting abused and/or killed by governments, or others.
Accepting reality (that rights don't just magically exist) does not cause more abuse, and even if it did, that would, to me, be no excuse to back away from the truth.
The answer is that in reality if everybody bands together and decides that you don't have rights, then there is nothing you can do about it.
Exactly.
Yeah, yeah.
There is a difference between teaching the beliefs of the founding fathers, and teaching those beliefs as fact.
It is because of arguments like yours that we are less free.
You are mistaken. Throughout history, hundreds of millions of people were abused by governments, and to blame secularism or atheism is just ludicrous, especially given the number of people who didn't agree with either of those.
You pretend that acting like you have god-given rights will protect the rights you want to have. It never has, and it never will. Only action and perseverance have any chance of protecting those things.
The main problem with driverless cars isn't the idea itself, but the fact that governments and corporations will inevitably ruin them with privacy-invading nonsense, as well as proprietary software and DRM. Some newer cars practically have to be taken to certain 'certified' mechanics in order to be fixed.
and not outlawing the lifestyle choices of people who have done nothing to harm anyone.
Careful, or you'll leave the door open for someone to say, "But they harm me indirectly by making me pay more in taxes, or cause me emotional harm."
The problem with that is that it can be applied to just about every non-essential activity in existence. Want to go ice skating? What if you get hurt and cost tax payers money? And your family will be so sad! Oh, and how about, "These substances make people more likely to commit crimes, so they should be banned entirely." I love that one.
Yeah, there's no direct harm of others happening, but authoritarian assholes don't care about that. Land of the free, home of the brave.
The US Constitution was written by people who felt strongly that people were born with rights, and it was just the role of the government to help protect those rights.
And? I don't care if they believed that 1 + 1 = 3; I'm not going to believe that, and nor does it change what effects the constitution has.
Now, if you feel otherwise that is nice, but you can't read the US Constitution through that lens - it just doesn't make any sense. Heck, the 9th amendment makes no sense if you consider human rights to be merely an emergent result of restrictions imposed on government.
Sure I can. Because they created a government that could only do what the constitution said it could do, and couldn't do anything it was explicitly forbidden from doing, we have a reason to think our rights should be protected. It is through that means that our rights exist in the US.
The 9th amendment makes sense even without believing in any of that superstitious crap. Again, the government can only do what the constitution says it can do, so the amendment makes complete sense, and doesn't mention a creator at all, and nor does it need to.
or which can be used to justify all kinds of abuse
Please explain how that is so.
Furthermore, explain how the government is currently infringing upon nearly everyone's rights in one way or another, even though most people believe in that creator nonsense in the US.
The whole reason the 9th amendment was written was to prevent the absence of a clear prohibition on government power to be used as justification for the government having that power.
That is literally how the constitution was written to begin with. They likely wanted to clarify that the bill of rights did not mean the constitution was just a list of what rights we had.
Kiddy porn would be considered a crime or moral terpitude which can stop you from getting legal licenses and participation in parts of society.
It's considered a crime because our society doesn't actually care about the constitution. They don't want to go through the trouble of amending it when they want something changed; they just rely on judges to be 'creative' and modify the constitution with invisible ink. Otherwise, the prohibition on child porn would never fly. Nor would free speech zones, FCC censorship, or getting fined when you say a 'swear word' in public in front of kids, which happened in some states.
If someone wrongly accused you of it and one of these licenses was withheld or your business was suffering due to the public going elsewhere
If your 'license' was withheld because of a mere accusation, that just shows that our entire system needs to be reworked from the ground up, not that we need to abandon free speech.
As for businesses suffering, that's the fault of the people who blindly listen to accusations without anyone providing evidence.
you can blame those people all you want but the root cause would be whoever spread the rumors.
That would be true if the one who spread the rumors was controlling others like they were mindless automatons, but it's not. They chose to act based on someone else's speech, and for that, it is their fault that those actions happened.