... and your argument depends on people being sheeple.
By and large, people don't have the time, money, or knowledge to challenge petty nonsense like this. But it's still morally wrong to have a system in place where a mere accusation results in an actual punishment.
I wish more people would fight it, but they demonstrably won't. Does that make any of this right? Absolutely not. This company should be punished severely.
"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation." -- General Douglas MacArthur.
That's practical advice. None of this makes it right. You absolutely have a right to complain when someone does unethical things like this.
What a bunch of nonsense. You're playing nonsensical semantic games. By providing positive proof, you disprove the negative simultaneously. The absolutist statement "You cannot prove a negative." did not distinguish between types of negatives and is therefore trivially debunked. Redefining "negative" will not help you.
In your examples you are not actually proving a negative (that something didn't happen).
Nonsense. If someone challenges you to prove that someone did not draw a square circle, then you can prove them wrong. "You can not prove a negative." is an absolutist statement that can easily be debunked, and already has been. The type of negative is irrelevant, as that person did not distinguish between them.
There is such a thing as reasonableness. This conversation is just pedantry and nothing more.
But while this is happening, the statement was, "You cannot prove a negative." If you can prove any negative, whether it's possible or not, then you've debunked that statement.
They don't prove anything, as they dish out punishments before you ever see a court room. I think our system of having 'petty' matters handled outside of courts is deeply flawed, as there is simply too much room for abuse. You force everything to go to court (automatically, not just when people feel like it) and suddenly you less focus on petty nonsense and less lying from cops and corporations.
Automation of surveillance is part of the problem.
I'm not fine with any sort of mass automatic government surveillance of public places. Anyone with any sort of knowledge of history should be opposed to it, too.
they should be responsible for the consequences of lending it to someone even if they choose to hide him/her.
Should? You are mistaken. Your authoritarian thinking only leads to people being punished for copyright infringement even when they had nothing to do with it. There are all sorts of ways to abuse people when you use this sort of 'logic.'
Your mother may be a whore. Unlikely, but not impossible. See?
You're an idiot. You responded as if he was saying that it was what actually happened; that was a mere straw man. In reality, he said it was unlikely. "Your mother" insults are just irrelevant to the article and the entire conversation. What you don't seem to understand is that it is indeed possible, just unlikely.
If you really need more help than this, I can't help you.
Look, if you have trouble with reading comprehension, just don't bother replying. It's your fault for replying with straw men.
A hypocrite cannot make a moral judgement of another who performed the exact same transgression as the accuser.
Sure they can.
Hitler saying Stalin is a bad guy, while true, rings hollow.
So you admit they can.
It simply becomes a pissing contest, with no useful outcome (which you apparently think there is, probably due to a lack of pharmaceuticals or talent..or both some may suggest).
Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. If you disagree with that, you must be lacking pharmaceuticals or talent (Seriously?).
Two4One deal of the day. See above.
No such deal exists. You're not actually debunking their arguments, and you admitted that what they say can still be true. And yet here you responded as if it *is* debunking their arguments. This makes no sense.
First: You possess too much pride and lack any sort of humility to admit that your implications made no fucking sense. "No I didn't SAY your mother was a whore, I was only asking questions!!". Please, you're embarrassing yourself.
"1) MS bribes people to complain. Unlikely, but not impossible."
Are you off your meds or you're just running out of things to say?
Neither. I just think it's ridiculous that hypocrisy is brought up in every discussion as if it's a good way to debunk your opponent's arguments; it isn't.
Like I said earlier. there's nothing wrong with attacking the opponent's weaknesses. Try "logical fallacy" that.
Just attacking your opponent and debunking their arguments is one thing; attacking your opponent's character in place of debunking their arguments is quite another.
Call me shallow, but I do tend to judge arguments based on an individual's character.
Then what have you gained? Because you lost a lot. You've now made it easier for petty employers to not hire/fire you, made it easier to stalk you, made it easier to harass you in real life, and put a stop to any sort of speech that goes against the majority on some emotional issue (i.e. child porn).
Maybe there are people who ignore whether or not they're using their real names, but not everyone is like that. You'll lose a lot of insightful comments enforcing real name garbage.
Did you read the article? They're basically rejoicing and laughing at spousal violence towards men, and mocking the very article they're talking about.
"After reviewing the answers, let's just say that it'd be wise to never ever fuck with us." "Another editor slapped a guy when "he told me he thought he had breast cancer." (Okay, that one made us laugh really hard.)" Yeah, that's hilarious.
Etc. I'm not sure how you could interpret it as you did without ignoring the actual jezebel article.
Then people should not be bringing hypocrisy into every discussion and not responding to the actual arguments that people presented; it makes it seem as if they think that attacking their character will debunk their arguments.
So you are back to proving my point, its all about what YOU think, what the others think is irrelevant.
When developing the tool that others can choose to use, it is about what you think. When others choose to use it, it's about what they think.
While yes I do support the tool, and I do despise censorship, it's still up to the people over there to choose to use the tool.
While i agree it was a bit of an extreme example, the crusades were considered moral, and there is no question about them imposing their concepts of it on others.
The crusades were also about oppressing others through the use of violence. What this is about is making available a tool that allows one to get around censorship, if one so chooses to use it. Not even remotely comparable.
and none of them have the right to interfere with the others.
When it comes to providing tools to get around censorship? Absolutely, they do. That's completely non-violent and completely optional.
Then what is 'my country' and 'my business', if you are so smart?
Is it your country? Even if it is, you don't have a say in what everyone else chooses to do.
( and whatever your answer is, its wrong. )
So I could guess literally any country on the planet and I would be wrong? Do you not live in Earth, or do you live somewhere that isn't part of a country?
Also, if you were to understand how china works, you dont have to create the tool, all you have to do is tell others its there to earn your [well deserved] fate.
Yes, well-deserved. For helping others get around censorship. What a heinous crime!
The fewer nosy people left in the world like you, the better the world would be.
As opposed to indoctrinated drones such as yourself who spew forth vitriolic remarks at anyone who dares to help people get access to more information that the authorities don't want you to know about. Yeah, we could definitely use more of you people.
I wouldn't be pissed at all if someone in China developed a tool that allowed me to get around US censorship, if such a thing existed in any major form like it does in China.
So no, I am no hypocrite. Also, I do not think breaking the law is wrong by itself; it depends on the law. As for rights... if anything, tools like this allow people in China (and elsewhere) to exercise their rights to a greater extent.
Your posts continue to make absolutely zero sense.
Sorry my friend, it would absolutely debunks EVERYTHING had you came across as a hypocrite (which you didn't).
Nope. Have you never heard of the tu quoque fallacy? A complete hypocrite can say things that are true, such as that 1 + 1 = 2, and they'll still remain true. Saying otherwise is a logical fallacy.
Ergo, the reaction to mind one's own fucking business.
Censorship is bad regardless of who does it. We should help anyone and everyone who wants to get around it.
Sure it is. What you seem to fail to realize is that people in China use this of their own volition. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them for having the audacity to not like censorship.
Its too bad you cant be extradited to china, then executed, for your interfering transgressions.
I certainly didn't make the tool. Is speech not considered interference?
Its not your country, keep your nose out of it.
It's not your country either, and you can't stop people who have the ability from developing tools that others want to use. Keep your nose out of their business; you're interfering.
Also, you're interfering with me with your stupid comments. What gives you the right to do that, authoritarian drone? Mind your own business.
You just said that its OK to interfere with other countries simply because you felt its right, which proves my point.
If by "interfere," you mean support the existence of a tool that people in said countries can choose to use to get around censorship, then yes.
I do hope some other country comes and interferes with you, because they "feel its right".
I would applaud it if someone made a tool that allowed us to get around censorship (they already exist).
Oh, and i never said 'take over', might want to learn some reading comprehension.
And yet your whiny, melodramatic rhetoric would seem to suggest exactly that. Does baby feel oppressed when people can use a tool to get around censorship? Do you need a diaper change?
Huh? It does not take any rigorous science to understand that stimulus we process has 'some' effect on us.
I thought you were going to say it's harmful. If you're just saying that they have some effect, regardless of what it is, then I would agree with that.
My point is that it doesn't come down to understanding the difference between reality and fantasy, there is more at play here than simply understanding the difference.
Having some effect is a very low bar and I don't really care. That doesn't even matter to me, and it doesn't affect my above point that people can tell reality from fantasy.
Slashdot Mirror
... and your argument depends on people being sheeple.
By and large, people don't have the time, money, or knowledge to challenge petty nonsense like this. But it's still morally wrong to have a system in place where a mere accusation results in an actual punishment.
I wish more people would fight it, but they demonstrably won't. Does that make any of this right? Absolutely not. This company should be punished severely.
"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation." -- General Douglas MacArthur.
That's practical advice. None of this makes it right. You absolutely have a right to complain when someone does unethical things like this.
What a bunch of nonsense. You're playing nonsensical semantic games. By providing positive proof, you disprove the negative simultaneously. The absolutist statement "You cannot prove a negative." did not distinguish between types of negatives and is therefore trivially debunked. Redefining "negative" will not help you.
In your examples you are not actually proving a negative (that something didn't happen).
Nonsense. If someone challenges you to prove that someone did not draw a square circle, then you can prove them wrong. "You can not prove a negative." is an absolutist statement that can easily be debunked, and already has been. The type of negative is irrelevant, as that person did not distinguish between them.
There is such a thing as reasonableness. This conversation is just pedantry and nothing more.
But while this is happening, the statement was, "You cannot prove a negative." If you can prove any negative, whether it's possible or not, then you've debunked that statement.
They don't prove anything, as they dish out punishments before you ever see a court room. I think our system of having 'petty' matters handled outside of courts is deeply flawed, as there is simply too much room for abuse. You force everything to go to court (automatically, not just when people feel like it) and suddenly you less focus on petty nonsense and less lying from cops and corporations.
Automation of surveillance is part of the problem.
Red light camera's I'm fine with.
I'm not fine with any sort of mass automatic government surveillance of public places. Anyone with any sort of knowledge of history should be opposed to it, too.
they should be responsible for the consequences of lending it to someone even if they choose to hide him/her.
Should? You are mistaken. Your authoritarian thinking only leads to people being punished for copyright infringement even when they had nothing to do with it. There are all sorts of ways to abuse people when you use this sort of 'logic.'
Ah, the usual foss fucktard argument: you don't need those features because I say so
Most people really don't need those features. That's just a fact.
Your argument is the usual retarded "FOSS is bad!" argument; as usual, they makes no sense.
Your mother may be a whore. Unlikely, but not impossible. See?
You're an idiot. You responded as if he was saying that it was what actually happened; that was a mere straw man. In reality, he said it was unlikely. "Your mother" insults are just irrelevant to the article and the entire conversation. What you don't seem to understand is that it is indeed possible, just unlikely.
If you really need more help than this, I can't help you.
Look, if you have trouble with reading comprehension, just don't bother replying. It's your fault for replying with straw men.
A hypocrite cannot make a moral judgement of another who performed the exact same transgression as the accuser.
Sure they can.
Hitler saying Stalin is a bad guy, while true, rings hollow.
So you admit they can.
It simply becomes a pissing contest, with no useful outcome (which you apparently think there is, probably due to a lack of pharmaceuticals or talent..or both some may suggest).
Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. If you disagree with that, you must be lacking pharmaceuticals or talent (Seriously?).
Two4One deal of the day. See above.
No such deal exists. You're not actually debunking their arguments, and you admitted that what they say can still be true. And yet here you responded as if it *is* debunking their arguments. This makes no sense.
First: You possess too much pride and lack any sort of humility to admit that your implications made no fucking sense. "No I didn't SAY your mother was a whore, I was only asking questions!!". Please, you're embarrassing yourself.
"1) MS bribes people to complain. Unlikely, but not impossible."
What part of that do you not understand?
Are you off your meds or you're just running out of things to say?
Neither. I just think it's ridiculous that hypocrisy is brought up in every discussion as if it's a good way to debunk your opponent's arguments; it isn't.
Like I said earlier. there's nothing wrong with attacking the opponent's weaknesses. Try "logical fallacy" that.
Just attacking your opponent and debunking their arguments is one thing; attacking your opponent's character in place of debunking their arguments is quite another.
Call me shallow, but I do tend to judge arguments based on an individual's character.
You're shallow, and your thinking is fallacious.
Then what have you gained? Because you lost a lot. You've now made it easier for petty employers to not hire/fire you, made it easier to stalk you, made it easier to harass you in real life, and put a stop to any sort of speech that goes against the majority on some emotional issue (i.e. child porn).
Maybe there are people who ignore whether or not they're using their real names, but not everyone is like that. You'll lose a lot of insightful comments enforcing real name garbage.
Did you read the article? They're basically rejoicing and laughing at spousal violence towards men, and mocking the very article they're talking about.
"After reviewing the answers, let's just say that it'd be wise to never ever fuck with us."
"Another editor slapped a guy when "he told me he thought he had breast cancer." (Okay, that one made us laugh really hard.)" Yeah, that's hilarious.
Etc. I'm not sure how you could interpret it as you did without ignoring the actual jezebel article.
Dude, it has nothing to do with truth or fallacy.
Then people should not be bringing hypocrisy into every discussion and not responding to the actual arguments that people presented; it makes it seem as if they think that attacking their character will debunk their arguments.
Tu quoque is a logical fallacy no matter how many players there are. Someone's arguments stand or fall on their own merit.
Again, comparing two unlike qualities.
There was no comparison in my comment.
So you are back to proving my point, its all about what YOU think, what the others think is irrelevant.
When developing the tool that others can choose to use, it is about what you think. When others choose to use it, it's about what they think.
While yes I do support the tool, and I do despise censorship, it's still up to the people over there to choose to use the tool.
While i agree it was a bit of an extreme example, the crusades were considered moral, and there is no question about them imposing their concepts of it on others.
The crusades were also about oppressing others through the use of violence. What this is about is making available a tool that allows one to get around censorship, if one so chooses to use it. Not even remotely comparable.
and none of them have the right to interfere with the others.
When it comes to providing tools to get around censorship? Absolutely, they do. That's completely non-violent and completely optional.
I think that providing a tool that people can choose to use to get around censorship they feel is unjust is perfectly moral, even if it's illegal.
I suppose you supported the crusades too.
Nope. Whether something is illegal doesn't matter to me; that does not determine whether I think something is immoral or not.
Then what is 'my country' and 'my business', if you are so smart?
Is it your country? Even if it is, you don't have a say in what everyone else chooses to do.
( and whatever your answer is, its wrong. )
So I could guess literally any country on the planet and I would be wrong? Do you not live in Earth, or do you live somewhere that isn't part of a country?
Also, if you were to understand how china works, you dont have to create the tool, all you have to do is tell others its there to earn your [well deserved] fate.
Yes, well-deserved. For helping others get around censorship. What a heinous crime!
The fewer nosy people left in the world like you, the better the world would be.
As opposed to indoctrinated drones such as yourself who spew forth vitriolic remarks at anyone who dares to help people get access to more information that the authorities don't want you to know about. Yeah, we could definitely use more of you people.
I sincerely hope you're trolling.
I wouldn't be pissed at all if someone in China developed a tool that allowed me to get around US censorship, if such a thing existed in any major form like it does in China.
So no, I am no hypocrite. Also, I do not think breaking the law is wrong by itself; it depends on the law. As for rights... if anything, tools like this allow people in China (and elsewhere) to exercise their rights to a greater extent.
Your posts continue to make absolutely zero sense.
Sorry my friend, it would absolutely debunks EVERYTHING had you came across as a hypocrite (which you didn't).
Nope. Have you never heard of the tu quoque fallacy? A complete hypocrite can say things that are true, such as that 1 + 1 = 2, and they'll still remain true. Saying otherwise is a logical fallacy.
Ergo, the reaction to mind one's own fucking business.
Censorship is bad regardless of who does it. We should help anyone and everyone who wants to get around it.
It is not that simple, both legally or morally
Sure it is. What you seem to fail to realize is that people in China use this of their own volition. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them for having the audacity to not like censorship.
Its too bad you cant be extradited to china, then executed, for your interfering transgressions.
I certainly didn't make the tool. Is speech not considered interference?
Its not your country, keep your nose out of it.
It's not your country either, and you can't stop people who have the ability from developing tools that others want to use. Keep your nose out of their business; you're interfering.
Also, you're interfering with me with your stupid comments. What gives you the right to do that, authoritarian drone? Mind your own business.
You just said that its OK to interfere with other countries simply because you felt its right, which proves my point.
If by "interfere," you mean support the existence of a tool that people in said countries can choose to use to get around censorship, then yes.
I do hope some other country comes and interferes with you, because they "feel its right".
I would applaud it if someone made a tool that allowed us to get around censorship (they already exist).
Oh, and i never said 'take over', might want to learn some reading comprehension.
And yet your whiny, melodramatic rhetoric would seem to suggest exactly that. Does baby feel oppressed when people can use a tool to get around censorship? Do you need a diaper change?
Huh? It does not take any rigorous science to understand that stimulus we process has 'some' effect on us.
I thought you were going to say it's harmful. If you're just saying that they have some effect, regardless of what it is, then I would agree with that.
My point is that it doesn't come down to understanding the difference between reality and fantasy, there is more at play here than simply understanding the difference.
Having some effect is a very low bar and I don't really care. That doesn't even matter to me, and it doesn't affect my above point that people can tell reality from fantasy.