It neither makes me win nor lose the argument. The reality is that you people have a very flawed perspective of the situation.
Morals, something that is HIGHLY subjective.
I don't care. I do not not suggest doing things that I do not believe are moral; you probably think the same. You wouldn't want others to murder people, would you?
Because those tools violate the laws of another sovereign nation.
Law != morality, authoritarian drone. Do you have no mind of your own? You should be taking it up with the people using the tools, not the creators of the tools, though I suspect you'll quickly find that they don't really care all that much about draconian laws.
If china implements a death penalty for being caught with such tools would you still be happy?
All the more reason to do it, considering how much worse the country would be. If people don't want to risk it, then don't use the tools. Very simple.
Now quit with this melodramatic, "Help! Help! Someone released a tool that I don't even have to use! I'm being oppressed!" bullshit.
I didn't prove any of your points. The implication that China is being taken over by another country is just stupid; people in China use this tool of their own volition, you mental midget.
I have no reason to believe such effects exist, or that they would be significant or harmful even if they did exist. You'd have to use rigorous science (pseudoscience not allowed) to give anyone any reason to believe all these random hypotheses.
I'm not a big fan of citation wars, either. There are pseudoscientific psychology studies for everything, and for both sides. Just putting that out there, in case it came up.
Well, the US is *supposed* to be free speech, but actually has a lot of anti-free speech policies (like the FCC censorship, free speech zones, etc.). The concept is what is desirable.
It is good when a few people band together and express how their view is correct at the expense of others.
At the expense of others? In case you haven't heard, this tool is optional.
Here is a thought, perhaps some level of censorship is a good thing
Here is a thought: Freedom is more important than 'safety' from knowledge, which really isn't safety at all. It only allows oppression and control of the people. There are few things more intolerable to me than censorship, so you're wasting your time.
Evidently, though, there are people in China who do not agree with censorship. Otherwise, why the fuck would they choose to use these tools?
Clearly the Chinese can not adopt "western" models for some aspects of its society.
I don't want anyone to mindlessly adopt US policies; a lot of them are garbage. Take the good (freedom of speech) and leave the bad (drug war, TSA, NSA surveillance, etc.). Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the percentage of people imprisoned in the US; it's unrelated.
Censorship is "horrible" but putting people in jail because they chose to smoke a plant is totally OK right?
No, it isn't. Stop assuming that I agree with all of my own country's laws.
Lesson of the day: Law != morality. People can and should ignore unjust laws.
Lastly, food for thought. Why does it matter what the Chinese government does so much to its people?
Because people tend to care about other people, even if they happen to be in China? When you see a government violating people's fundamental rights, there will be people who wish to help. It's also nice to have these tools if our own government goes to shit.
Prostitution and pornography are also illigial in China, should you push your views on those and encourage them to change their rules because you disagree with them?
It's perfectly fine to criticize them for that. No one is suggesting we invade China, fool.
Are other nations free to create tools to violate US laws or is this a one-way street thing?
If something is legal to do in the nation you live in but isn't legal to do in the US, go right ahead. If it isn't moral, I don't suggest doing it, but other than that, go ahead. The US has *lots* of unjust laws.
If someone created a tool that allowed us to get around some unjust restrictions our own government placed on us, I would applaud that 100%, legal or not.
I don't get why people are so offended when others provide a tool that people can use to bypass censorship. What's the deal here? If you don't like it, just don't use it.
Subverting censorship. Government censorship that tries to control people's access to important information. Do you seriously need to ask that question?
Will it allow child pornography? Piracy?
Will knives allow murder? Using this ridiculous logic, everything would be banned. There is no conceivable way of stopping these things. The computer you're on now allows child pornography and copyright infringement (which is the right term, not "piracy").
I think you've severely misinterpreted what this article is about. There is no invasion of China. Someone made a tool that allows people who choose to use it to get around censorship. Once again, using it is completely voluntary and nothing is being forced on anyone.
Yeah, it's pretty sad how the first amendment is explicitly clear, and yet magically people think it's okay to punish people for their speech if they say something people don't like on broadcast tv or on the radio. We're not 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' and we never have been.
Terrorism has pretty much replaced McCarthyism. Oh, you posted a bomb joke on Twitter? The government is going to make your life hell.
How about when the US arrests citizens for possession of Child Porn, should devices to bypass this be created as well, after all isnt that censorship?
Yes, such devices should and do exist.
How about when your own FTC "bans" words from being said on the radio or TV, isn't that censorship?
Yes, it is. It's a disgusting violation of the first amendment, and it's sad that our Supreme Court thinks they have the ability to modify the constitution with invisible ink.
China has a right to restrict any speech they like [with their own citizens], and you have no right to interfere.
Erm... what you still don't seem to understand is that there is no invasion! People in China *choose* to use this software of their own fucking volition. Stop acting like it's being forced, or that there is some sort of invasion on the Chinese.
Such censorship is horrible, and I think providing tools that people can choose to use to get around it is perfectly okay.
People like me? Once again, who is forcing anyone to use these tools? Who is meddling? People in countries with censorship can *choose* to use these tools. What is your specific complaint with this? Are you pro-censorship? Do you think that laws and society is always right, so anyone who provides tools that people can choose to use to get around censorship are wrong? Just what is your problem?
I don't recall anyone forcing anyone to use this. If there are people who don't like the fundamental right to free speech and love censorship, then they're welcome to simply not use this.
How would you feel if another country did it to you?
Did what? There are no invasions here. What's with you idiots? Do you have some problem with giving people the option to get around censorship if they want to or something?
The fact that you've failed to provided it shows that you are completely dishonest in your demands.
No, it doesn't. The issue is a subjective one. Nothing I said is dishonest.
But here you go: Since the elimination of the draft, the average number of conflicts per year (none of them declared as wars) that the US has been involved in has tripled.
Making a claim and equating correlation with causation does nothing, because there could be any number of other factors. That sort of thing should be left to the psychologists.
Also, the draft could come back; that's what the Selective Service is for. It's not as if all the wars in the past used a draft; many didn't.
In a democracy, all citizens have equal rights and equal obligations.
In a free country that is supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' the government does not own your body and force you to go war; that should be reserved for dictatorships only. The government does not own my body, and I'd much rather risk having more wars than have the government be able to force me to go to war.
When the nation is in peril the obligation of saving it should be shared by all, not foisted on a small percentage.
Rather, in a democracy, if the people decide the nation is not worth protecting, or that they do not wish to go to war, then they won't go to war.
Asking for scientific proof is intellectually dishonest? You made a claim about something that should be measurable, now back it up.
Considering that we already pay taxes, we are already slaves.
Enslaving your body and forcing you to go to war is on an entirely different level.
War is a tool of authoritarianism, encouraging participation in the decision to go to war is the opposite of authoritarianism.
Both are tools of authoritarianism.
So are you going to offer scientific proof that pro-draft people caused all of those things, or what?
You have a similar mentality - the mentality that is willing to give up fundamental liberties for safety of some sort. People like you are the cause of these things. That is my opinion. I do not have scientific proof to back it up.
See how that bullshit works?
Asking for scientific proof is valid, even when it's done to me.
And when war is deterred, you don't even notice it.
So, are you going to offer scientific proof that it's actually an effective deterrent, or what? Just saying, "Wow, look at all these wars that would have happened had we not had the draft!" doesn't qualify as scientific proof.
Welcome to real life.
Welcome to real life, where people's fundamental liberties are infringed upon in the name of safety by scumbag authoritarians.
We all have responsibilities to the society we live in.
And when you make it a responsible to be a slave to the government, you cease to be a free society. In 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' the government would not be able to force people to participate in wars - it would be voluntary. We are not truly 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' but we should aspire to be.
Having a direct and personal stake in the decision to go to war against another society is a fundamental responsibility.
No, it isn't. That's just what you and your authoritarian buddies tell yourselves. Is it to make yourself feel better about infringing upon people's fundamental liberties, which are far more important than your silly "responsibilities"?
You people, who go on and on about "responsibilities" to justify infringing upon people's individual liberties, are responsible for things such as the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, protest permits, free speech zones, constitution-free zones, stop-and-frisk, and plenty of other horrible rights-infringing policies/organizations. Screw your 'safety' or 'responsibility'; in a truly free country, fundamental freedoms would be preferred.
You're an idiot if you think anecdotes aren't valuable in this discussion.
I'm an idiot if I disagree with your opinion about a completely subjective matter?
But that does not make them totally worthless, and this conversation is an example of one where they can be used to demonstrate a point. The "ZOMG Anecdotes!" response demonstrates your misunderstanding of their use and misuse.
No, it doesn't. I just noted it was an anecdote, and therefore not representative of the population as a whole. These anecdotes aren't going to do much beyond show that something isn't 100% true in all cases, if they do even that.
Also, after reading your comments, it's clear that you don't know shit about raising kids, don't know shit about people and don't know shit about broad social issues.
Nice ad hominem attacks, there. But that won't debunk any of my arguments.
Furthermore, you don't know me, and you don't know that I don't have kids and/or that I don't know anything about raising them. Do you think that only mental midgets are parents? A lot of parents would be offended by that insinuation. Do you think that all kids are alike? What works for some kids will not work for others, and what doesn't work with some kids will work with others. Surely you know this?
You're likely just arguing here to defend your own profligate, degenerate lifestyle rather than face the realities that would be obvious if you were willing to spend 5 minutes outside your little comfort zone.
More content-less nonsense that does nothing to prove whatever viewpoint you're trying to put forth. If these "realities" are so "obvious," why not put forth peer-reviewed scientific evidence that is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community?
I also like how you used the phrase "profligate, degenerate lifestyle" like a puritan moron. Well, this is already a content-free discussion, so we might as well step it up.
My grandkids will TELL you that they know the difference between games and real life.
Where are you going with this? Oh, an anecdote. Of course.
But then they play-fight a hell of a lot more rough than my brother & I did
And you blame video games for this? Has it ever occurred to you that they can indeed tell the difference, that some kids play rough, and that imitating certain fun-looking things in video games is not evidence that they can't tell the difference between fiction and reality? Even if they do play more rough than you did, that does not mean it's because of video games; they're different people entirely.
What happened here is that there was a scan of passport photos, which primarily identified people who got passports under an assumed identity
Yes, I think everyone is already aware of that. Read this giant thread.
On the other hand, I would notice a cavity search.
"What you don't know can't hurt you" is the most ridiculous argument, especially when it comes to civil liberties. Any rights violation--whether you're aware of it or not--is automatically harmful by its very nature.
The passport scan would not make me reluctant to do things that might be misconstrued
Well, it absolutely should. It's just another way for the government to impede your right to travel if you don't want to implicitly give up certain rights - your right to privacy, in this case. Facial recognition software allows them to more easily identify dissidents; it's just another tool of oppression. The fact is, unless they have a warrant, they should not be 'searching' this information like this at all.
I don't see one person who said that every single person on Earth, without exception, is intelligent enough to tell the difference. Religious is an exercise in compartmentalization where people who have an otherwise solid grasp on reality can fall victim to irrationality; it does not indicate that they can't do something as simple as telling a video game apart from reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Name calling, the last resort to win an argument?
It neither makes me win nor lose the argument. The reality is that you people have a very flawed perspective of the situation.
Morals, something that is HIGHLY subjective.
I don't care. I do not not suggest doing things that I do not believe are moral; you probably think the same. You wouldn't want others to murder people, would you?
Because those tools violate the laws of another sovereign nation.
Law != morality, authoritarian drone. Do you have no mind of your own? You should be taking it up with the people using the tools, not the creators of the tools, though I suspect you'll quickly find that they don't really care all that much about draconian laws.
If china implements a death penalty for being caught with such tools would you still be happy?
All the more reason to do it, considering how much worse the country would be. If people don't want to risk it, then don't use the tools. Very simple.
Now quit with this melodramatic, "Help! Help! Someone released a tool that I don't even have to use! I'm being oppressed!" bullshit.
I didn't prove any of your points. The implication that China is being taken over by another country is just stupid; people in China use this tool of their own volition, you mental midget.
I have no reason to believe such effects exist, or that they would be significant or harmful even if they did exist. You'd have to use rigorous science (pseudoscience not allowed) to give anyone any reason to believe all these random hypotheses.
I'm not a big fan of citation wars, either. There are pseudoscientific psychology studies for everything, and for both sides. Just putting that out there, in case it came up.
Take the good (freedom of speech)
Well, the US is *supposed* to be free speech, but actually has a lot of anti-free speech policies (like the FCC censorship, free speech zones, etc.). The concept is what is desirable.
It is good when a few people band together and express how their view is correct at the expense of others.
At the expense of others? In case you haven't heard, this tool is optional.
Here is a thought, perhaps some level of censorship is a good thing
Here is a thought: Freedom is more important than 'safety' from knowledge, which really isn't safety at all. It only allows oppression and control of the people. There are few things more intolerable to me than censorship, so you're wasting your time.
Evidently, though, there are people in China who do not agree with censorship. Otherwise, why the fuck would they choose to use these tools?
Clearly the Chinese can not adopt "western" models for some aspects of its society.
I don't want anyone to mindlessly adopt US policies; a lot of them are garbage. Take the good (freedom of speech) and leave the bad (drug war, TSA, NSA surveillance, etc.). Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the percentage of people imprisoned in the US; it's unrelated.
Censorship is "horrible" but putting people in jail because they chose to smoke a plant is totally OK right?
No, it isn't. Stop assuming that I agree with all of my own country's laws.
Lesson of the day: Law != morality. People can and should ignore unjust laws.
Lastly, food for thought. Why does it matter what the Chinese government does so much to its people?
Because people tend to care about other people, even if they happen to be in China? When you see a government violating people's fundamental rights, there will be people who wish to help. It's also nice to have these tools if our own government goes to shit.
Prostitution and pornography are also illigial in China, should you push your views on those and encourage them to change their rules because you disagree with them?
It's perfectly fine to criticize them for that. No one is suggesting we invade China, fool.
Are other nations free to create tools to violate US laws or is this a one-way street thing?
If something is legal to do in the nation you live in but isn't legal to do in the US, go right ahead. If it isn't moral, I don't suggest doing it, but other than that, go ahead. The US has *lots* of unjust laws.
If someone created a tool that allowed us to get around some unjust restrictions our own government placed on us, I would applaud that 100%, legal or not.
I don't get why people are so offended when others provide a tool that people can use to bypass censorship. What's the deal here? If you don't like it, just don't use it.
Do you support Obama censorship of images of abuse at Abu Ghraib
I don't support any form of government censorship.
Are Bradley Manning(now Chelsea), and Edward Snowden patriots or traitors?
Patriots.
What's the point of these questions? Even if I were a complete hypocrite, it would not debunk a single thing that I have said.
Subverting censorship. Government censorship that tries to control people's access to important information. Do you seriously need to ask that question?
Will it allow child pornography? Piracy?
Will knives allow murder? Using this ridiculous logic, everything would be banned. There is no conceivable way of stopping these things. The computer you're on now allows child pornography and copyright infringement (which is the right term, not "piracy").
I think you've severely misinterpreted what this article is about. There is no invasion of China. Someone made a tool that allows people who choose to use it to get around censorship. Once again, using it is completely voluntary and nothing is being forced on anyone.
What part of this is difficult to understand?
Yeah, it's pretty sad how the first amendment is explicitly clear, and yet magically people think it's okay to punish people for their speech if they say something people don't like on broadcast tv or on the radio. We're not 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' and we never have been.
Terrorism has pretty much replaced McCarthyism. Oh, you posted a bomb joke on Twitter? The government is going to make your life hell.
Do you think we should get rid of these?
Yes. Get rid of them.
How about when the US arrests citizens for possession of Child Porn, should devices to bypass this be created as well, after all isnt that censorship?
Yes, such devices should and do exist.
How about when your own FTC "bans" words from being said on the radio or TV, isn't that censorship?
Yes, it is. It's a disgusting violation of the first amendment, and it's sad that our Supreme Court thinks they have the ability to modify the constitution with invisible ink.
China has a right to restrict any speech they like [with their own citizens], and you have no right to interfere.
Erm... what you still don't seem to understand is that there is no invasion! People in China *choose* to use this software of their own fucking volition. Stop acting like it's being forced, or that there is some sort of invasion on the Chinese.
Such censorship is horrible, and I think providing tools that people can choose to use to get around it is perfectly okay.
People like me? Once again, who is forcing anyone to use these tools? Who is meddling? People in countries with censorship can *choose* to use these tools. What is your specific complaint with this? Are you pro-censorship? Do you think that laws and society is always right, so anyone who provides tools that people can choose to use to get around censorship are wrong? Just what is your problem?
Kids that age don't yet comprehend reality
Not all kids are mentally retarded. Plenty are more than capable of comprehending reality unless they're actively indoctrinated to do the opposite.
What's rather funny is that a lot of the people who scream about "anti-Semitism" also criticize others for playing the race card all the time.
I don't recall anyone forcing anyone to use this. If there are people who don't like the fundamental right to free speech and love censorship, then they're welcome to simply not use this.
How would you feel if another country did it to you?
Did what? There are no invasions here. What's with you idiots? Do you have some problem with giving people the option to get around censorship if they want to or something?
The fact that you've failed to provided it shows that you are completely dishonest in your demands.
No, it doesn't. The issue is a subjective one. Nothing I said is dishonest.
But here you go: Since the elimination of the draft, the average number of conflicts per year (none of them declared as wars) that the US has been involved in has tripled.
Making a claim and equating correlation with causation does nothing, because there could be any number of other factors. That sort of thing should be left to the psychologists.
Also, the draft could come back; that's what the Selective Service is for. It's not as if all the wars in the past used a draft; many didn't.
In a democracy, all citizens have equal rights and equal obligations.
In a free country that is supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' the government does not own your body and force you to go war; that should be reserved for dictatorships only. The government does not own my body, and I'd much rather risk having more wars than have the government be able to force me to go to war.
When the nation is in peril the obligation of saving it should be shared by all, not foisted on a small percentage.
Rather, in a democracy, if the people decide the nation is not worth protecting, or that they do not wish to go to war, then they won't go to war.
Please, don't be intellectually dishonest.
Asking for scientific proof is intellectually dishonest? You made a claim about something that should be measurable, now back it up.
Considering that we already pay taxes, we are already slaves.
Enslaving your body and forcing you to go to war is on an entirely different level.
War is a tool of authoritarianism, encouraging participation in the decision to go to war is the opposite of authoritarianism.
Both are tools of authoritarianism.
So are you going to offer scientific proof that pro-draft people caused all of those things, or what?
You have a similar mentality - the mentality that is willing to give up fundamental liberties for safety of some sort. People like you are the cause of these things. That is my opinion. I do not have scientific proof to back it up.
See how that bullshit works?
Asking for scientific proof is valid, even when it's done to me.
If you allow children to watch movies like the Expendables, you're part of the problem.
Part of the problem that seemingly doesn't exist.
And when war is deterred, you don't even notice it.
So, are you going to offer scientific proof that it's actually an effective deterrent, or what? Just saying, "Wow, look at all these wars that would have happened had we not had the draft!" doesn't qualify as scientific proof.
Welcome to real life.
Welcome to real life, where people's fundamental liberties are infringed upon in the name of safety by scumbag authoritarians.
We all have responsibilities to the society we live in.
And when you make it a responsible to be a slave to the government, you cease to be a free society. In 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' the government would not be able to force people to participate in wars - it would be voluntary. We are not truly 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' but we should aspire to be.
Having a direct and personal stake in the decision to go to war against another society is a fundamental responsibility.
No, it isn't. That's just what you and your authoritarian buddies tell yourselves. Is it to make yourself feel better about infringing upon people's fundamental liberties, which are far more important than your silly "responsibilities"?
You people, who go on and on about "responsibilities" to justify infringing upon people's individual liberties, are responsible for things such as the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, protest permits, free speech zones, constitution-free zones, stop-and-frisk, and plenty of other horrible rights-infringing policies/organizations. Screw your 'safety' or 'responsibility'; in a truly free country, fundamental freedoms would be preferred.
You're an idiot if you think anecdotes aren't valuable in this discussion.
I'm an idiot if I disagree with your opinion about a completely subjective matter?
But that does not make them totally worthless, and this conversation is an example of one where they can be used to demonstrate a point. The "ZOMG Anecdotes!" response demonstrates your misunderstanding of their use and misuse.
No, it doesn't. I just noted it was an anecdote, and therefore not representative of the population as a whole. These anecdotes aren't going to do much beyond show that something isn't 100% true in all cases, if they do even that.
Also, after reading your comments, it's clear that you don't know shit about raising kids, don't know shit about people and don't know shit about broad social issues.
Nice ad hominem attacks, there. But that won't debunk any of my arguments.
Furthermore, you don't know me, and you don't know that I don't have kids and/or that I don't know anything about raising them. Do you think that only mental midgets are parents? A lot of parents would be offended by that insinuation. Do you think that all kids are alike? What works for some kids will not work for others, and what doesn't work with some kids will work with others. Surely you know this?
You're likely just arguing here to defend your own profligate, degenerate lifestyle rather than face the realities that would be obvious if you were willing to spend 5 minutes outside your little comfort zone.
More content-less nonsense that does nothing to prove whatever viewpoint you're trying to put forth. If these "realities" are so "obvious," why not put forth peer-reviewed scientific evidence that is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community?
I also like how you used the phrase "profligate, degenerate lifestyle" like a puritan moron. Well, this is already a content-free discussion, so we might as well step it up.
The draft is the single best deterrent to war.
Worked so well for all those wars that utilized it, like Vietnam.
And more importantly, it's also a good way to infringe upon people's fundamental liberties. Can't have people owning their own bodies, now!
My grandkids will TELL you that they know the difference between games and real life.
Where are you going with this? Oh, an anecdote. Of course.
But then they play-fight a hell of a lot more rough than my brother & I did
And you blame video games for this? Has it ever occurred to you that they can indeed tell the difference, that some kids play rough, and that imitating certain fun-looking things in video games is not evidence that they can't tell the difference between fiction and reality? Even if they do play more rough than you did, that does not mean it's because of video games; they're different people entirely.
What happened here is that there was a scan of passport photos, which primarily identified people who got passports under an assumed identity
Yes, I think everyone is already aware of that. Read this giant thread.
On the other hand, I would notice a cavity search.
"What you don't know can't hurt you" is the most ridiculous argument, especially when it comes to civil liberties. Any rights violation--whether you're aware of it or not--is automatically harmful by its very nature.
The passport scan would not make me reluctant to do things that might be misconstrued
Well, it absolutely should. It's just another way for the government to impede your right to travel if you don't want to implicitly give up certain rights - your right to privacy, in this case. Facial recognition software allows them to more easily identify dissidents; it's just another tool of oppression. The fact is, unless they have a warrant, they should not be 'searching' this information like this at all.
I don't see one person who said that every single person on Earth, without exception, is intelligent enough to tell the difference. Religious is an exercise in compartmentalization where people who have an otherwise solid grasp on reality can fall victim to irrationality; it does not indicate that they can't do something as simple as telling a video game apart from reality.
I don't think acknowledging simple, obvious reality is all that special a trait.