Repeated assertions are not argument. "Yes they are!" "No they aren't!"
You haven't done anything to justify your authoritarianism, either.
But really, you haven't explained what these "sensibly written" obscenity laws entail. What the fuck are they? You've given me zero reason to take you seriously.
There's a world of difference between content-based restrictions and time-place-manner based restrictions - do you agree?
There are differences, but that doesn't make either acceptable. I'm for absolute free speech. If you have a problem with that, forget it; many individuals have argued with me and accomplished nothing by trying to change my opinion about a completely subjective matter, and in fact, I argued with a number of people in a different article just a day ago.
Do you think free speech zones are valid? What about the TSA, another time-place-manner-type restriction?
Their non-political speech?
What the shit does that have to do with anything? I hope you're not one of those ignorant fools who think that free speech is only about political speech.
Do you believe "dry counties" are constitutional?
I believe they're an awful idea and are anti-freedom. I don't know that they're necessarily unconstitutional, though. But they should be.
Can a local government restrict the sale of anything the democratic process dislikes?
No, I don't think tyranny of the majority of valid.
Remember, what's "subjective" is subjective - I can find a study supporting any crazy idea.
Yes, I suppose so. Now I'm confused. Are you arguing for or against "sensibly written" obscenity laws?
"Never ever" is a childish answer.
No, it's a principled answer to me in this case. "childish" is 100% subjective. I think you're childish for desiring this.
The government should "never ever" murder someone for no reason. Whoops, that's childish. Damn.
Such as *what*? How could possibly think it's a good idea to ban material subjectively deemed "obscene" by government thugs? What sort of magical "sensibly written" obscenity laws are you talking about, and what do they entail? Maybe I just have a completely different idea of what an obscenity law is and you're talking about something absolutely different.
For those that proclaim the first Amendment supreme
For those that don't, read the damn thing.
just walk up to them and scream in their ear as loud as you can. Keep it up for 12 days. Ask them about your right to spew anything you want out of your mouth after that.
Ever heard of "bias"? Even if someone changed their opinion, that would not make their previous opinion wrong.
Furthermore, you'd have difficulty doing that, as trespassing would prove to be a problem. Once you're on someone else's property, they can kick you off.
We should minimize subjective laws as much as possible, especially when it comes to things like freedom of speech. Obscenity laws are anti-freedom trash.
Restricting commercial sale of something "harmful" is completely within the remit of government.
Obscenity laws restrict content that is deemed to be offensive or objectionable somehow. Like the FCC's censorship. Selling the content is perfectly legit as well.
Freedom of speech > safety. Even if certain content was magically "harmful" (which is ridiculous anyway), I'm on the side of freedom here.
"Time, place, and manner" restrictions are legit.
Have fun with your free speech zones, authoritarian.
The first amendment makes no such exceptions anyway, not that you necessarily even care.
How does that follow? IQ = intelligence? Are there seriously still people repeating that tired myth?
I am extremely doubtful that you can determine a long-dead person's IQ if they weren't around to take any such tests. Then again, what else can you expect from soft science, or the media who report on it? IQ has all sorts of criticisms, but that certainly doesn't stop people from treating it as fact.
It's still far superior to voting for evil scumbags. Besides, part of the cause is that people vote for evil scumbags and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people vote for third parties, at the very least, it will send a message to The One Party.
Are you smart enough to see the difference between intentionally and knowingly harming things and unknowingly doing so when going about your life? Are you consistent enough to see that we actually acknowledge this difference in our own legal system?
At 145+ we have geniuses(~0.1% of the population).
Nonsense, because IQ != intelligence. It's just correlated with certain things, and that is sometimes arbitrarily interpreted to indicate intelligence.
And I originally referred to the scientific basis for IQ.
You just said, "It was meant to measure success in school, and in life." That doesn't qualify as a scientific, objective definition of intelligence. It just means that IQ can correlate with success in school and in life. Then, you proceeded to mention folk 'wisdom' as if it's relevant.
No, but thousands of cognitive psychologists have.
Really? Somehow I doubt you're summarizing their results accurately, anyway.
If you have an objective, scientific definition of "intelligence" (and you just implied you did), the world would like to hear it. Just a moment ago, you were citing folk 'wisdom,' so forgive me if I seem a bit reluctant to take you seriously.
That's nonsense. It isn't scientific to come to the arbitrary conclusion that 'success' in school and life = intelligence. If you want to show that it is, then you need to perform a scientific study. Have you done so?
It has always been summed up in the folk wisdom of the sentence: "If you're so smart why aren't you rich?"
Folk 'wisdom' isn't science. Plenty of people I think anyone would deem a genius were poor. Not everyone necessarily wants to get rich; they might have different priorities.
Slashdot Mirror
Repeated assertions are not argument. "Yes they are!" "No they aren't!"
You haven't done anything to justify your authoritarianism, either.
But really, you haven't explained what these "sensibly written" obscenity laws entail. What the fuck are they? You've given me zero reason to take you seriously.
There's a world of difference between content-based restrictions and time-place-manner based restrictions - do you agree?
There are differences, but that doesn't make either acceptable. I'm for absolute free speech. If you have a problem with that, forget it; many individuals have argued with me and accomplished nothing by trying to change my opinion about a completely subjective matter, and in fact, I argued with a number of people in a different article just a day ago.
Do you think free speech zones are valid? What about the TSA, another time-place-manner-type restriction?
Their non-political speech?
What the shit does that have to do with anything? I hope you're not one of those ignorant fools who think that free speech is only about political speech.
Do you believe "dry counties" are constitutional?
I believe they're an awful idea and are anti-freedom. I don't know that they're necessarily unconstitutional, though. But they should be.
Can a local government restrict the sale of anything the democratic process dislikes?
No, I don't think tyranny of the majority of valid.
Remember, what's "subjective" is subjective - I can find a study supporting any crazy idea.
Yes, I suppose so. Now I'm confused. Are you arguing for or against "sensibly written" obscenity laws?
"Never ever" is a childish answer.
No, it's a principled answer to me in this case. "childish" is 100% subjective. I think you're childish for desiring this.
The government should "never ever" murder someone for no reason. Whoops, that's childish. Damn.
Not the sensibly written ones.
Such as *what*? How could possibly think it's a good idea to ban material subjectively deemed "obscene" by government thugs? What sort of magical "sensibly written" obscenity laws are you talking about, and what do they entail? Maybe I just have a completely different idea of what an obscenity law is and you're talking about something absolutely different.
For those that proclaim the first Amendment supreme
For those that don't, read the damn thing.
just walk up to them and scream in their ear as loud as you can. Keep it up for 12 days. Ask them about your right to spew anything you want out of your mouth after that.
Ever heard of "bias"? Even if someone changed their opinion, that would not make their previous opinion wrong.
Furthermore, you'd have difficulty doing that, as trespassing would prove to be a problem. Once you're on someone else's property, they can kick you off.
All law is subjective.
We should minimize subjective laws as much as possible, especially when it comes to things like freedom of speech. Obscenity laws are anti-freedom trash.
Restricting commercial sale of something "harmful" is completely within the remit of government.
Obscenity laws restrict content that is deemed to be offensive or objectionable somehow. Like the FCC's censorship. Selling the content is perfectly legit as well.
Freedom of speech > safety. Even if certain content was magically "harmful" (which is ridiculous anyway), I'm on the side of freedom here.
"Time, place, and manner" restrictions are legit.
Have fun with your free speech zones, authoritarian.
The first amendment makes no such exceptions anyway, not that you necessarily even care.
People have gotten smarter.
How does that follow? IQ = intelligence? Are there seriously still people repeating that tired myth?
I am extremely doubtful that you can determine a long-dead person's IQ if they weren't around to take any such tests. Then again, what else can you expect from soft science, or the media who report on it? IQ has all sorts of criticisms, but that certainly doesn't stop people from treating it as fact.
It's still far superior to voting for evil scumbags. Besides, part of the cause is that people vote for evil scumbags and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people vote for third parties, at the very least, it will send a message to The One Party.
Are you smart enough to see the difference between intentionally and knowingly harming things and unknowingly doing so when going about your life? Are you consistent enough to see that we actually acknowledge this difference in our own legal system?
At 145+ we have geniuses(~0.1% of the population).
Nonsense, because IQ != intelligence. It's just correlated with certain things, and that is sometimes arbitrarily interpreted to indicate intelligence.
And I originally referred to the scientific basis for IQ.
You just said, "It was meant to measure success in school, and in life." That doesn't qualify as a scientific, objective definition of intelligence. It just means that IQ can correlate with success in school and in life. Then, you proceeded to mention folk 'wisdom' as if it's relevant.
or evil i.e. a cultural Marxist.
That makes no sense.
No, but thousands of cognitive psychologists have.
Really? Somehow I doubt you're summarizing their results accurately, anyway.
If you have an objective, scientific definition of "intelligence" (and you just implied you did), the world would like to hear it. Just a moment ago, you were citing folk 'wisdom,' so forgive me if I seem a bit reluctant to take you seriously.
That's nonsense. It isn't scientific to come to the arbitrary conclusion that 'success' in school and life = intelligence. If you want to show that it is, then you need to perform a scientific study. Have you done so?
It has always been summed up in the folk wisdom of the sentence: "If you're so smart why aren't you rich?"
Folk 'wisdom' isn't science. Plenty of people I think anyone would deem a genius were poor. Not everyone necessarily wants to get rich; they might have different priorities.
Maybe we could get rid our desire to have sex. Another alternative is to stop caring and stop being so puritan.