Once slaves agree to a set of minimum behavioral norms that define a civil society, then they'll have rights.
This is, of course, extraordinarily silly. Ask a slave if he'll behave if he's set free. He'll say yes.
This is what I mean by the cartoon world. This is the best argument you could come up with?
Point being, we as human beings are curiously elitist when it comes to deciding who should and should not have rights.
If any non-humans want to weigh in on the topic, I'm sure their opinions will be noted. Until then, human will decide because we're the ones who can decide. We are the elite. Elitism over the other species is 100% warranted and earned.
Most children... have no clue what a "civil society" is, yet they still have rights.
Not really. Children have guardians who are responsible for them. Those guardians are also responsible to society for the wellbeing of the children. That's not the same thing as "rights". It becomes somewhat of a grey area for teenagers when they are old enough to start being minimally responsble.
Also adults may not know what a civil society is, but they tend to know how to live in a society civilly. The persumption is that they'll generally succeed in meeting minimum behavioral norms. Those who can't, such as criminals and the insane, lose that presumption and the benefit of their rights.
But really whether they have rights or not isn't the issue...
Yes. It is.
And that's the point of all this "civil society" crap, to reduce suffering.
Wrong. A civil society is an end in itself. It's one of the hallmarks of humanity.
The difference between humanity and the animals is an important one. Humans have more value than animals in every sense of the word "value". Failure to recognize this fact is not in the best interests of humans. And it's the best interest of humans that matters.
Animals don't have rights. It's not that much of a leap from the fantasy that anmials have rights to the justification that it's OK to firebomb people to protect animals.
Reality never intercedes because it was left behind when the animal rights activists refused to complete the transition to adulthood and the realities and responsibilities that come with it. Some people just decide to live in a cartoon world.
When animals agree to a set of minimum behavioral norms that define a civil society, then they'll have rights. Until then, it's the law of the jungle that defines the lives and fortunes of animals.
Not every person on this planet has the same scope of choices available.
But among the choices he does have, I trust him to make the best one. He'll do a better job than you or me at choosing, because he has more information than we do about his life.
You could trust the person who put it together. He can determine whether he's paid fairly or not. And if not, he can choose to do something else.
See how that works? You sleep better by trusting people to live their own lives and make their own decisions. They can do that because they have more information about their lives than you do.
Has it ever occured to you that perhaps advertisers may very well have an agenda they funnel through the press, via which stories they tell? Imbalance is not due to bias; it is due to corporate greed.
And your evidence for this is... ?
It doesn't really matter why the press does a bad job. It matters how often and how long and what damage it does.
And you think this lawsuit is going to *improve* the quality of newspapers?
I think almost all newspapers will go out of business in the next 15 years either way.
Newspapers will be even less likely to report on anything that might piss anyone off.
Maybe they'll have to double-check their facts. Maybe they'll have to get both sides of the story. Perhaps they'll have to take a skeptical look at the authenticity of their documents and photographs.
Why work hard and risk getting sued by reporting on corporate wrong-doing when you can reprint their press releases and spend ten pages talking about entertainment bullshit?
Why work at all when you can just make stuff up? Why find out the whole story when you can print "allegations"? Why be balanced when you can simply indulge your anti-corporate hatred? Why serve your readers the whole story when you can just use bumper-sticker terms like "sweatshop" to appeal to their juvenile emotions? Why bother with reality when there's a story to be told?
I would agree with you if you were talking about some time in the past (say 1900-1960). The news media has become a huge destructive force. The cost of their lies outweighs the value of everything else they do by a large margin. We have the internet now. We don't have to pay that cost any more.
When bad things happen to the press it's a step forward for everyone getting the full story on what's going on instead of just the bits that feed the reporter's biases (even if the reporter has to make them up). The news in the newspaper has become less true and less balanced than the advertisements.
The media tries to damage a company (and all the people working there, and all the stockholders and suppliers) with a distorted drive-by hit story. It's a little refreshing to see someone hitting back for a change.
This new tech might invade the terrorist's privacy. Just like George Bush did when he monitored the recent British terrorist's communications. Now we're going to start scanning for explosives?
Ben Franklin said: "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither".
Is it really worth the slight possibility of a privacy violation to keep planes from getting blown up by terrorists? (If there even are terrorists and it's not a conspiracy).
I can't believe $ony! They want to take even MORE of our money!! Why weren't all these included with the console? $ony is always trying to get more......
Oh wait, it's the Xbox.
Yeay! Thanks Microsoft. Wow! I can't believe they're only charging this much. Halo rox.
Good thing too. Otherwise, we'd have to let the terrorists go and allow them to blow up the planes. Proper procedure is just too important to compromise.
Ben Franklin said: "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither". And that means terrorists should be allowed to succeed sometimes -- or something like that.
What if finding these liquid explosives invades the terrorist's privacy? Isn't it bad enough that the NSA was spying on these terrorists and violating their privacy in the UK? Now you want to detect their explosives? Someday, terrorists won't be able to enjoy any privacy at all!
Announcer: Astronomers from Tacoma to Vladivostok have just reported an ionic disturbance in the vicinity of the Van Allen Belt. Scientists are recommending that necessary precautions be taken. Homer: [scoffs] Eggheads. What do they know?
Yeah, it's too bad when terrorism doesn't work out to your political advantage. Those terrorists sure are inconsiderate that way.
Maybe if you told the terrorists that "Bush is Hitler" a few more times? Maybe more "9/11 was an inside job" talk would help the terrorists understand your political needs?
Or maybe if your side had a plan to deal with terrorism you wouldn't have to worry about the politics in these cases? Maybe if your side's first impulse wasn't to blame America for everything bad that happens, Americans would be more willing to elect your guys to represent them? Just maybe.
Maybe, but the article summary didn't say "art", it said "elite" and "culturally significant". It's elitism, which is distinct from art apreciation.
All entertainment may not be equally artful, but the preference for one entertainment over another doesn't make you great, or good, or better than other people.
Slashdot Mirror
Once slaves agree to a set of minimum behavioral norms that define a civil society, then they'll have rights.
This is, of course, extraordinarily silly. Ask a slave if he'll behave if he's set free. He'll say yes.
This is what I mean by the cartoon world. This is the best argument you could come up with?
Point being, we as human beings are curiously elitist when it comes to deciding who should and should not have rights.
If any non-humans want to weigh in on the topic, I'm sure their opinions will be noted. Until then, human will decide because we're the ones who can decide. We are the elite. Elitism over the other species is 100% warranted and earned.
Most children ... have no clue what a "civil society" is, yet they still have rights.
Not really. Children have guardians who are responsible for them. Those guardians are also responsible to society for the wellbeing of the children. That's not the same thing as "rights". It becomes somewhat of a grey area for teenagers when they are old enough to start being minimally responsble.
Also adults may not know what a civil society is, but they tend to know how to live in a society civilly. The persumption is that they'll generally succeed in meeting minimum behavioral norms. Those who can't, such as criminals and the insane, lose that presumption and the benefit of their rights.
But really whether they have rights or not isn't the issue...
Yes. It is.
And that's the point of all this "civil society" crap, to reduce suffering.
Wrong. A civil society is an end in itself. It's one of the hallmarks of humanity.
The difference between humanity and the animals is an important one. Humans have more value than animals in every sense of the word "value". Failure to recognize this fact is not in the best interests of humans. And it's the best interest of humans that matters.
Animals don't have rights. It's not that much of a leap from the fantasy that anmials have rights to the justification that it's OK to firebomb people to protect animals.
Reality never intercedes because it was left behind when the animal rights activists refused to complete the transition to adulthood and the realities and responsibilities that come with it. Some people just decide to live in a cartoon world.
When animals agree to a set of minimum behavioral norms that define a civil society, then they'll have rights. Until then, it's the law of the jungle that defines the lives and fortunes of animals.
Not every person on this planet has the same scope of choices available.
But among the choices he does have, I trust him to make the best one. He'll do a better job than you or me at choosing, because he has more information than we do about his life.
You could trust the person who put it together. He can determine whether he's paid fairly or not. And if not, he can choose to do something else.
See how that works? You sleep better by trusting people to live their own lives and make their own decisions. They can do that because they have more information about their lives than you do.
Has it ever occured to you that perhaps advertisers may very well have an agenda they funnel through the press, via which stories they tell? Imbalance is not due to bias; it is due to corporate greed.
... ?
And your evidence for this is
It doesn't really matter why the press does a bad job. It matters how often and how long and what damage it does.
And you think this lawsuit is going to *improve* the quality of newspapers?
I think almost all newspapers will go out of business in the next 15 years either way.
Newspapers will be even less likely to report on anything that might piss anyone off.
Maybe they'll have to double-check their facts. Maybe they'll have to get both sides of the story. Perhaps they'll have to take a skeptical look at the authenticity of their documents and photographs.
Why work hard and risk getting sued by reporting on corporate wrong-doing when you can reprint their press releases and spend ten pages talking about entertainment bullshit?
Why work at all when you can just make stuff up? Why find out the whole story when you can print "allegations"? Why be balanced when you can simply indulge your anti-corporate hatred? Why serve your readers the whole story when you can just use bumper-sticker terms like "sweatshop" to appeal to their juvenile emotions? Why bother with reality when there's a story to be told?
I would agree with you if you were talking about some time in the past (say 1900-1960). The news media has become a huge destructive force. The cost of their lies outweighs the value of everything else they do by a large margin. We have the internet now. We don't have to pay that cost any more.
It's more like "media loses == I'm happy".
When bad things happen to the press it's a step forward for everyone getting the full story on what's going on instead of just the bits that feed the reporter's biases (even if the reporter has to make them up). The news in the newspaper has become less true and less balanced than the advertisements.
The media tries to damage a company (and all the people working there, and all the stockholders and suppliers) with a distorted drive-by hit story. It's a little refreshing to see someone hitting back for a change.
This new tech might invade the terrorist's privacy. Just like George Bush did when he monitored the recent British terrorist's communications. Now we're going to start scanning for explosives?
Ben Franklin said: "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither".
Is it really worth the slight possibility of a privacy violation to keep planes from getting blown up by terrorists? (If there even are terrorists and it's not a conspiracy).
I can't believe $ony! They want to take even MORE of our money!! Why weren't all these included with the console? $ony is always trying to get more ... ...
Oh wait, it's the Xbox.
Yeay! Thanks Microsoft. Wow! I can't believe they're only charging this much. Halo rox.
They already have all the good ones ever created. All 5 of them.
No, not that kind of science. The other kind.
If you want analysis, junkscience.com is a good one to have in the mix.
Science news isn't really useful when it's news. Sometimes it becomes useful years later.
Buy an Xbox or something instead.
is this simply a way to crack down on emulators and ROM sites?
I think it's an attempt to sell games. Just a guess though.
Or, this whole "what about privacy?!?!?!!!" is a completely phony issue and all you people who say you care about privacy are just play-acting.
Good thing too. Otherwise, we'd have to let the terrorists go and allow them to blow up the planes. Proper procedure is just too important to compromise.
Ben Franklin said: "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither". And that means terrorists should be allowed to succeed sometimes -- or something like that.
What if finding these liquid explosives invades the terrorist's privacy? Isn't it bad enough that the NSA was spying on these terrorists and violating their privacy in the UK? Now you want to detect their explosives? Someday, terrorists won't be able to enjoy any privacy at all!
It doesn't seem fair to the terrorists at all.
Where's the ACLU on this?
When you grow up a little, you may understand what's wrong with your "solution".
And no one asked you for lifestyle advice.
The economic cost of successful terrorism is higher.
George Bush and the US government violated the terrorist's privacy by listening in on their communications. Time magazine says so.
Where's the ACLU on this?
Announcer: Astronomers from Tacoma to Vladivostok have just reported an ionic disturbance in the vicinity of the Van Allen Belt. Scientists are recommending that necessary precautions be taken.
Homer: [scoffs] Eggheads. What do they know?
snpp
Yeah, it's too bad when terrorism doesn't work out to your political advantage. Those terrorists sure are inconsiderate that way.
Maybe if you told the terrorists that "Bush is Hitler" a few more times? Maybe more "9/11 was an inside job" talk would help the terrorists understand your political needs?
Or maybe if your side had a plan to deal with terrorism you wouldn't have to worry about the politics in these cases? Maybe if your side's first impulse wasn't to blame America for everything bad that happens, Americans would be more willing to elect your guys to represent them? Just maybe.
Maybe, but the article summary didn't say "art", it said "elite" and "culturally significant". It's elitism, which is distinct from art apreciation.
All entertainment may not be equally artful, but the preference for one entertainment over another doesn't make you great, or good, or better than other people.