I read your post first, and then I read your name. Then it all made sense.
I don't think stimulating sexual lust towards children is something society finds acceptable.
What society finds acceptable is irrelevant; even if they find it unacceptable, that does not mean it should be illegal. Freedom is far more important than upholding the tyranny of the majority. Nice "think of the children!" there.
Firstly: the first amendment is for the painter of the cartoon, not for the one watching it.
That's nonsense. Part of being able to send messages is allowing others to receive them. Obviously the government can't just destroy people because you spoke in front of them. There's no point to free speech if others aren't allowed to hear you speak.
But even if that weren't true, in the US, the government can only do what the constitution says it can. If the constitution doesn't say the government can prohibit this material, then it can't.
Secondly: the first amendment refers to the USA not to the UK.
In other words, you're opposed to freedom of speech and want government thugs to be able to ban material that is subjectively deemed to be 'bad' by a subjectively vague group of 'sane' people for the ambiguous "public good" that you can't even scientifically define. Good to know that 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' is willing to sacrifice fundamental liberties for safety, and false safety at that.
However it is also disturbingly close to pre-crime.
It's not just "disturbingly close"; it is pre-crime. There is absolutely zero evidence that says that someone will commit a crime just because they like drawn pictures of children, and even if there were evidence, pre-crime is absurd in and of itself.
Through extensive analysis of your comments, I've determined that you're a child molester. Denying it will not help you, and will, in fact, make things worse. You can't defeat my impeccable logic.
Really, for someone who does not know what 'begging the question' in formal logic means, you shouldn't talk logic.
Even if I did indeed not know what it means, that would not invalidate any of my arguments. Bad logic from you again, unless you just like making pointless statements that have utterly relevant to anything. Or is there some other reason you keep using borderline ad hominem attacks without providing an actual argument?
Furthermore, I am aware of what it means, and nothing I've said comes close to begging the question. It's probably due to your own misunderstanding of what I've said.
If someone points out that you sound immature, effectively shouting "AM NOT!" does not help, you know.
If someone debunks your nonsense, repeating it again and again does not help you, you know. But it's good to know that no one can disagree with you, because disagreeing with you certainly won't "help."
And what is and is not "immature" is absolutely subjective; your opinions don't interest me.
And if you hadn't noticed, I had decided quite a few posts ago that you're not worth arguing with; on the other hand, your posts are so disarmingly immature and so gratifyingly full of insult material, that you make an excellent target for insults.
So, you have no valid counterarguments you wish to present and are just trying (and failing) to make me angry, or something to that effect. Got it.
So the "'net neutrality" rules every idiot is screaming for means that ISPs will be required to scan for and block this from being transmitted over their networks.
That doesn't follow. Net neutrality doesn't mean they have to stop 'illegal' content from being transmitted.
I was deliberately giving an extreme example but how far do you have to scale it back until it is socially acceptable (for want of a better phrase) to preemptively commit physical violence?
This is offtopic. This sort of thing is already covered by laws.
You can't make legislation that is contingent on a person's perception.
Yes, you can. Otherwise, self-defense legislation--or any legislation--simply wouldn't exist. *Everything* is perception. The judge's perception. The jury's perception. The police's perception. Your perception.
The act of trolling should not be illegal and it should be up to the party who feel's threatened to take it to court if they so wish whereupon the clowns there will decide if there was a real threat or not.
I agree it shouldn't be illegal. I don't agree that every frivolous case should be taken to court.
This conversation is just stupid. I did not say *when* self-defense was necessary, so you're just offtopic. I was being deliberately vague for a reason, and that's because it doesn't matter to the topic at hand. Attacking people except in self-defense or defense of others from an actual physical threat is something I believe is wrong. The end. There's no more to it.
I don't see what your point is. Do you think that people should never be allowed to defend themselves merely because they could do so in error sometimes? If cops shoot people merely for reaching into their pockets or something, that's a problem with cops.
You do realize that all laws are ultimately enforced via force?
You do realize that vigilante 'justice' is different from actual authority figures handling the situation in (what is supposed to be) a fair and just way? Or do you want everyone to subvert the courts and the police and just do whatever they want?
Because your posts sound like the screeds of a teenager with an entitlement complex. That's why people keep assuming you are one.
Awful logic all around, then.
Really, just begging the question that the only real violence is physical
That's not begging the question.
making you either a teenager with zero life experience or as mentally stunted as the Holy Messiah and her Inner Circle.
Nice false dichotomy.
And I'm not saying your argument is incorrect because you are young (that would be an ad hominem fallacy).
Without putting forth an actual counterargument, of course any insult is going to look like an ad hominem.
I'm saying that your use of an incorrect argument make you sound young.
Then you are quite ignorant. I assure you, many adults believe in crazy things like magical sky daddies. As much as I'd like to believe that only children would believe in something crazy like a god, that is sadly not the case.
Honestly, if anyone is a kid, it's you, as children usually resort to insults or random assumptions rather than putting forth logical arguments. Sound like nonsense? I would hope so. But hey, keep arbitrarily deciding that doing X indicates that someone is probably a kid. Perhaps you could step it up a notch and start using silly anecdotal evidence to 'justify' this belief.
Restrictions should be enforced upon what the government can compel or even ask of private companies.
Yes.
But you don't seem to understand. I am talking about the the current reality! The current reality is that if you give your information to private companies, the government will get it, and you should be wary of giving your information to private companies for the time being.
And then it goes off the rails, calling for vengeance.
That's not vengeance, as I think our jail/prison system should be about rehabilitation. What else would you do with someone who physically assaulted someone?
Slandering someone by calling them a pedo for instance has (or can have) direct negative effects on that person, in the form of job loss, friend loss, etc.
Wrong as usual, fool. The words themselves do not harm you; other people's *actions* harm you, if anything. The people believing baseless rumors are the problem, and if they damage you, perhaps you should try to sue them.
The only possible "lesson" that I see is that stalkers for some reason have the right to stalk, but I do not have the right to not be stalked.
If you think you have the right to not be stalked, then call the police rather than resorting to senseless violence. But it seems that irrational barbarians are incurable.
What type of fucking idiot are you? My job is to respond to distress calls dumbass, and is our duty to respond to every request for help.
Perhaps you should rethink your job. Part of the problem is the incessant need to response to every call or possible threat. In reality, a lot of threats are not called upon, so you should be omnipresent in order to stop them all. What that means is that you only care about what you have heard about, and it's just a move to cover your asses so you don't have to use logic and probability to determine if a threat is likely to truly exist.
1) You don't actually know me or how old I am. As I said in the other comment, I'm actually in my late 30s. 2) Even if I was was young as you suspected, that would not make my arguments incorrect. 3) You cannot predict what I will believe in the future, unless you claim to be a psychic. But psychics are full of it.
Such trivially debunked 'arguments' or statements will have absolutely no effect on me. People did say that sort of thing to me when I actually was young, and guess what? As it turns out, my views never changed.
So if you can show that speech is actually a fist, I'd love to see. All the scientists of the world would love to see it.
Obviously, the police would investigate if the threat is specific enough and seems credible. That doesn't mean arresting them automatically for their speech, but actually investigating.
Sure, most of the time it'll be an empty threat but are you willing to take that chance if its your family?
If you're rational, yes. Are you willing to take the chance of getting in a car? If so, there's no reason you shouldn't be willing to take the chance that some idiot who made a threat might have been serious.
The right to swing firsts was an analogy made by Zechariah Chafee.
A bad one, since it's irrelevant.
The point is, no man has absolute rights or absolute liberties.
Currently, maybe. But all laws are created by man, so a right could indeed be absolute. Besides, the government is ignoring the first amendment (in the US, of course) to begin with.
They end when another person is substantially harmed or the rights of another person infringed upon.
Can't happen in the case of free speech. Other people's actions in response to speech may harm people, but that is their doing. The end. Apply that logic to any and all examples you could conceivably come up with (including the ones in your comment) and stop wasting my time.
next time you go through an airport, make a joke to the officers that you are carrying a bomb - see how your free speech works out for you and remember you haven't escalated to physical violence.
Yes, yes, I get it; the government ignores the constitution and you're not allowed to make jokes. What about it? You think that makes it right? What is your point, idiot? You can't honestly believe that the person who makes the joke is the problem, rather than the worthless morons who overreact to it, surely?
Sorry to say, but what you think sounds like wisdom merely reveals how very young you truly are.
Anyone who disagrees with you is young. Furthermore, anyone who is young is wrong. You realize both of those are logical fallacies, correct? I'm actually still young in a sense, but I'm in my late 30s, and with kids.
You're a serious moron if you believe that anyone who cares about freedom is automatically young; I assure you that is not the case, and I can point to people far older than myself who hold my views.
I suspect that sometime in the intervening years you'll discover why your ideals, while lofty, don't hold true in the real world.
I suspect that you'll grow up and come to agree with me 100%. You're, what, 13 right now? Only a 13 year old would preach such authoritarianism. See how stupid that is?
The reality is that I expect the government to follow the constitution, not ignore it. Apparently you disagree.
Do you honestly, truly believe that I care what those authoritarians think? There is no such single tribunal, and they are not always correct, and have been wrong many times (like with the example you just cited, thanks).
Nope. The problem is both. The government isn't even truly compelling many companies; they give up with little to no resistance. Furthermore, even if they were fighting hard, the reality is that if you give private companies your data, it will be sucked up by the government.
Nowhere, because it wouldn't be a utopia, since there'd still be plenty of problems. I know, expecting people to act rationally and peacefully is too much to expect, yes?
Slashdot Mirror
I read your post first, and then I read your name. Then it all made sense.
I don't think stimulating sexual lust towards children is something society finds acceptable.
What society finds acceptable is irrelevant; even if they find it unacceptable, that does not mean it should be illegal. Freedom is far more important than upholding the tyranny of the majority. Nice "think of the children!" there.
Firstly: the first amendment is for the painter of the cartoon, not for the one watching it.
That's nonsense. Part of being able to send messages is allowing others to receive them. Obviously the government can't just destroy people because you spoke in front of them. There's no point to free speech if others aren't allowed to hear you speak.
But even if that weren't true, in the US, the government can only do what the constitution says it can. If the constitution doesn't say the government can prohibit this material, then it can't.
Secondly: the first amendment refers to the USA not to the UK.
You failed to read the post I responded to.
In other words, you're opposed to freedom of speech and want government thugs to be able to ban material that is subjectively deemed to be 'bad' by a subjectively vague group of 'sane' people for the ambiguous "public good" that you can't even scientifically define. Good to know that 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' is willing to sacrifice fundamental liberties for safety, and false safety at that.
However it is also disturbingly close to pre-crime.
It's not just "disturbingly close"; it is pre-crime. There is absolutely zero evidence that says that someone will commit a crime just because they like drawn pictures of children, and even if there were evidence, pre-crime is absurd in and of itself.
I'm not entirely comfortable with that.
You should be entirely uncomfortable with it.
Through extensive analysis of your comments, I've determined that you're a child molester. Denying it will not help you, and will, in fact, make things worse. You can't defeat my impeccable logic.
Really, for someone who does not know what 'begging the question' in formal logic means, you shouldn't talk logic.
Even if I did indeed not know what it means, that would not invalidate any of my arguments. Bad logic from you again, unless you just like making pointless statements that have utterly relevant to anything. Or is there some other reason you keep using borderline ad hominem attacks without providing an actual argument?
Furthermore, I am aware of what it means, and nothing I've said comes close to begging the question. It's probably due to your own misunderstanding of what I've said.
If someone points out that you sound immature, effectively shouting "AM NOT!" does not help, you know.
If someone debunks your nonsense, repeating it again and again does not help you, you know. But it's good to know that no one can disagree with you, because disagreeing with you certainly won't "help."
And what is and is not "immature" is absolutely subjective; your opinions don't interest me.
And if you hadn't noticed, I had decided quite a few posts ago that you're not worth arguing with; on the other hand, your posts are so disarmingly immature and so gratifyingly full of insult material, that you make an excellent target for insults.
So, you have no valid counterarguments you wish to present and are just trying (and failing) to make me angry, or something to that effect. Got it.
So the "'net neutrality" rules every idiot is screaming for means that ISPs will be required to scan for and block this from being transmitted over their networks.
That doesn't follow. Net neutrality doesn't mean they have to stop 'illegal' content from being transmitted.
so Congress just went ahead and amended the law to make it explicitly illegal as opposed to implicitly illegal.
How is that anything but a violation of the first amendment?
I was deliberately giving an extreme example but how far do you have to scale it back until it is socially acceptable (for want of a better phrase) to preemptively commit physical violence?
This is offtopic. This sort of thing is already covered by laws.
You can't make legislation that is contingent on a person's perception.
Yes, you can. Otherwise, self-defense legislation--or any legislation--simply wouldn't exist. *Everything* is perception. The judge's perception. The jury's perception. The police's perception. Your perception.
The act of trolling should not be illegal and it should be up to the party who feel's threatened to take it to court if they so wish whereupon the clowns there will decide if there was a real threat or not.
I agree it shouldn't be illegal. I don't agree that every frivolous case should be taken to court.
This conversation is just stupid. I did not say *when* self-defense was necessary, so you're just offtopic. I was being deliberately vague for a reason, and that's because it doesn't matter to the topic at hand. Attacking people except in self-defense or defense of others from an actual physical threat is something I believe is wrong. The end. There's no more to it.
I don't see what your point is. Do you think that people should never be allowed to defend themselves merely because they could do so in error sometimes? If cops shoot people merely for reaching into their pockets or something, that's a problem with cops.
You do realize that all laws are ultimately enforced via force?
You do realize that vigilante 'justice' is different from actual authority figures handling the situation in (what is supposed to be) a fair and just way? Or do you want everyone to subvert the courts and the police and just do whatever they want?
Because your posts sound like the screeds of a teenager with an entitlement complex. That's why people keep assuming you are one.
Awful logic all around, then.
Really, just begging the question that the only real violence is physical
That's not begging the question.
making you either a teenager with zero life experience or as mentally stunted as the Holy Messiah and her Inner Circle.
Nice false dichotomy.
And I'm not saying your argument is incorrect because you are young (that would be an ad hominem fallacy).
Without putting forth an actual counterargument, of course any insult is going to look like an ad hominem.
I'm saying that your use of an incorrect argument make you sound young.
Then you are quite ignorant. I assure you, many adults believe in crazy things like magical sky daddies. As much as I'd like to believe that only children would believe in something crazy like a god, that is sadly not the case.
Honestly, if anyone is a kid, it's you, as children usually resort to insults or random assumptions rather than putting forth logical arguments. Sound like nonsense? I would hope so. But hey, keep arbitrarily deciding that doing X indicates that someone is probably a kid. Perhaps you could step it up a notch and start using silly anecdotal evidence to 'justify' this belief.
Restrictions should be enforced upon what the government can compel or even ask of private companies.
Yes.
But you don't seem to understand. I am talking about the the current reality! The current reality is that if you give your information to private companies, the government will get it, and you should be wary of giving your information to private companies for the time being.
And then it goes off the rails, calling for vengeance.
That's not vengeance, as I think our jail/prison system should be about rehabilitation. What else would you do with someone who physically assaulted someone?
Slandering someone by calling them a pedo for instance has (or can have) direct negative effects on that person, in the form of job loss, friend loss, etc.
Wrong as usual, fool. The words themselves do not harm you; other people's *actions* harm you, if anything. The people believing baseless rumors are the problem, and if they damage you, perhaps you should try to sue them.
The only possible "lesson" that I see is that stalkers for some reason have the right to stalk, but I do not have the right to not be stalked.
If you think you have the right to not be stalked, then call the police rather than resorting to senseless violence. But it seems that irrational barbarians are incurable.
What type of fucking idiot are you? My job is to respond to distress calls dumbass, and is our duty to respond to every request for help.
Perhaps you should rethink your job. Part of the problem is the incessant need to response to every call or possible threat. In reality, a lot of threats are not called upon, so you should be omnipresent in order to stop them all. What that means is that you only care about what you have heard about, and it's just a move to cover your asses so you don't have to use logic and probability to determine if a threat is likely to truly exist.
Why is this 'logic' so popular?
1) You don't actually know me or how old I am. As I said in the other comment, I'm actually in my late 30s.
2) Even if I was was young as you suspected, that would not make my arguments incorrect.
3) You cannot predict what I will believe in the future, unless you claim to be a psychic. But psychics are full of it.
Such trivially debunked 'arguments' or statements will have absolutely no effect on me. People did say that sort of thing to me when I actually was young, and guess what? As it turns out, my views never changed.
So if you can show that speech is actually a fist, I'd love to see. All the scientists of the world would love to see it.
And how do you find that out?
Obviously, the police would investigate if the threat is specific enough and seems credible. That doesn't mean arresting them automatically for their speech, but actually investigating.
Sure, most of the time it'll be an empty threat but are you willing to take that chance if its your family?
If you're rational, yes. Are you willing to take the chance of getting in a car? If so, there's no reason you shouldn't be willing to take the chance that some idiot who made a threat might have been serious.
The right to swing firsts was an analogy made by Zechariah Chafee.
A bad one, since it's irrelevant.
The point is, no man has absolute rights or absolute liberties.
Currently, maybe. But all laws are created by man, so a right could indeed be absolute. Besides, the government is ignoring the first amendment (in the US, of course) to begin with.
They end when another person is substantially harmed or the rights of another person infringed upon.
Can't happen in the case of free speech. Other people's actions in response to speech may harm people, but that is their doing. The end. Apply that logic to any and all examples you could conceivably come up with (including the ones in your comment) and stop wasting my time.
next time you go through an airport, make a joke to the officers that you are carrying a bomb - see how your free speech works out for you and remember you haven't escalated to physical violence.
Yes, yes, I get it; the government ignores the constitution and you're not allowed to make jokes. What about it? You think that makes it right? What is your point, idiot? You can't honestly believe that the person who makes the joke is the problem, rather than the worthless morons who overreact to it, surely?
Sorry to say, but what you think sounds like wisdom merely reveals how very young you truly are.
Anyone who disagrees with you is young. Furthermore, anyone who is young is wrong. You realize both of those are logical fallacies, correct? I'm actually still young in a sense, but I'm in my late 30s, and with kids.
You're a serious moron if you believe that anyone who cares about freedom is automatically young; I assure you that is not the case, and I can point to people far older than myself who hold my views.
I suspect that sometime in the intervening years you'll discover why your ideals, while lofty, don't hold true in the real world.
I suspect that you'll grow up and come to agree with me 100%. You're, what, 13 right now? Only a 13 year old would preach such authoritarianism. See how stupid that is?
The reality is that I expect the government to follow the constitution, not ignore it. Apparently you disagree.
Not according to the Supreme Court
Do you honestly, truly believe that I care what those authoritarians think? There is no such single tribunal, and they are not always correct, and have been wrong many times (like with the example you just cited, thanks).
Nope. The problem is both. The government isn't even truly compelling many companies; they give up with little to no resistance. Furthermore, even if they were fighting hard, the reality is that if you give private companies your data, it will be sucked up by the government.
Nowhere, because it wouldn't be a utopia, since there'd still be plenty of problems. I know, expecting people to act rationally and peacefully is too much to expect, yes?