Freedom is an incredible, wonderful thing. But there comes a point where I need to balance that with other things such as seeing my daughter grow up.
Then move to North Korea, rather than a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Sacrificing our fundamental liberties and saying that the government can ignore the constitution to keep people safe demonstrates that you're anti-freedom.
It's all well and good to point out that terrorism isn't much of a threat and that their efforts won't likely provide us with actual security, but it's much more important to point out that freedom is more important than safety. So, to his question, I would answer "yes."
Amazing that/.'ers assail governments who are trying to protect them from terrorists
There's not a single government throughout history that didn't horrendously abuse its powers, and that includes the US government. To suggest that the poor, poor government wants nothing but to protect us and is filled with absolutely perfect beings who would never abuse their powers or make mistakes is an absolute fantasy. Furthermore, you'd have to have so much faith that you believe that not only will the current government not abuse its powers, but all future ones won't either. Given history, that's complete and absolute nonsense.
"nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is demonstrably false and has always been demonstrably false. Only the ignorant think otherwise.
and then turn a blind eye to Facebook, Google, Yahoo who gladly monitor your communications to - give you pointless adds.
I don't turn a blind eye to them, you ignorant fool. They're scumbags, and they gladly work with government thugs and hand them any information you give them.
Which they can... if they can decrypt it. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the power to force people and companies to make it easy for them to decrypt information in the event they'll ever want it because they couldn't do it by themselves. There's a difference between the government having the ability to try to get the information and saying they have some sort of absolute divine right to the decrypted information to such an extent that everyone must streamline the process for them.
That's unconstitutional. No one is under any obligation to help worthless government thugs violate their privacy.
But we sure as hell can try to stop government thugs from violating our privacy. They seem pretty worried about that possibility. This has nothing to do with "imaginary property," and information can't want anything.
But when your response as a supposedly free country is to limit people's freedoms, you have failed to uphold the principles you're supposed to aspire to and have become the enemy of liberty. I'll take freedom over this kind of 'safety.' If they want safety, they have to do it in a way that doesn't violate our freedoms and privacy.
Wow, that's a great argument to justify oppression. MLK should've just left the US; what a whiner. Anyone who wants to change anything should just leave the countries they want to change, because the best way to change the countries you want to change is to not interact with them at all and leave hardcore freedom-hating authoritarians such as yourself to run the country.
today, this just indicates that you have no civic involvement whatsoever.
It indicates nothing about him as an individual whatsoever. It could indicate that our system is flawed and makes it difficult for citizens to have a meaningful amount of control over the government, and/or it could mean that the ignorant majority is too busy being apathetic and ignorant to tackle real issues. Both are true.
That's so original! Anyone who questions IQ must have a low IQ! Never heard that one before.
Or you could grow a brain and realize that attacking the IQ I have in your imagination is not actually going to debunk anything I said; only putting forth a logical counterargument/evidence would do that. Put I suppose your critical thinking skills are a bit too low for you to figure out that spewing forth logical fallacies won't debunk people's statements.
Wrong. Politicians are mostly sociopaths and psychopaths. They are the ones who pass these evil laws. What people don't seem to realize is that emotions are no reason to pass freedom-violating laws. It's not when everything is fine and dandy that our commitment to freedom is tested; it's when bad things happen that our commitment to freedom is tested. And those worthless scumbag politicians took advantage of a disaster to increase their control over the populace.
No. You don't get to pretend he's blameless; he *continued these practices*, which makes him an evil scumbag. The mass violation of our fundamental liberties is not a joke.
The Republicans that are concerned about civil liberties (ie, those who didn't think about civil liberties when the patriot act was first signed
Hint: Those people don't care about civil liberties. They saw an opportunity to seize power and did so at a time where many people were foolishly emotional and therefore gullible. It happens every time there's a significant disaster. These people only pretend that they're sorry later, and that goes for all of them, not just republicans.
Why do people keep referring to IQ? What is with all the interest in such pseudoscience? You could've just as easily said, "I'm pretty smart, so I have the ability to learn most anything."
"mature" is subjective. I look at our society and see what my fellow adults have brought about, and I am not impressed. Most adults seem to be overgrown 'children' and make about as many mistakes. And what is wrong with letting people make mistakes? They can learn from them, or at least they could, if most people (adults included) weren't completely short-sighted.
In that sense it really is the people are the government here in the US.
Nope. The US has an awful two party system that encourages (and succeeds in making) the ignorant majority vote for 'the lesser of two evils.' Both evils focus only on extremely popular issues (abortion, gay marriage, taxation, etc.) and people only pay attention to those issues, so other issues get outright ignored. So just because you vote for candidate A doesn't mean you agree with all of their policies. Intelligent and principled people don't vote for evil scumbags, but they are few in number.
And the people who make these unjust rules would not be blameless even if the The People had much more say in the government.
So, in this case it does sound the CPS department over reacted, but I wonder what the case history is in that area to warrant such a display by CPS personnel.
Is it really so hard for you to not post comments on Slashdot? Therefore, comply and don't do it. Is it really so hard for you to not do any of the things that you like doing? Therefore, comply and don't do those things.
It's a matter of freedom, and government thugs shouldn't be making such nonsensical rules to begin with. So rather than telling everyone to comply with unjust rules like a mindless authoritarian, how about criticizing the unjust rules?
Only their fear prevents them from deeply understanding it.
There is absolutely no indication that that is the case. And considering the severe lack of critical thinking skills that a grand majority of people seem to exhibit, I seriously doubt it is the case.
Fully disagree. Truly 'mastering' math requires that you at least have a deep understanding of how and why it all works. Merely being able to solve word problems and use the math to solve problems is not the same as truly understanding why it works. I'd say most people can memorize how to use it, but having a deep understanding of it? No way.
Instead of blaming the victims for speaking, how about you blame the ones who actually take harmful actions?
We don't communicate into a vacuum, and everything we do has consequences.
The people really inflicting the consequences are the ones who take *actions* that harm others, not the speakers.
So what are you, personally, willing to pay for your freedom?
I value freedom over safety, so even if I bought into the ridiculous notion that freedom of speech somehow has all of these magical costs, I would still support it 100%.
And do you have a right to expect others to cover your expenses in these cases, as it were, even if you have no qualms about it?
If someone is trying to kill you for your speech, absolutely. The cops are generally supposed to stop murderers, I would think.
(from your other reply)
And it is not about people's feeling getting hurt - if that was all, then I'd say, go for it.
Yes, that's what it is about. These people get their feelings hurt and make the *personal decision* to attack others. It is all on them. Words do not possess people and make them take these actions, so don't pretend it's even slightly the fault of the victims. Freedom of speech is not at issue, but if you believe it is, then move to North Korea; you'd fit right in.
There are no costs to freedom of speech, but there are costs when people take harmful *actions*, as these murderers did.
Some fields really do require IQ >= 110 (one std above mean).
IQ is pseudoscience nonsense to begin with, but it appeals to simpletons due to its simplicity. Wouldn't it be convenient if we could tell how "intelligent" someone is by looking at a single number? Unfortunately, simplicity is not the same as truth.
No. What is and is not offensive is 100% subjective, and that didn't offend me. Don't answer questions you direct at me for me.
Is that speech that should be controlled, or discouraged
I would say racism should be *discouraged*, not banned. However, "nigger" does not inherently make the person who says it racist. For instance, you can use it to parody racist people to show the injustice of racism, or use it as an insult that has nothing to do with race, as many people have taken to doing.
(yes, even if the person saying it is black, it is still offensive)
How can you declare that something is offensive for everyone? It depends on the person.
Freedom comes with a price-tag; are we all willing to pay the price?
What price? There is no price. If you get offended (which is subjective), that is your problem.
And if not, is it right to force the majority to pay the price so that a minority can say what they like without having to fear any consquences?
You do realize that you're essentially asking whether or not it is okay to not allow the majority to oppress the minority's fundamental rights because they might get their feelings hurt, right? Good thing we don't live in direct democracies, because I don't want anything to do with them.
If you actually believe in freedom, then you have to accept that others have the freedom to not want the same as you.
They can say what they like, but as for actually getting their nonsense into law? No.
Slashdot Mirror
Freedom is an incredible, wonderful thing. But there comes a point where I need to balance that with other things such as seeing my daughter grow up.
Then move to North Korea, rather than a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Sacrificing our fundamental liberties and saying that the government can ignore the constitution to keep people safe demonstrates that you're anti-freedom.
It's all well and good to point out that terrorism isn't much of a threat and that their efforts won't likely provide us with actual security, but it's much more important to point out that freedom is more important than safety. So, to his question, I would answer "yes."
Amazing that /.'ers assail governments who are trying to protect them from terrorists
There's not a single government throughout history that didn't horrendously abuse its powers, and that includes the US government. To suggest that the poor, poor government wants nothing but to protect us and is filled with absolutely perfect beings who would never abuse their powers or make mistakes is an absolute fantasy. Furthermore, you'd have to have so much faith that you believe that not only will the current government not abuse its powers, but all future ones won't either. Given history, that's complete and absolute nonsense.
"nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is demonstrably false and has always been demonstrably false. Only the ignorant think otherwise.
and then turn a blind eye to Facebook, Google, Yahoo who gladly monitor your communications to - give you pointless adds.
I don't turn a blind eye to them, you ignorant fool. They're scumbags, and they gladly work with government thugs and hand them any information you give them.
Which they can... if they can decrypt it. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the power to force people and companies to make it easy for them to decrypt information in the event they'll ever want it because they couldn't do it by themselves. There's a difference between the government having the ability to try to get the information and saying they have some sort of absolute divine right to the decrypted information to such an extent that everyone must streamline the process for them.
That's unconstitutional. No one is under any obligation to help worthless government thugs violate their privacy.
But we sure as hell can try to stop government thugs from violating our privacy. They seem pretty worried about that possibility. This has nothing to do with "imaginary property," and information can't want anything.
But when your response as a supposedly free country is to limit people's freedoms, you have failed to uphold the principles you're supposed to aspire to and have become the enemy of liberty. I'll take freedom over this kind of 'safety.' If they want safety, they have to do it in a way that doesn't violate our freedoms and privacy.
Wow, that's a great argument to justify oppression. MLK should've just left the US; what a whiner. Anyone who wants to change anything should just leave the countries they want to change, because the best way to change the countries you want to change is to not interact with them at all and leave hardcore freedom-hating authoritarians such as yourself to run the country.
His logic makes sense period.
today, this just indicates that you have no civic involvement whatsoever.
It indicates nothing about him as an individual whatsoever. It could indicate that our system is flawed and makes it difficult for citizens to have a meaningful amount of control over the government, and/or it could mean that the ignorant majority is too busy being apathetic and ignorant to tackle real issues. Both are true.
That's so original! Anyone who questions IQ must have a low IQ! Never heard that one before.
Or you could grow a brain and realize that attacking the IQ I have in your imagination is not actually going to debunk anything I said; only putting forth a logical counterargument/evidence would do that. Put I suppose your critical thinking skills are a bit too low for you to figure out that spewing forth logical fallacies won't debunk people's statements.
Wrong. Politicians are mostly sociopaths and psychopaths. They are the ones who pass these evil laws. What people don't seem to realize is that emotions are no reason to pass freedom-violating laws. It's not when everything is fine and dandy that our commitment to freedom is tested; it's when bad things happen that our commitment to freedom is tested. And those worthless scumbag politicians took advantage of a disaster to increase their control over the populace.
Did you miss the part where I said "and that goes for all of them, not just republicans."?
No. You don't get to pretend he's blameless; he *continued these practices*, which makes him an evil scumbag. The mass violation of our fundamental liberties is not a joke.
The Republicans that are concerned about civil liberties (ie, those who didn't think about civil liberties when the patriot act was first signed
Hint: Those people don't care about civil liberties. They saw an opportunity to seize power and did so at a time where many people were foolishly emotional and therefore gullible. It happens every time there's a significant disaster. These people only pretend that they're sorry later, and that goes for all of them, not just republicans.
Why do people keep referring to IQ? What is with all the interest in such pseudoscience? You could've just as easily said, "I'm pretty smart, so I have the ability to learn most anything."
"mature" is subjective. I look at our society and see what my fellow adults have brought about, and I am not impressed. Most adults seem to be overgrown 'children' and make about as many mistakes. And what is wrong with letting people make mistakes? They can learn from them, or at least they could, if most people (adults included) weren't completely short-sighted.
In that sense it really is the people are the government here in the US.
Nope. The US has an awful two party system that encourages (and succeeds in making) the ignorant majority vote for 'the lesser of two evils.' Both evils focus only on extremely popular issues (abortion, gay marriage, taxation, etc.) and people only pay attention to those issues, so other issues get outright ignored. So just because you vote for candidate A doesn't mean you agree with all of their policies. Intelligent and principled people don't vote for evil scumbags, but they are few in number.
And the people who make these unjust rules would not be blameless even if the The People had much more say in the government.
So, in this case it does sound the CPS department over reacted, but I wonder what the case history is in that area to warrant such a display by CPS personnel.
Quite irrelevant.
Is that really so difficult for you to do?
Is it really so hard for you to not post comments on Slashdot? Therefore, comply and don't do it. Is it really so hard for you to not do any of the things that you like doing? Therefore, comply and don't do those things.
It's a matter of freedom, and government thugs shouldn't be making such nonsensical rules to begin with. So rather than telling everyone to comply with unjust rules like a mindless authoritarian, how about criticizing the unjust rules?
There's nothing at all wrong with walking around, despite what mindless authoritarians might say.
It seems like people would rather have them educated than schooled. There's a difference.
Only their fear prevents them from deeply understanding it.
There is absolutely no indication that that is the case. And considering the severe lack of critical thinking skills that a grand majority of people seem to exhibit, I seriously doubt it is the case.
but it can be done by anyone.
Fully disagree. Truly 'mastering' math requires that you at least have a deep understanding of how and why it all works. Merely being able to solve word problems and use the math to solve problems is not the same as truly understanding why it works. I'd say most people can memorize how to use it, but having a deep understanding of it? No way.
Instead of blaming the victims for speaking, how about you blame the ones who actually take harmful actions?
We don't communicate into a vacuum, and everything we do has consequences.
The people really inflicting the consequences are the ones who take *actions* that harm others, not the speakers.
So what are you, personally, willing to pay for your freedom?
I value freedom over safety, so even if I bought into the ridiculous notion that freedom of speech somehow has all of these magical costs, I would still support it 100%.
And do you have a right to expect others to cover your expenses in these cases, as it were, even if you have no qualms about it?
If someone is trying to kill you for your speech, absolutely. The cops are generally supposed to stop murderers, I would think.
(from your other reply)
And it is not about people's feeling getting hurt - if that was all, then I'd say, go for it.
Yes, that's what it is about. These people get their feelings hurt and make the *personal decision* to attack others. It is all on them. Words do not possess people and make them take these actions, so don't pretend it's even slightly the fault of the victims. Freedom of speech is not at issue, but if you believe it is, then move to North Korea; you'd fit right in.
There are no costs to freedom of speech, but there are costs when people take harmful *actions*, as these murderers did.
Some fields really do require IQ >= 110 (one std above mean).
IQ is pseudoscience nonsense to begin with, but it appeals to simpletons due to its simplicity. Wouldn't it be convenient if we could tell how "intelligent" someone is by looking at a single number? Unfortunately, simplicity is not the same as truth.
Now, was that offensive? (yes)
No. What is and is not offensive is 100% subjective, and that didn't offend me. Don't answer questions you direct at me for me.
Is that speech that should be controlled, or discouraged
I would say racism should be *discouraged*, not banned. However, "nigger" does not inherently make the person who says it racist. For instance, you can use it to parody racist people to show the injustice of racism, or use it as an insult that has nothing to do with race, as many people have taken to doing.
(yes, even if the person saying it is black, it is still offensive)
How can you declare that something is offensive for everyone? It depends on the person.
Freedom comes with a price-tag; are we all willing to pay the price?
What price? There is no price. If you get offended (which is subjective), that is your problem.
And if not, is it right to force the majority to pay the price so that a minority can say what they like without having to fear any consquences?
You do realize that you're essentially asking whether or not it is okay to not allow the majority to oppress the minority's fundamental rights because they might get their feelings hurt, right? Good thing we don't live in direct democracies, because I don't want anything to do with them.
If you actually believe in freedom, then you have to accept that others have the freedom to not want the same as you.
They can say what they like, but as for actually getting their nonsense into law? No.