There absolutely are meaningful ways to talk about offense as a limiting principle to freedom of speech:
No, there aren't. Offense is completely subjective, and anyone could be offended by anything. The value of a certain type of speech is also subjective. Unless you want completely arbitrary censorship, I suggest not going down this road. Someone's hurt feelings are their own problem.
The Wikipedia page shows nothing, and neither does some arbitrary freedom index.
Yeah, pick a fight with government scumbags or huge corporations and you'll get burned. Screw normal people (as business scumbags often do) and you're usually fine.
It isn't even just a case of voters ignoring the issue; countless people directly support the unconstitutional freedom-violating mass surveillance. So yeah, it's definitely the fault of voters, and a lot of them love it.
Maybe you should pick better spouses, then. Like one who is actually rational. If they have a problem with logical arguments, then I would back away very quickly.
The 'extremists' are actually more consistent than the "All the nonsensical parts of my preferred holy book or parts I don't like are metaphorical!" people. I might like the WBC even less than I like the 'moderates', but I have to give them credit for being a bit more consistent. I just wish the 'moderate' religion apologists--who are apparently informed enough to realize that things like evolution are scientific fact, but too irrational to realize that magical sky daddies are ridiculous--would come to the conclusion that they have no rational reason to believe in magical sky daddies if they care about the truth. Or maybe they'll eventually reach the conclusion that the whole thing about god existing in their holy books was actually just metaphorical?
I do not like political correctness, but my position is based on my desire for the government to follow the constitution and respect people's liberties. I value freedom over safety.
I know it's politically incorrect to use the word profiling, but it's also illogical to frisk grandma before she boards a plane.
Here's an idea: How about government thugs not harass innocent people? Get rid of the TSA and don't use this "profiling" nonsense to harass different groups of innocent people; everyone has rights, and that includes people acting 'suspicious' according to some government thug.
If we properly educated people and guided them down the path to getting a deep understanding of the material, they wouldn't forget things so easily, and it would also probably prevent them from finding education so boring. My point is... even if we change the schedule, what are they going to do after they're done with school? Forget everything? That seems to be the case.
Students who spend less time in class each day and/or have longer breaks between semesters but no huge summer vacation period perform substantially better than the traditional system.
The methods currently used to measure their understanding of the material are deeply flawed in the first place, as they don't require that anyone understand anything.
I guess changing the schedule around and spreading out breaks doesn't seem bad to me, but some people (I guess not you) act like that's all that needs to be done.
I've noticed that A students can *use* all sorts of math, but do they have a deep understanding of it? Barely any do, in my experience. It's quite sad that they can get such good grades when they don't truly understand any of the material.
We train people to be mere users, but we do not help them reach true understanding. That's not what the education system should be.
Yeah, let's force kids to attend these rote memorization prisons all year round! Just adding more quantity won't fix the problems with rote memorization, standardized testing, and one-size-fits-all schooling.
Where they lose the argument is that these days privacy is safety
Yes, that is true, but it shouldn't be the *main* point. The main point should be that, even if we assume their actions increase our safety, the ends do not justify the means; freedom is more important than safety.
Surprise: Freedom-hating authoritarian scumbags make the argument that safety is more important than freedom and privacy, all the while pretending that they value freedom and democratic values. I wish these people would move to North Korea.
Considering the number of actual infringements that go on, resorting to the courts for each and every infringing post would be expensive.
I've already told you: I value freedom and due process more than I do making it easy for copyright holders to enforce copyright.
With your proposal, the copyright holder effectively has to file a lawsuit, but doesn't' get anyone to sue.
They do. If the website refuses to take down the material after they've been asked to by a judge, they can sue. They can also sue the person who posted the material. If they want to find out who that person is, they need to investigate.
The courts. You want something removed, you see a judge. I value justice and due process more than I do someone's ability to enforce copyrights, and anyone who wants to live in a free country would agree with me.
If the website owner is liable for copyright infringements by material posted by third parties
They don't have to be. Keep a concept similar to safe harbor but don't have DMCA notices. It's not hard.
The law is, unsurprisingly, wrong. And that whole "reasonable expectation of privacy" thing is just a bad idea, because all it means is that if the government infringes upon people's privacy enough, they can't 'reasonably' expect that they'll have privacy anymore. Privacy should be about ethics, not expectations.
We already have. In the US, government thugs will harass you even for making bomb jokes or something similar. And we did that ourselves, all the while we pretend that the bogeymen aren't affecting our way of life as we're being unconstitutionally molested by thugs at airports and subjected to mass unconstitutional surveillance.
Learn the difference between government stifling your speech and moderators on a private website modding your posts down (not even deleting them, which would also be different from government censorship).
This so-called freedom is speech and expression is a load of crock
Why don't you just move to North Korea? You can have all the hurt feelings laws you want in that authoritarian hellhole.
And admitting that you don't know is just the honest thing to do, I think.
If we have the results of a longitudinal study, including medical records, surveys, clinical observations, and all the rest from psychology, I assert that we know something more than we did before.
You might know something more than you did before, but be careful of what conclusions you draw from it, is my point.
At any rate, your personal vendetta against all social science is uninteresting
It's not a personal vendetta, but a problem I think is fairly well-known.
and those are a far better basis for our understanding of human psychology than random opinions, gotten from nowhere at all.
Random opinions? The fact that X is better than Y (social 'sciences' are better than random opinions) does not mean that X is good. The fact that sometimes social 'sciences' may produce results you deem useful does not mean it is appropriate for you to state the conclusions of some flawed studies you agree with as fact.
Absent reliable, rigorous science, just admit that you do not know. That's what I'm saying.
(certainly a nonzero number)
I agree that it sounds reasonable that a nonzero amount of people find happiness in religion.
it is in fact the rational choice for them to continue their involvement.
That depends on their goal. Is their goal the truth? Then probably not. If they don't care about truth, then believing in magical sky daddies (as most religions ask you to) when there is no evidence of such a thing is probably fine for them if they are happy.
You reject the most authoritative body of knowledge that exists on the subject, and trust your personal opinion more than the data collected by experts that have devoted their lives to the subject.
My personal opinion? If credible science is lacking, you admit that you do not truly know. That's all there is to it. Someone devoting their lives to something does not indicate that that something is valid, rigorous science.
After all, there are many 'experts' in pseudoscience, and yet we know their pseudoscience is nonsense. Some even devote their lives to the pseudoscience. Does that make it valid? No.
It certainly seems to be a better path than assuming that my uninformed, non-expert opinions are correct.
Science doesn't work by mindlessly appealing to authority figures. Once they have actual hard proof and valid scientific studies, then I will see your point.
Scientific consensus is important, but the social 'sciences' still have all the flaws I've mentioned above, so consensus between soft scientists is still less reliable, and especially so when they use flawed data gathering techniques. What I was saying is that waiting for that consensus is the *least* people could do, but many don't even wait for that. Having people self-report levels of happiness and drawing such a broad conclusion from that is just insane, even if I were to assume there is consensus. Until there's something more than that, I have no reason to believe any of it.
(which isn't unique to the social sciences, btw)
No, but for whatever reason, it is much more prevalent. In my opinion, it is because they are good for people who like to control others.
Slashdot Mirror
There absolutely are meaningful ways to talk about offense as a limiting principle to freedom of speech:
No, there aren't. Offense is completely subjective, and anyone could be offended by anything. The value of a certain type of speech is also subjective. Unless you want completely arbitrary censorship, I suggest not going down this road. Someone's hurt feelings are their own problem.
The Wikipedia page shows nothing, and neither does some arbitrary freedom index.
Yeah, pick a fight with government scumbags or huge corporations and you'll get burned. Screw normal people (as business scumbags often do) and you're usually fine.
I would say it should be free as in freedom. Whether it's free as in price would be another matter.
But software doesn't want anything. It can't.
It isn't even just a case of voters ignoring the issue; countless people directly support the unconstitutional freedom-violating mass surveillance. So yeah, it's definitely the fault of voters, and a lot of them love it.
Maybe you should pick better spouses, then. Like one who is actually rational. If they have a problem with logical arguments, then I would back away very quickly.
The 'extremists' are actually more consistent than the "All the nonsensical parts of my preferred holy book or parts I don't like are metaphorical!" people. I might like the WBC even less than I like the 'moderates', but I have to give them credit for being a bit more consistent. I just wish the 'moderate' religion apologists--who are apparently informed enough to realize that things like evolution are scientific fact, but too irrational to realize that magical sky daddies are ridiculous--would come to the conclusion that they have no rational reason to believe in magical sky daddies if they care about the truth. Or maybe they'll eventually reach the conclusion that the whole thing about god existing in their holy books was actually just metaphorical?
The Constitution does not grant us any rights, our rights are inalienable and endowed by our creator(s)
Creators? Which? I don't believe in magical sky daddies or any sort of higher power.
I do not like political correctness, but my position is based on my desire for the government to follow the constitution and respect people's liberties. I value freedom over safety.
I know it's politically incorrect to use the word profiling, but it's also illogical to frisk grandma before she boards a plane.
Here's an idea: How about government thugs not harass innocent people? Get rid of the TSA and don't use this "profiling" nonsense to harass different groups of innocent people; everyone has rights, and that includes people acting 'suspicious' according to some government thug.
If we properly educated people and guided them down the path to getting a deep understanding of the material, they wouldn't forget things so easily, and it would also probably prevent them from finding education so boring. My point is... even if we change the schedule, what are they going to do after they're done with school? Forget everything? That seems to be the case.
Students who spend less time in class each day and/or have longer breaks between semesters but no huge summer vacation period perform substantially better than the traditional system.
The methods currently used to measure their understanding of the material are deeply flawed in the first place, as they don't require that anyone understand anything.
I guess changing the schedule around and spreading out breaks doesn't seem bad to me, but some people (I guess not you) act like that's all that needs to be done.
I've noticed that A students can *use* all sorts of math, but do they have a deep understanding of it? Barely any do, in my experience. It's quite sad that they can get such good grades when they don't truly understand any of the material.
We train people to be mere users, but we do not help them reach true understanding. That's not what the education system should be.
Yeah, let's force kids to attend these rote memorization prisons all year round! Just adding more quantity won't fix the problems with rote memorization, standardized testing, and one-size-fits-all schooling.
Where they lose the argument is that these days privacy is safety
Yes, that is true, but it shouldn't be the *main* point. The main point should be that, even if we assume their actions increase our safety, the ends do not justify the means; freedom is more important than safety.
Surprise: Freedom-hating authoritarian scumbags make the argument that safety is more important than freedom and privacy, all the while pretending that they value freedom and democratic values. I wish these people would move to North Korea.
Considering the number of actual infringements that go on, resorting to the courts for each and every infringing post would be expensive.
I've already told you: I value freedom and due process more than I do making it easy for copyright holders to enforce copyright.
With your proposal, the copyright holder effectively has to file a lawsuit, but doesn't' get anyone to sue.
They do. If the website refuses to take down the material after they've been asked to by a judge, they can sue. They can also sue the person who posted the material. If they want to find out who that person is, they need to investigate.
The value of my opinion is subjective.
What do you propose to replace DMCA requests?
The courts. You want something removed, you see a judge. I value justice and due process more than I do someone's ability to enforce copyrights, and anyone who wants to live in a free country would agree with me.
If the website owner is liable for copyright infringements by material posted by third parties
They don't have to be. Keep a concept similar to safe harbor but don't have DMCA notices. It's not hard.
The law is, unsurprisingly, wrong. And that whole "reasonable expectation of privacy" thing is just a bad idea, because all it means is that if the government infringes upon people's privacy enough, they can't 'reasonably' expect that they'll have privacy anymore. Privacy should be about ethics, not expectations.
While we're talking about what "should" be, how about getting rid of DMCA requests 100%? No need for something that circumvents actual due process.
We already have. In the US, government thugs will harass you even for making bomb jokes or something similar. And we did that ourselves, all the while we pretend that the bogeymen aren't affecting our way of life as we're being unconstitutionally molested by thugs at airports and subjected to mass unconstitutional surveillance.
Learn the difference between government stifling your speech and moderators on a private website modding your posts down (not even deleting them, which would also be different from government censorship).
This so-called freedom is speech and expression is a load of crock
Why don't you just move to North Korea? You can have all the hurt feelings laws you want in that authoritarian hellhole.
We don't 'know' that the Higgs exists
Which is why we would need to study it more.
And admitting that you don't know is just the honest thing to do, I think.
If we have the results of a longitudinal study, including medical records, surveys, clinical observations, and all the rest from psychology, I assert that we know something more than we did before.
You might know something more than you did before, but be careful of what conclusions you draw from it, is my point.
At any rate, your personal vendetta against all social science is uninteresting
It's not a personal vendetta, but a problem I think is fairly well-known.
and those are a far better basis for our understanding of human psychology than random opinions, gotten from nowhere at all.
Random opinions? The fact that X is better than Y (social 'sciences' are better than random opinions) does not mean that X is good. The fact that sometimes social 'sciences' may produce results you deem useful does not mean it is appropriate for you to state the conclusions of some flawed studies you agree with as fact.
Absent reliable, rigorous science, just admit that you do not know. That's what I'm saying.
(certainly a nonzero number)
I agree that it sounds reasonable that a nonzero amount of people find happiness in religion.
it is in fact the rational choice for them to continue their involvement.
That depends on their goal. Is their goal the truth? Then probably not. If they don't care about truth, then believing in magical sky daddies (as most religions ask you to) when there is no evidence of such a thing is probably fine for them if they are happy.
You reject the most authoritative body of knowledge that exists on the subject, and trust your personal opinion more than the data collected by experts that have devoted their lives to the subject.
My personal opinion? If credible science is lacking, you admit that you do not truly know. That's all there is to it. Someone devoting their lives to something does not indicate that that something is valid, rigorous science.
After all, there are many 'experts' in pseudoscience, and yet we know their pseudoscience is nonsense. Some even devote their lives to the pseudoscience. Does that make it valid? No.
It certainly seems to be a better path than assuming that my uninformed, non-expert opinions are correct.
Science doesn't work by mindlessly appealing to authority figures. Once they have actual hard proof and valid scientific studies, then I will see your point.
Scientific consensus is important, but the social 'sciences' still have all the flaws I've mentioned above, so consensus between soft scientists is still less reliable, and especially so when they use flawed data gathering techniques. What I was saying is that waiting for that consensus is the *least* people could do, but many don't even wait for that. Having people self-report levels of happiness and drawing such a broad conclusion from that is just insane, even if I were to assume there is consensus. Until there's something more than that, I have no reason to believe any of it.
(which isn't unique to the social sciences, btw)
No, but for whatever reason, it is much more prevalent. In my opinion, it is because they are good for people who like to control others.