Its probably for National Security. The United States could very easily demand that Microsoft adds a backdoor in their next service pack. We could steal some information, get rid of some information, change some missile targets just a tiny little bit, create three national scandals, frame government officials for spreading pro U.S. propoganda, and take a few key building locations the first day we felt like it. We could probably cause the downfall of the Argentinian government in less than a month. I think its a security risk for any government to be running closed software especially if its based in another country.
In Nazi Germany, there was no problem with the Nazis spreading their point of view. There was, however, a problem with them not letting others express theirs. When presented a choice between two belief systems, the person makes a choice and will choose whichever one they think is better. Unless you think that a large number of people, upon being presented with both viewpoints would think Nazism is better, then there is no reason to censor it. And, of course, if the majority of the population does think its better than Democracy even when presented with all the information, then you probably should change your government to Nazism (after all, it is a Democracy).
You say that their point of view doesn't make any sense, but for people to believe in something, it has to make sense to them. They could just as easily say that your point of view doesn't make any sense and censor your point of view (and historically, they probably did).
You are correct that Nazis are far from socialist. In fact, one of the main reasons they won was that people didn't want the country to become communist. Your spectrum of government, however, does not accurately depict what governments stand for. It would be better to explain the governments view on various issues. One way of depicting it that I liked was to represent government type as a point on a square where the lower left hand corner was freedom, the upper left equality, and the lower right order. Equality and Order take away from Freedom, but not from each other. Fascism would probably have no equality and lots of order. Communism would probably have lots of equality and little order. The problem with your one-dimensional scale is that it really isn't well defined what it represents. Left could be freedom and right lack of freedom, left could be more willing to change and right wanting to go back to older methods, left could mean equality and right could mean order. For two of those, Fascism and Communism would be in about the same place. On the other one, they're basically opposites.
You said that Nazi ideas are based on lies and hate. Obviously the people who believe in them don't think they're lies, and most likely think that your ideas are false and hateful of them. If they were in power (and they were) they could use the same justification to censor and eliminate other points of view (and they did).
The Nazi ideolology is not one of constant war. After they completed their goals they would stop. There would most likely be a very definite end to their war, and it would seem as though the United States is more likely to continue with wars perpetually, policing the world. They do and should have the right to voice their opinions and spread it, just like you. Free speech is for everybody and it should protect everybody whether or not someone thinks otherwise. Neo-Nazis probably think that you shouldn't be able to spread your opinion, and if they were in power, they would try to censor you, but that should never happen, and it shouldn't happen to them either.
Those websites can cause people to hurt other people's feelings, but so can any moral judgement of any sort. I don't think we should eliminate the Bible because it might hurt the feelings of atheists, and I assume you don't either. If people can feel, their feelings can be hurt. You might as well tell people to kill themselves so that they won't fear death. As for yoru comment about 'false' beliefs, no beliefs are false, because they are beliefs.
Fascists should have a voice, and fascism isn't necessarilly that bad. For example, in Mussolini's Italy, before the war, and without the influence of Hitler, things weren't that bad. You can check it for yourself and form your own opinion, but fascism isn't necessarilly evil.
Being a Nazi isn't necessarilly wrong. Of course, I'm not saying the Nazis are good. I am, however, saying that it is possible for a Nazi to be morally good just like anyone from any religion, ideology, or party can be good.
I don't really see much of a connection between ping-flooding some websites and preventing another holocaust. Besides that, just because they are a sovereign nation doesn't mean they can do what they want. Let's say I don't want anyone I know to read a newspaper. I can't just get some people together and block of the press.
I hope that Germany doesn't have another holocaust or oppression of any sort, and that is part of the reason why I am writing this. Effectively eliminating people rights for their beliefs is a bad sign, and I think that this is quite possibly the first step towards another holocaust. I sincerely hope that you want to prevent the death or oppression of anyone for their beliefs.
Although I don't support what you're doing, I thought that in the spirit of freedom of expression and all opinions and viewpoints that it would be a good idea to help you. Your plan for dealing with them is very unclear, so I propose that you adopt this one:
-----
In order to eliminate the Nazi menace, we should first spread anti-Nazi propoganda, then make various laws against them and mark them so anyone can tell that there's a Nazi in the neighborhood. Next, we round them up and tell them we're moving them to some place where they won't be bothered. When they agree, we send them to forced labor camps and work them to death. If we're not eliminating those sub-human evil monsters fast enough we can use poison gas, incinerators, rifles etc.
-----
If you focus on how this plan is in defiance of the hypocritical American freedom of expression viewpoint, you should be able to get more people to follow. Feel free to make changes. I just thought it would be nice to have a more coherent plan for the oppression and elimination of Nazis for people to discuss.
Really, this system wouldn't necessarilly work very well. It would be incredibly difficult to process all the information and to track criminals. Furthermore, the crimes would still be committed. I propose that everybody is implanted at birth with a device that reads their thoughts and can emit a powerful, deadly, electrical instantly to anyone who is going to do something illegal. There would be people who watched over a group of people to make sure they don't do anything illegal. There would be no corruption because those people would be watched over by higher up people and so on until one person would be in control of them all. If anybody thought anything he didn't want them to think (committed a crime), he could instantly kill them! Of course, this would be a perfect environment for you because you, as you said, don't do anything wrong from anyone's point of view. This would eliminate crime and you would have nothing to fear. I'm sure you'll be very much relieved when this system is implemented. I'm just glad somebody supports me in my war against crime.
Thank you again for your support and remember to vote appropriately next election.
PS You can pre-order one of the implants to help make the world safer. Unfortunately they do cost quite a bit. Luckily, I should be able to increase taxes enough to afford them, and you might get reimbursed if things go well enough.
Slashdot Mirror
*yawn*
Disorder and compression are irrevocably mutually exclusive.
Disorder is unpredictability. Compression is prediction.
It is impossible to express something more simply unless you have some idea of what to expect.
Its probably for National Security. The United States could very easily demand that Microsoft adds a backdoor in their next service pack. We could steal some information, get rid of some information, change some missile targets just a tiny little bit, create three national scandals, frame government officials for spreading pro U.S. propoganda, and take a few key building locations the first day we felt like it. We could probably cause the downfall of the Argentinian government in less than a month. I think its a security risk for any government to be running closed software especially if its based in another country.
In Nazi Germany, there was no problem with the Nazis spreading their point of view. There was, however, a problem with them not letting others express theirs. When presented a choice between two belief systems, the person makes a choice and will choose whichever one they think is better. Unless you think that a large number of people, upon being presented with both viewpoints would think Nazism is better, then there is no reason to censor it. And, of course, if the majority of the population does think its better than Democracy even when presented with all the information, then you probably should change your government to Nazism (after all, it is a Democracy).
You say that their point of view doesn't make any sense, but for people to believe in something, it has to make sense to them. They could just as easily say that your point of view doesn't make any sense and censor your point of view (and historically, they probably did).
You are correct that Nazis are far from socialist. In fact, one of the main reasons they won was that people didn't want the country to become communist. Your spectrum of government, however, does not accurately depict what governments stand for. It would be better to explain the governments view on various issues. One way of depicting it that I liked was to represent government type as a point on a square where the lower left hand corner was freedom, the upper left equality, and the lower right order. Equality and Order take away from Freedom, but not from each other. Fascism would probably have no equality and lots of order. Communism would probably have lots of equality and little order. The problem with your one-dimensional scale is that it really isn't well defined what it represents. Left could be freedom and right lack of freedom, left could be more willing to change and right wanting to go back to older methods, left could mean equality and right could mean order. For two of those, Fascism and Communism would be in about the same place. On the other one, they're basically opposites.
You said that Nazi ideas are based on lies and hate. Obviously the people who believe in them don't think they're lies, and most likely think that your ideas are false and hateful of them. If they were in power (and they were) they could use the same justification to censor and eliminate other points of view (and they did).
The Nazi ideolology is not one of constant war. After they completed their goals they would stop. There would most likely be a very definite end to their war, and it would seem as though the United States is more likely to continue with wars perpetually, policing the world. They do and should have the right to voice their opinions and spread it, just like you. Free speech is for everybody and it should protect everybody whether or not someone thinks otherwise. Neo-Nazis probably think that you shouldn't be able to spread your opinion, and if they were in power, they would try to censor you, but that should never happen, and it shouldn't happen to them either.
Those websites can cause people to hurt other people's feelings, but so can any moral judgement of any sort. I don't think we should eliminate the Bible because it might hurt the feelings of atheists, and I assume you don't either. If people can feel, their feelings can be hurt. You might as well tell people to kill themselves so that they won't fear death. As for yoru comment about 'false' beliefs, no beliefs are false, because they are beliefs.
Fascists should have a voice, and fascism isn't necessarilly that bad. For example, in Mussolini's Italy, before the war, and without the influence of Hitler, things weren't that bad. You can check it for yourself and form your own opinion, but fascism isn't necessarilly evil.
Being a Nazi isn't necessarilly wrong. Of course, I'm not saying the Nazis are good. I am, however, saying that it is possible for a Nazi to be morally good just like anyone from any religion, ideology, or party can be good.
I don't really see much of a connection between ping-flooding some websites and preventing another holocaust. Besides that, just because they are a sovereign nation doesn't mean they can do what they want. Let's say I don't want anyone I know to read a newspaper. I can't just get some people together and block of the press.
I hope that Germany doesn't have another holocaust or oppression of any sort, and that is part of the reason why I am writing this. Effectively eliminating people rights for their beliefs is a bad sign, and I think that this is quite possibly the first step towards another holocaust. I sincerely hope that you want to prevent the death or oppression of anyone for their beliefs.
Although I don't support what you're doing, I thought that in the spirit of freedom of expression and all opinions and viewpoints that it would be a good idea to help you. Your plan for dealing with them is very unclear, so I propose that you adopt this one:
-----
In order to eliminate the Nazi menace, we should first spread anti-Nazi propoganda, then make various laws against them and mark them so anyone can tell that there's a Nazi in the neighborhood. Next, we round them up and tell them we're moving them to some place where they won't be bothered. When they agree, we send them to forced labor camps and work them to death. If we're not eliminating those sub-human evil monsters fast enough we can use poison gas, incinerators, rifles etc.
-----
If you focus on how this plan is in defiance of the hypocritical American freedom of expression viewpoint, you should be able to get more people to follow. Feel free to make changes. I just thought it would be nice to have a more coherent plan for the oppression and elimination of Nazis for people to discuss.
Really, this system wouldn't necessarilly work very well. It would be incredibly difficult to process all the information and to track criminals. Furthermore, the crimes would still be committed. I propose that everybody is implanted at birth with a device that reads their thoughts and can emit a powerful, deadly, electrical instantly to anyone who is going to do something illegal. There would be people who watched over a group of people to make sure they don't do anything illegal. There would be no corruption because those people would be watched over by higher up people and so on until one person would be in control of them all. If anybody thought anything he didn't want them to think (committed a crime), he could instantly kill them! Of course, this would be a perfect environment for you because you, as you said, don't do anything wrong from anyone's point of view. This would eliminate crime and you would have nothing to fear. I'm sure you'll be very much relieved when this system is implemented. I'm just glad somebody supports me in my war against crime.
Thank you again for your support and remember to vote appropriately next election.
PS You can pre-order one of the implants to help make the world safer. Unfortunately they do cost quite a bit. Luckily, I should be able to increase taxes enough to afford them, and you might get reimbursed if things go well enough.