this case is extreme, an outlier. context is everything. of course someone will try to stretch laws for all sorts of dubious purposes, but if the results of this case doesn't enable them, some other case will. we shouldn't give this woman a pass because someone somewhere might misinterpret the case and read it out of context. they will do that anyway
as if the woman is prosecuted for saying she doesn't like gw bush online
no folks, this is way beyond simple thought crime
context is everything:
1. the woman knew the girl was emotionally unstable 2. the woman is an adult, the girl was a minor 3. the woman purposefully set up a fake account with the intent of faking a boy who was interested in her, got her interested in this fake person, and then started insulting her, in the role of the fake boy, and suggesting she commit suicide
in other words, an adult willfully manipulated an emotionally unstable minor over a prolonged period of time with the intent of causing her psychological harm
surely some of you can support any law coming out of this case. surely some of you recognize this case is an extreme outlier and can in no way be confused with everyday garden variety trolling and meanness
if the law is limited to the context of an adult purposefully causing psychological harm over a prolonged period of time to someone they KNOW is a minor and is emotionally unstable, surely you can see that the idea of a slippery slope does not apply
context is everything, and the context here is really extreme
let's put this way: i have now advanced two logical and reasonable assaults on the folly of free market fundamentalism and the idiocy of libertarianism. you have responded to neither assaults. meanwhile, you vomit up "regulatory capture" as if that esoteric sideshow is suppose to dispel either of the two rocks of gibraltar sitting in front of you you fail to address:
1. a market without regulation will fail due to panics
2. a market without regulation will devolve into unsymmetrical powers, an oligopoly
this is the essential folly of libertarianism: it is a set of ideas incompatible with reality. in reality, if you made an experimental libertarian society, classes would emerge, and completely destroy the necessary equality required for a libertarian utopia to work. the truth of libertarianism is this: it supports entrenched classes and the established rich. it doesn't work amongst equals, because it destroys the equality between the players in a "free" marketplace. to keep the marketplace truly free, you have to actively exert intrusive regulatory forces to suppress the power of dominant players
this is the truth, it is ironclad, it is insurmountable. understand why libertarian ideals lead to inequality in reality, or understand nothing
i am sorry, but you are going to need to open your eyes. you have a propaganda-addled mind. you are probably some very well-meaning college philosophy minor, too many books under your belt, and not enough real life experience. consider the nature of the human being in your thought experiments. currently, your ideas about how libertarianism and free market is supposed to work depends upon human beings behaving in ways no human being has ever behaved in any culture in all of history
you're green, ignorant. you'll grow up someday and realize your folly
see the things about "free" markets is they favor the dominant powers. and lets for the sake of a thought experiment, imagine the libertarian utopia of a market of equals. after a few iterations, this market of equals devolves into a few dominant powers. its inevitable. only regulation can save us from the from the unsymmetrical power the dominant players have in an entrenched marketplace
this is a fundamental basic weakness of all libertarian arguments in fact: wealth accumulates in a few hands, and this process accelerates, and remains entrenched, and warps the playing field. you can't have a market of equals, it always devolves into haves and have nots. you have to have intrusive laws, regulation, and a busy body governmental force to constantly even the playing field. the whole libertarian ideology is a fantasy utopia, incompatible with reality
oh and btw, i'm not changing my argument, i'm expanding upon it
language evolves on its own, outside the realm of anyone's control. you don't unilaterally decide by fiat that you will redefine words according to some sort of agenda, and common culture will just fall into place for you. if you want to fight the riaa, use your energies and fight them, but if you instead use your energies to try to redefine the meaning of words, because the coopting of their usage by certain groups is not to your liking, you're just wasting your time and energy
and yes, that is what the riaa is trying to do by using the word "pirate", and yes, they are wasting their time. so you want to be as hopeless and retarded as the riaa? the game the riaa is playing is stupid. you beat them by not playing their stupid game. stop trying to redefine words. they ebb and flow in meaning on their own, at the behest of popular culture, which no one controls. pure folly
you understand the concept of someone who irrationally adheres to an absurd faith, in spite of evidence to the contrary... and then you go ahead and do that anyways
dude: study history, the banking panics of the 1800s. a completely unregulated market has severity and consequences WORSE than one that is regulated. all you need is panic, a basic human psychological phenomenon to make this happen. panic feeds off itself, the market drives itself into oblivion: its historical fact, established time and time again
accept historical fact, or remain just like a creationist, believing in an absurd idea, routed and disproved many times over: a completely unregulated marketplace is a powder keg of destruction, with far worse consequences than a regulated one
is, from the same story, relegated to second interest, for some reason, the idea of resurrecting a neanderthal, the same way as the woolly mammoth. using chimpanzee as the starting cell lineage rather than human, for ethical considerations of course
but this guy won't be dumb. somebody will have to explain to him he's not the last of his kind... he is the 50,000 year old cloned reconstruction of his kind
words are complicated, their negative connotations dependent on the context. the pirates of centuries ago were of course just like the amoral murderous thugs trolling off the coast of somalia today, but over time, they've developed a romantic, robin hood type quality
words are complicated. they are not like a programming statement. they evolve over time, have different meaning to different groups and in different contexts, etc. language is fluid, not written in stone
when the dominant power defines a word as a pejorative, it also instantly develops a positive cachet amongst those oppressed by that power. consider the use of the N word among black people, or the word "queer" by gay people. the original meaning is coopted as a point of pride by those who are labelled with the pejorative, so that in time, the word loses value as a pejorative, or even becomes positive in connotation
i mean even the word pirate itself, outside of any copyright considerations, is almost positive. it has developed a sort of romantic robinhood like quality. witness the blockbuster pirates of the caribbean movies: the hero is a pirate, when, of course, in reality, these guys were like the pirates trolling off the coast of somalia today: murderous amoral thugs
a word's meaning, and its negative connotation are complicated things. you simplify too much, and miss completely what happens to a word when it is coopted by various groups. do not underestimate the power of the riaa to shoot itself in the foot by brandishing a word that has romantic qualities to it as well as negative
panic sets in, feeds off itself, and destroys the entire marketplace
your comment is in direct contradiction to established historical fact
what is wrong with you free market fundamentalists?
a little regulation HELPS. it can do nothing but help. let go of your bizarre irrational fear and your cult-like approach towards free markets. you're not logical or reasonable in your approach, you're like arguing with a creationist: you've taken a single act of faith: that a completely free market is always good, and in spite of all common sense and reasonable evidence to the contrary, you will not let go of your religious deathgrip on a fundamentalist absolutist concept
the best market is a sandbox: free within certain parameters, regulated when the marketplace swings to extremes
go ahead, dispute that. i expect you to. you're not a reasonable person, you're a member of a fundamentalist religion, beyond the reach of reason
no, a completely free market is not a good thing, it is a stupid thing
the meltdown is due to human psychology. i did not know you needed regulations to create panic and fear. i suppose if we had no regulations, the very concepts of panic and fear would disappear?
fact: an unregulated market is subject to times of irrational exuberance, and times of panic and fear. there is absolutely no prerequisite to these truths, and no escaping them. the only way to save ourselves form the excesses of irrational excitement or hysteria is regulation
if you don't believe or understand that, you ar ein some sort of denial and choking on some massive propaganda
neanderthals didn't go extinct, they interbred. there's a little neanderthal in all of us
its not so bleak as you presume. as a unique person, he'll enjoy rockstar status. there's also asshats that pick on people in wheelchairs, but do you see stephen hawking genuinely limited by that in life? you are giving too much credence to the reaction of the lowest common denominator, which he wouldn't come in that much contact with, and wouldn't rule his life
hollywood paid nasa $100 million to drum up interest in the upcoming spider 4 movie next summer. previously, they released keith richard's spastic colon into the florida everglades to promote pirates of the caribbean 3
Slashdot Mirror
this case is extreme, an outlier. context is everything. of course someone will try to stretch laws for all sorts of dubious purposes, but if the results of this case doesn't enable them, some other case will. we shouldn't give this woman a pass because someone somewhere might misinterpret the case and read it out of context. they will do that anyway
as if the woman is prosecuted for saying she doesn't like gw bush online
no folks, this is way beyond simple thought crime
context is everything:
1. the woman knew the girl was emotionally unstable
2. the woman is an adult, the girl was a minor
3. the woman purposefully set up a fake account with the intent of faking a boy who was interested in her, got her interested in this fake person, and then started insulting her, in the role of the fake boy, and suggesting she commit suicide
in other words, an adult willfully manipulated an emotionally unstable minor over a prolonged period of time with the intent of causing her psychological harm
surely some of you can support any law coming out of this case. surely some of you recognize this case is an extreme outlier and can in no way be confused with everyday garden variety trolling and meanness
if the law is limited to the context of an adult purposefully causing psychological harm over a prolonged period of time to someone they KNOW is a minor and is emotionally unstable, surely you can see that the idea of a slippery slope does not apply
context is everything, and the context here is really extreme
let's put this way: i have now advanced two logical and reasonable assaults on the folly of free market fundamentalism and the idiocy of libertarianism. you have responded to neither assaults. meanwhile, you vomit up "regulatory capture" as if that esoteric sideshow is suppose to dispel either of the two rocks of gibraltar sitting in front of you you fail to address:
1. a market without regulation will fail due to panics
2. a market without regulation will devolve into unsymmetrical powers, an oligopoly
this is the essential folly of libertarianism: it is a set of ideas incompatible with reality. in reality, if you made an experimental libertarian society, classes would emerge, and completely destroy the necessary equality required for a libertarian utopia to work. the truth of libertarianism is this: it supports entrenched classes and the established rich. it doesn't work amongst equals, because it destroys the equality between the players in a "free" marketplace. to keep the marketplace truly free, you have to actively exert intrusive regulatory forces to suppress the power of dominant players
this is the truth, it is ironclad, it is insurmountable. understand why libertarian ideals lead to inequality in reality, or understand nothing
i am sorry, but you are going to need to open your eyes. you have a propaganda-addled mind. you are probably some very well-meaning college philosophy minor, too many books under your belt, and not enough real life experience. consider the nature of the human being in your thought experiments. currently, your ideas about how libertarianism and free market is supposed to work depends upon human beings behaving in ways no human being has ever behaved in any culture in all of history
you're green, ignorant. you'll grow up someday and realize your folly
there really is nothing but a tiny sliver of hope
and the chance someone, somewhere, has a corpse
by a buxom british chick in spandex holding two pistols, i'm not interested
you are left with an oligopoly
see the things about "free" markets is they favor the dominant powers. and lets for the sake of a thought experiment, imagine the libertarian utopia of a market of equals. after a few iterations, this market of equals devolves into a few dominant powers. its inevitable. only regulation can save us from the from the unsymmetrical power the dominant players have in an entrenched marketplace
this is a fundamental basic weakness of all libertarian arguments in fact: wealth accumulates in a few hands, and this process accelerates, and remains entrenched, and warps the playing field. you can't have a market of equals, it always devolves into haves and have nots. you have to have intrusive laws, regulation, and a busy body governmental force to constantly even the playing field. the whole libertarian ideology is a fantasy utopia, incompatible with reality
oh and btw, i'm not changing my argument, i'm expanding upon it
most reputable sources say its gone
maybe they can find some cadavers
we can put mammoths there
bank their tissue, and then resurrect as needed. we could have saved the baiji ;-(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_River_Dolphin
and you defeat terrorists with suicide bombs
and you defeat rapists with sexual assault
and you defeat bank robbrs by mugging them
etc., etc...
small hint: you don't defeat the riaa by playing their game, understand?
you need regulation for a healthy market
you need regulation, in fact to keep it free!
i leave it to your boundless imagination as to why that is
hint: left to its own devices, the marketplace would devolve into a...
but who said we only had to make one?
let's make a whole herd
language evolves on its own, outside the realm of anyone's control. you don't unilaterally decide by fiat that you will redefine words according to some sort of agenda, and common culture will just fall into place for you. if you want to fight the riaa, use your energies and fight them, but if you instead use your energies to try to redefine the meaning of words, because the coopting of their usage by certain groups is not to your liking, you're just wasting your time and energy
and yes, that is what the riaa is trying to do by using the word "pirate", and yes, they are wasting their time. so you want to be as hopeless and retarded as the riaa? the game the riaa is playing is stupid. you beat them by not playing their stupid game. stop trying to redefine words. they ebb and flow in meaning on their own, at the behest of popular culture, which no one controls. pure folly
you understand the concept of someone who irrationally adheres to an absurd faith, in spite of evidence to the contrary... and then you go ahead and do that anyways
dude: study history, the banking panics of the 1800s. a completely unregulated market has severity and consequences WORSE than one that is regulated. all you need is panic, a basic human psychological phenomenon to make this happen. panic feeds off itself, the market drives itself into oblivion: its historical fact, established time and time again
accept historical fact, or remain just like a creationist, believing in an absurd idea, routed and disproved many times over: a completely unregulated marketplace is a powder keg of destruction, with far worse consequences than a regulated one
solid, established historical fact
read, learn, educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run
is, from the same story, relegated to second interest, for some reason, the idea of resurrecting a neanderthal, the same way as the woolly mammoth. using chimpanzee as the starting cell lineage rather than human, for ethical considerations of course
but this guy won't be dumb. somebody will have to explain to him he's not the last of his kind... he is the 50,000 year old cloned reconstruction of his kind
weird, lonely, and possible on our lifetime
very cool, very freaky
blockbuster movie where the pirate is the hero?
words are complicated, their negative connotations dependent on the context. the pirates of centuries ago were of course just like the amoral murderous thugs trolling off the coast of somalia today, but over time, they've developed a romantic, robin hood type quality
words are complicated. they are not like a programming statement. they evolve over time, have different meaning to different groups and in different contexts, etc. language is fluid, not written in stone
when the dominant power defines a word as a pejorative, it also instantly develops a positive cachet amongst those oppressed by that power. consider the use of the N word among black people, or the word "queer" by gay people. the original meaning is coopted as a point of pride by those who are labelled with the pejorative, so that in time, the word loses value as a pejorative, or even becomes positive in connotation
i mean even the word pirate itself, outside of any copyright considerations, is almost positive. it has developed a sort of romantic robinhood like quality. witness the blockbuster pirates of the caribbean movies: the hero is a pirate, when, of course, in reality, these guys were like the pirates trolling off the coast of somalia today: murderous amoral thugs
a word's meaning, and its negative connotation are complicated things. you simplify too much, and miss completely what happens to a word when it is coopted by various groups. do not underestimate the power of the riaa to shoot itself in the foot by brandishing a word that has romantic qualities to it as well as negative
go study the banking panics of the 1800s
panic sets in, feeds off itself, and destroys the entire marketplace
your comment is in direct contradiction to established historical fact
what is wrong with you free market fundamentalists?
a little regulation HELPS. it can do nothing but help. let go of your bizarre irrational fear and your cult-like approach towards free markets. you're not logical or reasonable in your approach, you're like arguing with a creationist: you've taken a single act of faith: that a completely free market is always good, and in spite of all common sense and reasonable evidence to the contrary, you will not let go of your religious deathgrip on a fundamentalist absolutist concept
the best market is a sandbox: free within certain parameters, regulated when the marketplace swings to extremes
go ahead, dispute that. i expect you to. you're not a reasonable person, you're a member of a fundamentalist religion, beyond the reach of reason
no, a completely free market is not a good thing, it is a stupid thing
the meltdown is due to human psychology. i did not know you needed regulations to create panic and fear. i suppose if we had no regulations, the very concepts of panic and fear would disappear?
fact: an unregulated market is subject to times of irrational exuberance, and times of panic and fear. there is absolutely no prerequisite to these truths, and no escaping them. the only way to save ourselves form the excesses of irrational excitement or hysteria is regulation
if you don't believe or understand that, you ar ein some sort of denial and choking on some massive propaganda
words evolve in meaning and use, and you need to get used to it
have three effects:
1. they punish well-behaved customers for what pirates do
2. they have zero effect on the pirates
3. they turn well-behaved customers into pirates
i always fancied i was half caveman
like picasso, the neanderthal
neanderthals didn't go extinct, they interbred. there's a little neanderthal in all of us
its not so bleak as you presume. as a unique person, he'll enjoy rockstar status. there's also asshats that pick on people in wheelchairs, but do you see stephen hawking genuinely limited by that in life? you are giving too much credence to the reaction of the lowest common denominator, which he wouldn't come in that much contact with, and wouldn't rule his life
hollywood paid nasa $100 million to drum up interest in the upcoming spider 4 movie next summer. previously, they released keith richard's spastic colon into the florida everglades to promote pirates of the caribbean 3
nothign to see here, move along