But, when Team America: World Police decide they are going to start overthrowing regimes and being the final arbiters of liberty and IP in the world
Riiiight. So you've somehow come to the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq means what, exactly? That we'll be stomping all over Belgium next? Get a grip.
And last I checked, every country in the world (minus Iraq) can and does enact its own ip laws. Some nations in Europe have far worse laws than we do in that regard. How are we supposed to be the "final arbiters" on IP when aside from global invasion and war we're utterly incapable of forcing our laws on anyone else?
Because, quite frankly, why should anyone listen to anything your government says unless to treat it as what it actually is --- the yellings of a bully who expects to control the way everything works.
As opposed to what you seem to be proposing, i.e., forcing each and every nation to get down on its knees before the UN because, like, that's somehow 'democractic'? A dictatorship by the majority is still a dictatorship, any way you slice it. That's one of the reasons the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, because democracies suck dick if you aren't one of the happy majority.
You want democracy for everyone
No, most Americans aren't at all interested in spreading democracy, no matter what bullshit you've been spoon-feeding yourself. The U.S. government isn't all that interested in it, either. Certainly the Saudis and Kuwaitis could attest to that.
protection of the RIAA's property rights
Which are absolutely impossible to enforce without YOUR own governments complicity. If you think your government is doing bad things to the benefit of the RIAA, then complain to your government, not to me or any other American. It isn't our problem if your politicians are corrupt shitheads.
but then turn around and say "we don't care about what other countries want".
The sole purpose my government exists is to serve American interests. My government has *absolutely no business* putting ANYONE ELSE's interests ahead of my own. It's that simple. To do so would be a betrayal of every single American on the planet.
The ease with which you seem to think you can flip between those two completely contradictory poisitions is what troubles everyone else.
The ease with which you seem to think it's okay for a group of nations to impose their will on the rest of the world, yet somehow think this is completely different from a single nation doing the same thing, is what bothers me. Not to mention the fact that your'e suffering from the delusion that the U.S. is even capable of attempting this feat, outside of easily-whipped little countries like Iraq.
At present, America is being perceived as walking around with a big stick, expecting everyone to snivel, grovel, and blindly follow.
Just another bitter European, I see. If it were the EU doing this you'd no doubt claim it was just and appropriate. What you're pissed at isn't that the U.S. has power, but that your nation doesn't have that power.
Try sucking it up and dealing with it. Europe had it's time in the sun - centuries of time - and now that time is over, and it ain't coming back. That's just the way things are.
The UN is not made up entirely, or even mostly, out of governments like North Korea or Iran. Most of them are democracies, with civil rights
More than eighty countries are straight-up dictatorships, regardless of what they publicly call themselves. I have a huge problem with these countries being allowed a vote in the General Assembly, when each vote only represents a tiny ruling class for that country; or in a number of cases, the will of a single person.
Additionally, it can be argued quite convincingly that the US is not the most democratic nation in the world
Perhaps. Which has what to do with DNS administration? The U.S. has a proven track record in this regard, and nobody has managed to provide a convincing argument for needlessly changing a system that already works just fine the way it is.
The current DNS system is very much pro-corporate america
It's pro-corporate WORLD-WIDE. There's a huge difference between what you're arguing and what is actually true. For the record, I have absolutely no problem with this, as I'm a capitalist, not some wild-eyed socialist looney-toon out to destroy those eeeevil corporations!
I find the US desire to control world-wide IP law
How you make the conceptual leap from retaining control of DNS and controlling all IP, everywhere, across the entire globe is beyond me. Seems like you're just blowing smoke out of your ass, or chicken-littling this whole subject beyond any rational stretch of the imagination.
Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.
Fuck that. When the word "democracy" encompasses nations like China, Iran, or North Korea, things start to become very Orwellian in nature.
If other nations do set up their own root servers, the Internet will be fractured and cease to be the useful network it is today.
It'll be fractured for the countries who decide to divorce themselves from it, not for the rest of us. And frankly, I reallly couldn't give a shit if China, or Iran, or North Korea decided not to play with the rest of us. China's already doing that, or did you somehow miss the advent of the Great Firewall?
The whole point of the Internet is that it's run by rough consensus.
What the hell are you smoking? The internet isn't run by consensus; it isn't a democracy. It is, in fact, a combination of both anarchy and dictatorship, one that seems to work quite well just the way it is. Anarchy in the sense that standards accrete over time without any one group being able to impose them from above, and dictatorship in that whatever piece I own, I get to make the rules on. If I have a website forum, for example, I can set up whatever rules I want; you don't like them, then your choice boils down to "fuck off". And if you won't go voluntarily I can ip-ban you and be done with it, and not a single person anywhere in the world can force me to let you back onto my forum.
There is no "consensus" here. The internet is one of the least democratic systems on the planet - and thank the gods for that.
You can't deny other nations a voice
You can't deny another nation a voice on the internet *because it's technically impossible to do so*.
The Internet as it is today is controlled
The internet is beyond any one nation's control. That's been proven time and time again. Even the U.S. Congress, passing draconian law after draconian law, has proven utterly impotent at regulating the internet. The Chinese, despite their firewall, are powerless to stop their citizens from reaching any part of it they wish to reach, assuming they have the will to do so.
That very lack of control, the inability of any one nation to effectively impose anything on the system, is one of the internets strengths.
The point is that it's not the right of the United States to force this lack of censorship upon every country in the world.
There is no 'force' involved here. Any country can erect a 'great firewall'. Or simply refuse to play along with the U.S., any time they feel like it, and set up their own root servers. It is absolutely impossible for one country, even the U.S. to compel any other country to adopt freedom via the internet. Your statement is beyond ridiculous.
But we as a country don't have any right to be telling China that they can't block out freedoms.
We have the right to tell them any fucking thing we please. First Amendment freedom of speech. The Chinese, for their part, don't have to listen to us. They can ignore us any time they like - and have, with their own national firewall. China, more than any other country on Earth, has opted NOT to listen to us, or anyone else, when it comes to the internet.
It's the same thing.
What a crock. Retaining control the DNS servers has nothing to do with 'imposing' freedom, or invading Iraq. Trying to connect these disparate ideas is both pathetic and ludicrous.
One country forcing another sovereign country to do something against its own will, is wrong.
Tell that to China. Betcha they have something different to say when it comes to Tibet.
But then we trade-embargoed Cuba, Iraq, and all sorts of other countries that we don't agree with, and make their economy suffer, and their citizens sufffer, in order to force them to do something
Yet another statement that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. But since you seem to be incapable of sticking to the issue at hand, let me point out that *as a sovereign nation* the U.S. has every right in the world to NOT TRADE with other nations. No nation has a right to 'force' the U.S. to trade with it. Ever.
None of the bodies lobbying to wrest control of DNS from the U.S. have managed to provide a compelling reason for doing so. Other than some extremely vague, incredibly lame politico-speak about 'freedom' and 'democracy', neither of which would be guaranteed in any way, shape or form if someone other than the U.S. were to control DNS, no one has managed to put forward *any* sort of reason for moving DNS control to another body.
On the other hand, the U.S. has a proven decades-long track record of doing just that where the internet is concerned. More freedom than you can shake a stick at, with no indication that this will ever change at any time in the future. You have to wonder at the motivations of folks who want to fix something that isn't broken.
There is no right to "decency of the community" in the Constitution. Nor does the Constitution grant that power to government or the people through the Ninth and Tenth amendments, trumping the First, Fourth or Fifth Amendments.
Although it's rather clear you lump consensual sexual activity between two adults in with drug abuse, prostitution, bestiality, and treason, so it comes as no surprise that you think persecuting such folks a perfectly legitimate activity.
but I doubt very much that you can come up with an argument that beastiality, urination, or fisting somehow oppress a class of people.
All victimless crimes are an abomination in a free Republic. The 'community' has no business telling adults what they can and cannot do when their activities harm no one. What the 'community' (in this case, the people with poles up their rigid, freedom-hating asses) needs to do is fuck off and mind their own goddamned business.
Because, of course, any perspective that differs from yours is stupid, ignorant, or willfully gullible, right?
No, but anyone who believes that the planet is a giant god, or that astrology or crystal power works, or that reflexology really is a branch of medical science, is indeed stupid, or ignorant, or willfully gullible. I picked those particular examples for a specific reason, because any rational person can see that each and every one of those things is a total crock of shit.
I think piracy is discussable only on a case-by-case basis, most of the time.
I live in the United States, where copyright laws are determined by Congress, a power specifically granted to them by the Constitution. Those that deliberately piss on the Constitution because they don't happen to like that fact and are too lazy to get off their fat asses to pass an amendment are just common criminals, nothing more.
While I agree that current copyright laws are ridiculous beyond all reasonable measure, that doesn't give a bunch of pimply-faced little shits the 'right' to go out and infringe any time they feel like it, vomiting up variations of "information wants to be free 'cuz I don't like paying for stuff" mantra whenever their illegal activities are challenged.
What I am saying is that you can make a reasonable living on fan-money.
Which has nothing to do with the law. Don't like the law? Then change it.
We, as a society, need to discuss how much money a single person needs, also.
This is both a republic and a capitalism. "Society" has no business telling anyone how much they can earn, nor putting restrictions on the wealth they can accumulate - not in a capitalism, and sure as hell not in a republic.
Do movie stars really need more than a middle-upperclass living?
Who are you to set universal wages for other people? You don't employ them; you aren't their boss and you don't have any say, nor any right, to infringe on their opportunity to earn as much money as they can. If you don't like that Actor X makes $25 million a movie *then stop watching his bloody movies*.
But, honestly, do they really need all this profit?
It doesn't matter what you think they 'need'. You don't get to decide. It isn't up to you. The Constitution grants you no such power.
allow the user to choose himself, give him the power to filter.
My company is my property. While on my property you obey my rules, within the strictures of the law. If you don't like my rules you can always leave my property. If I decide to restrict your ability to reach certain sites on the internet, or to ban you from reaching the internet at all, you can either suck it up and live with it, or quit and go work for someone else.
It's that simple. You don't get a vote, nor do you have any 'right' to choose in this matter beyond whether or not you want to work for me.
while the public simply calls you on your evil nature after you have done something.
Evil, of course, being defined by the people who decide you've done something wrong. I'd take issue with PETA being allowed to brand me as 'evil' simply because I enjoy a good steak.
But I suppose that's par for the course, since every group of idiots thinks they have the One True and Right Way(TM), and anyone who disagrees with them is the tool of the Antichrist.
The only person who's braindead here is you. The poster correctly informed you that you had no entitlement to his approval, but that he refused to legislate against your particular perversion. Since no children were harmed in the production of the erotica the erotica itself is nothing more than speech and shouldn't be banned - simple as that.
That doesn't, however, mean that he can't think that you're a disgusting, filthy little pervert, or tell others that he thinks you a disgusting, filthy little pervert, or try to convince others that your perversion is something to be avoided. His own right to free speech isn't trumped by your right to jack off to child erotica. You both have equal rights, and neither of you has any business legislating against the other. Which is the point he was making.
Although I agree with him, in that if you're into child erotica then you're a nasty little perv, and I have no problem whatsoever exercising my right to free speech in saying that publicly to everyone who happens to stumble across this post. But I too won't try to get you thrown in jail for your deviant personal failings, so long as you leave actual living children alone.
What about all the things on earth that do have needs, but aren't sentient? Are they to be disregarded as well?
Sounds about right. Although non-sentient organisms can't have "needs" beyond the biological. Mold doesn't think, nor do rocks or trees.
We might be inclined to preserve certain ecosystems, or parts of certain ecosystems, for a few reasons:
a) it's good for our continued health, as a species; b) we might derive some useful information out of those parts; or c) because we're human and we feel like it
All of those are excellent reasons for conservation. Treating the planet or its constituent parts of some sort of mystical being, or object of worship is NOT a good reason for doing anything. That sort of pseudo-mystical bullshit has no place in a technological society, any more than astrology or crystal power or reflexology does. It's the province of the stupid, the ignorant, and the willfully gullible.
Now, I don't believe in either of those gods, and don't care if you do, either, but that's obnoxious and stupid.
The point is to piss people off with no sense of humor. Seem to have scored a direct hit in your case.
I'm not going to bother schooling you in the Greenhouse science
Good, because there's no such thing as "Greenhouse science". Never has been, never will be.
Which the levees were up against.
The levees were up against a hurricane of a particular force, and similar hurricanes with equal or more force have occurred in the past along the Gulf coast for millions of years. New Orleans has been lucky up until now, a point driven home time and again by government studies done over the last fifty years. Everyone knew that that sort of luck couldn't last forever and that the levees needed to be strengthened (most of New Orleans being *below the sea level*) but political bullshit got in the way and the needed changes were never made.
It had nothing to do with "Greenhouse science", whatever the fuck you think that means, nor did it have anything to do with global warming.
If it were last year, you'd be denying that those levees would be breached, because Bush wasn't funding their upgrade (or even maintenance).
No, I wouldn't. It's a simple matter of engineering, not "Greenhouse science". People have known since the '50's that the levees weren't sufficient against a major hurricane, and that major hurricanes have struck the New Orleans area repeatedly over millions of years, and that it was inevitable that it would happen again some day. Hence the whole repeated, failed lobby to strengthen the levees. Major hurricanes along the Gulf coast are not a new development.
It is your cohort of apocalyptic Greenhouse deniers
There will be no "apocalypse" under ANY reasonable model of greenhouse warming. The fact that you and your little friends - who clearly couldn't even pass the most basic of high science courses - believe that we're all going to die, horribly, due to global warming is fucked up beyond words. You aren't a scientist and it's bloody apparent you don't have the brainpower to actually become one, so why don't you try shutting the fuck up and letting your betters comment intelligently on this matter?
Last month arctic climatologists noted that the previous "worst case" scenario for Antarctic/Greenland ice melts, completion by 2070, now look like "best case", given the catastrophic melt rates sustained the past 3 years. That means 35 feet of average sealevel rise from land ice runoff is coming in the next 50-70 years, which will swamp most of the land where over 80% of humans live.
Ah, yes - all climatologists, everywhere, a homogenous groupthink sort of clan if there ever was one. Might as well be the Borg, the way those guys always jump up in perfect agreement on the topic of global warming.
But you also got it completely wrong. Bill Bud, a rather famous professor of Meteorology at the CRC (and one of the premier scientists studying ice melts in Antarctica), correctly points out that the melting of floating ice shelves around the Antarctic land mass are no cause cause for concern in terms of sea levels because melting sea ice has no effect whatsoever on those sea levels. Basic physics, wouldn't you know. And that it would take *at least* one hundred years to melt *just the sea ice*, not the doom-and-gloom half-century you rant on about to melt ALL the ice, everywhere. The concern isn't about rising water levels, but the effect on ocean ecology and how oxygen is transported through the coldest lower layers of the sea.
But your dick seems to get hard at the mere thought of millions of people suddenly drowning in swamped cities, so I'm willing to bet that cold-layer oxygen levels in the ocean just don't do the trick for you.
Not to mention all of Europe assuming a Scandinavian climate.
You seem to forget that no one has ever managed to prove, in
What I don't like is people who really don't care about the environment, but are just using it as a political tool because they hate capitalism.
They don't hate capitalism, they hate anyone else who has more money than they do. The whole 'we have to change our lifestyle NOW' shtick really means 'YOU have to change your lifestyle now, and I'll use the government to force you to make that change if I can get away with it'. Typical extremist behavior, trying to subvert government power through public opinion so they can tell some other group of people what to do, or think, or say, or how to live their lives, and punish that group if they step out of line.
Whether they be hard-core environmentalists or religious fundamentalists, an extremist is an extremist is an extremist. All extremists have the exact same goal: to get you on your knees, kneeling before them, beaten and defeated, while they think of ways to get their malicious little rocks off by doing unto you in whatever fashion they think will upset you the most, or cause the most harm. Extremists are dangerous and evil people.
Your lack of respect for the world around us is scary.
Why should I have "respect" for the world? The world isn't a god, or a sentient being. It doesn't deserve my respect. It *might* deserve some consideration, out of purely selfish interests (e.g., cleaner air is healthier for me and mine), but that's pretty much the sum total of my responsibility right there.
Why should WE be the agents of change?
Why shouldn't we? You act as if it's some grave sin to change the Earth to suit our needs, or our whims. As if the Earth were some sort of god, and we were insulting it by, say, actually daring to live upon it. Me, I don't hold with that kind of crap, and I believe we can do whatever the fuck we want with the Earth, for whatever reason we like. If you think otherwise, please provide a sound argument for *not* doing so - something that doesn't include dubious morality or new-age bullshit Gaia-is-Earthmother religious tripe.
Perhaps because sustainable ecosystems are probably good for human health and wellbeing? That I might listen to.
How is it acceptable for us to cause mass extinctions, to remake the planet as we see fit?
How is it not acceptable? Like I said, the Earth isn't a sentient organism or a deity. It isn't immoral to reshape the Earth as we see fit. It might be dangerous to our long-term health, but it sure as shit isn't immoral.
Your selfish attitude should absolutely appall anyone with a sense of personal responsibility.
Oh please. Stop being such a fucking drama queen. People who don't agree with you on this matter are somehow your moral inferiors? Let's pause for a moment while I laugh my ass off.
What gives you the right to deprive future generations from experiencing the Earth in its natural state
If this argument held any weight at all, we'd kill off 99% of the human race and go back to being small tribes of hunter-gatherers with bad teeth, suffering a 50% infant mortality rate, starvation one out of every three years, premature aging, and an average lifespan of 30-35 years. That's the "natural state" you seem to have such a hard-on for.
Me, I'll take modern medicine, dentristy, hot showers, and knowing that my wife almost certainly won't die in childbirth. Call me "selfish" all you like, and I'll call you an eco-fruitcake in return.
How about the fact that reducing human Greenhouse pollution now
This isn't a fact and never has been. No empirical evidence of any sort supports your assertion, mainly because we've never done any empirical studies of this nature. We don't have an extra Earth around to try to warm up, then cool back down to see what happens.
that it will destroy us
Oh, please. Not even the most radical scientist would make the claim that global warming of any sort would "destroy us". You seem to have this idea that global warming is a real-life remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still", and we're all going to die if Something Isn't Done Now(TM)! Buck up, grow a spine, and stop being such an alarmist. The human race will survive and adapt, and there's no reason to believe it won't do so in it's usual ingenious fashion.
Regardless of whether humans "created the mess", we can do something to avoid its extinctual conclusion.
We aren't going to go extinct, and nobody has any real clue how to 'reverse' global warming, or even if it's possible.
What blows my mind is that plenty of these Ecocaust deniers
What blows my mind is that there are people who actually believe in bullshit like an "Ecocaust", and practically jizz themselves just thinking about it. You sound like you belong to one of those far-left death cults, just waiting for the human race to be wiped out so you and your friends can become the new priesthood of what's left of humanity, or at the very least scream "I told you so!" before you die along with the rest of us.
Then they followup their Greenhouse denials with happy talk like "no one expected the levees to fail in New Orleans", because they've ignored all the Greenhouse science explicitly predicting the levees to fail.
What the fuck are you talking about, you whacked-out loonjob? There was no "Greenhouse science" involved in predicting levee failures in New Orleans; that was from a science called "engineering". Try looking it up sometime. Your mystical capital-G "Greenhouse" had nothing to do with New Orleans at all.
These people cannot be allowed into any legitimate debate
No, it's crazies like you that can't be allowed into a rational debate. You're too busy sucking on the tits of Mother Gaia to actually look up and try to understand the basics of things like "empiricism". Which makes you no different than any other loony religious nut, come to think about it - you've just replaced an old god with a new one.
Goddamn Doc, you must be a fucking genius compared to us half-wits. Everything you quote is insightful and right, and anything to the contrary is the work of the evil propaganda-meisters. Good to know we have a bona-fucking-fide genius around to enlighten us poor enslaved proles!
And our chances are much, much worse: head or tails we lose fingers, if the coin lands on the edge and stays up we're safe.
This is nothing more than alarmist extremism. You've made the erroneous claim that nearly every road into the future leads to disaster, and only a miracle would save the day...unless, what? We follow your prescription plan for avoiding that disaster? Has it occurred to you that not only do we not have a clue what is going to happen, or why, or how much humans may or may not be responsible for it, but we also don't know if climate change is reversible in any way, shape or form? That any action at all we can take will have any effect whatsoever, or any positive effect? That it's equally likely that any action we take will have no measurable influence on climate change, or could even make things worse?
There are no definitive answers for any of the questions posed, despite what the chicken littles keep screaming. The only way we're going to get any answers is by heavily investing in related sciences, e.g., geology, climatology, ecological biology, and so forth. Investing at a level far beyond anything we've come even remotely close to in the past, and that sure as shit isn't going to happen any time in the near future. The best we can do is watch for changes, and then do what we humans do best: adapt to those changes. So life may become a bit harsher? So what? It won't compare to some of the things our species has weathered (har har!) before, with technology little beyond the ability to create fire on demand. Hand-wringing and whining isn't going to help, but perhaps dike-building might.
Otherwise I could go in front of your kid's grade school and pass out sexually explicit fliers.
This has nothing to do with using the bullshit called "community standards" to persecute folks for certain sexual practices that you, personally, don't happen to approve of. It doesn't matter if you approve or not; if you're a real American you realize it isn't any of your damn business and move on. Nor is it your business if they post pictures of their bizarre antics to the internet, or write stories about it, or just write stories of their fantasies about it (or anything else, for that matter).
If you aren't a real American then you use "community standards" to practice persecution and probably hold a barbecue afterwards to celebrate your 'victory' over 'them fags and pervs'. This sort of American is the scum on the bottom of my shoe, the sort who uses the Constitution to wipe the shit off their ass. This sort of American deserves neither liberty, nor freedom, nor equality, nor even citizenship in my country. This sort of American is only deserving of deportation to a country more in line with their sort of thinking, e.g., Iran or China.
You don't get to compromise on the Constitution - ever. You want to change it, then amend it. But until then your only option, as a real American, is to support it. Or haul your sorry ass off to a country more in line with your nasty little views on persecution.
I understand why Europeans feel this way. When you encounter somebody who is wildly successful and totally full of himself, it is only natural to want to knock him down a peg.
Especially when your country once occupied that coveted position, and are just now realizing that EU or no EU it will never again rise to its former glory. Makes for some real bitter assholes across the pond.
Anyway, you've broadened the intent of my statement, I mean "Americans with attitude like yours" not "All Americans".
He did nothing of the sort. You're doing the desperate backpedaling, either because you're just now realizing what sort of arrogant little fuckwit you've portrayed yourself as to hundreds of thousands of strangers, or because your grasp on your (supposedly) native language doesn't even meet minimal standards. So either you're an egomaniacal ass, or just plain stupid, or both.
The bottom line is that the UN represents international democracy
How so? There are more than eighty dictatorships world-wide, and they all get a vote in the UN. How the fuck does this represent "democracy", unless your view of democracy is so narrow it only applies to the voting structure of the General Assembly?
the US is one country who has repeatedly ignored international opinion and law to do what it wants and has gotten away with it because of it's military and economic might.
Which makes us no different than a great many other countries in history - including a fair number of European countries. The only difference that I can see is that some Europeans are pissed off that we're doing what they used to do, and wish they could do again - futilely, since it's abundantly clear that no nation in Europe will ever be a superpower again.
When the rest of the world has a piece of critical infrastructure in the hands of a nation that has repeatedly ignored their opinion, it's hardly suprising that they are unhappy with the situation.
Like a three-year-old that sees another three-year-old with a shiny toy, and wants to take it away from him. There's absolutely no reason to believe that either the UN or the EU would do a better job than the U.S.; in fact, plenty of reason to think that they wouldn't since we've proven ourselves in this particular arena, and they haven't. And as an American I don't trust either the EU or the UN to do anything even remotely in line with American ideals, so tell me again why I'd give a flying fuck about what either organization thinks about the situation? What are they going to do, throw a tantrum and piss their shorts?
Like it or not, the UN DOES represent global democracy
Get over the fucking propaganda. The UN isn't a democracy, nor does it represent democracy. Never has, never will. Just look at a) it's members, and b) it's structure. Only the General Assembly is even remotely "democratic", assuming you buy into the bullshit that letting a dictatorship vote on the same ground as a republic is in any way, shape or form democratic, which smells like horseshit to me. And then there's this matter of the Security Council, which can piss on your "democratic" General Assembly any time it feels like, so even the GA isn't anything more than a mostly-tolerated dog and pony show, anyway.
if the US values democracy
If anyone, including the U.S., valued democracy they wouldn't treat with brutal dictatorships. They sure as hell wouldn't give them world-wide voting power in the U.N.
and allow the internet to be democratically controlled by the opinion of the whole world
Riiight! Those eighty-plus dictatorships are *so* into listening to the opinions of their serfs, er, citizens. Yessirree!
Slashdot Mirror
But, when Team America: World Police decide they are going to start overthrowing regimes and being the final arbiters of liberty and IP in the world
Riiiight. So you've somehow come to the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq means what, exactly? That we'll be stomping all over Belgium next? Get a grip.
And last I checked, every country in the world (minus Iraq) can and does enact its own ip laws. Some nations in Europe have far worse laws than we do in that regard. How are we supposed to be the "final arbiters" on IP when aside from global invasion and war we're utterly incapable of forcing our laws on anyone else?
Because, quite frankly, why should anyone listen to anything your government says unless to treat it as what it actually is --- the yellings of a bully who expects to control the way everything works.
As opposed to what you seem to be proposing, i.e., forcing each and every nation to get down on its knees before the UN because, like, that's somehow 'democractic'? A dictatorship by the majority is still a dictatorship, any way you slice it. That's one of the reasons the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, because democracies suck dick if you aren't one of the happy majority.
You want democracy for everyone
No, most Americans aren't at all interested in spreading democracy, no matter what bullshit you've been spoon-feeding yourself. The U.S. government isn't all that interested in it, either. Certainly the Saudis and Kuwaitis could attest to that.
protection of the RIAA's property rights
Which are absolutely impossible to enforce without YOUR own governments complicity. If you think your government is doing bad things to the benefit of the RIAA, then complain to your government, not to me or any other American. It isn't our problem if your politicians are corrupt shitheads.
but then turn around and say "we don't care about what other countries want".
The sole purpose my government exists is to serve American interests. My government has *absolutely no business* putting ANYONE ELSE's interests ahead of my own. It's that simple. To do so would be a betrayal of every single American on the planet.
The ease with which you seem to think you can flip between those two completely contradictory poisitions is what troubles everyone else.
The ease with which you seem to think it's okay for a group of nations to impose their will on the rest of the world, yet somehow think this is completely different from a single nation doing the same thing, is what bothers me. Not to mention the fact that your'e suffering from the delusion that the U.S. is even capable of attempting this feat, outside of easily-whipped little countries like Iraq.
At present, America is being perceived as walking around with a big stick, expecting everyone to snivel, grovel, and blindly follow.
Just another bitter European, I see. If it were the EU doing this you'd no doubt claim it was just and appropriate. What you're pissed at isn't that the U.S. has power, but that your nation doesn't have that power.
Try sucking it up and dealing with it. Europe had it's time in the sun - centuries of time - and now that time is over, and it ain't coming back. That's just the way things are.
Max
One has to wonder if he's got something against the UN or if he's really interested in maintaining freedoms.
Given the U.N.'s track record, especially its recent track record, I'd say these two things have become pretty synonymous.
Max
The UN is not made up entirely, or even mostly, out of governments like North Korea or Iran. Most of them are democracies, with civil rights
More than eighty countries are straight-up dictatorships, regardless of what they publicly call themselves. I have a huge problem with these countries being allowed a vote in the General Assembly, when each vote only represents a tiny ruling class for that country; or in a number of cases, the will of a single person.
Additionally, it can be argued quite convincingly that the US is not the most democratic nation in the world
Perhaps. Which has what to do with DNS administration? The U.S. has a proven track record in this regard, and nobody has managed to provide a convincing argument for needlessly changing a system that already works just fine the way it is.
The current DNS system is very much pro-corporate america
It's pro-corporate WORLD-WIDE. There's a huge difference between what you're arguing and what is actually true. For the record, I have absolutely no problem with this, as I'm a capitalist, not some wild-eyed socialist looney-toon out to destroy those eeeevil corporations!
I find the US desire to control world-wide IP law
How you make the conceptual leap from retaining control of DNS and controlling all IP, everywhere, across the entire globe is beyond me. Seems like you're just blowing smoke out of your ass, or chicken-littling this whole subject beyond any rational stretch of the imagination.
Max
Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.
Fuck that. When the word "democracy" encompasses nations like China, Iran, or North Korea, things start to become very Orwellian in nature.
If other nations do set up their own root servers, the Internet will be fractured and cease to be the useful network it is today.
It'll be fractured for the countries who decide to divorce themselves from it, not for the rest of us. And frankly, I reallly couldn't give a shit if China, or Iran, or North Korea decided not to play with the rest of us. China's already doing that, or did you somehow miss the advent of the Great Firewall?
The whole point of the Internet is that it's run by rough consensus.
What the hell are you smoking? The internet isn't run by consensus; it isn't a democracy. It is, in fact, a combination of both anarchy and dictatorship, one that seems to work quite well just the way it is. Anarchy in the sense that standards accrete over time without any one group being able to impose them from above, and dictatorship in that whatever piece I own, I get to make the rules on. If I have a website forum, for example, I can set up whatever rules I want; you don't like them, then your choice boils down to "fuck off". And if you won't go voluntarily I can ip-ban you and be done with it, and not a single person anywhere in the world can force me to let you back onto my forum.
There is no "consensus" here. The internet is one of the least democratic systems on the planet - and thank the gods for that.
You can't deny other nations a voice
You can't deny another nation a voice on the internet *because it's technically impossible to do so*.
The Internet as it is today is controlled
The internet is beyond any one nation's control. That's been proven time and time again. Even the U.S. Congress, passing draconian law after draconian law, has proven utterly impotent at regulating the internet. The Chinese, despite their firewall, are powerless to stop their citizens from reaching any part of it they wish to reach, assuming they have the will to do so.
That very lack of control, the inability of any one nation to effectively impose anything on the system, is one of the internets strengths.
Max
The point is that it's not the right of the United States to force this lack of censorship upon every country in the world.
There is no 'force' involved here. Any country can erect a 'great firewall'. Or simply refuse to play along with the U.S., any time they feel like it, and set up their own root servers. It is absolutely impossible for one country, even the U.S. to compel any other country to adopt freedom via the internet. Your statement is beyond ridiculous.
But we as a country don't have any right to be telling China that they can't block out freedoms.
We have the right to tell them any fucking thing we please. First Amendment freedom of speech. The Chinese, for their part, don't have to listen to us. They can ignore us any time they like - and have, with their own national firewall. China, more than any other country on Earth, has opted NOT to listen to us, or anyone else, when it comes to the internet.
It's the same thing.
What a crock. Retaining control the DNS servers has nothing to do with 'imposing' freedom, or invading Iraq. Trying to connect these disparate ideas is both pathetic and ludicrous.
One country forcing another sovereign country to do something against its own will, is wrong.
Tell that to China. Betcha they have something different to say when it comes to Tibet.
But then we trade-embargoed Cuba, Iraq, and all sorts of other countries that we don't agree with, and make their economy suffer, and their citizens sufffer, in order to force them to do something
Yet another statement that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. But since you seem to be incapable of sticking to the issue at hand, let me point out that *as a sovereign nation* the U.S. has every right in the world to NOT TRADE with other nations. No nation has a right to 'force' the U.S. to trade with it. Ever.
Max
None of the bodies lobbying to wrest control of DNS from the U.S. have managed to provide a compelling reason for doing so. Other than some extremely vague, incredibly lame politico-speak about 'freedom' and 'democracy', neither of which would be guaranteed in any way, shape or form if someone other than the U.S. were to control DNS, no one has managed to put forward *any* sort of reason for moving DNS control to another body.
On the other hand, the U.S. has a proven decades-long track record of doing just that where the internet is concerned. More freedom than you can shake a stick at, with no indication that this will ever change at any time in the future. You have to wonder at the motivations of folks who want to fix something that isn't broken.
Max
There is no right to "decency of the community" in the Constitution. Nor does the Constitution grant that power to government or the people through the Ninth and Tenth amendments, trumping the First, Fourth or Fifth Amendments.
Although it's rather clear you lump consensual sexual activity between two adults in with drug abuse, prostitution, bestiality, and treason, so it comes as no surprise that you think persecuting such folks a perfectly legitimate activity.
but I doubt very much that you can come up with an argument that beastiality, urination, or fisting somehow oppress a class of people.
All victimless crimes are an abomination in a free Republic. The 'community' has no business telling adults what they can and cannot do when their activities harm no one. What the 'community' (in this case, the people with poles up their rigid, freedom-hating asses) needs to do is fuck off and mind their own goddamned business.
Max
Because, of course, any perspective that differs from yours is stupid, ignorant, or willfully gullible, right?
No, but anyone who believes that the planet is a giant god, or that astrology or crystal power works, or that reflexology really is a branch of medical science, is indeed stupid, or ignorant, or willfully gullible. I picked those particular examples for a specific reason, because any rational person can see that each and every one of those things is a total crock of shit.
Max
I think piracy is discussable only on a case-by-case basis, most of the time.
I live in the United States, where copyright laws are determined by Congress, a power specifically granted to them by the Constitution. Those that deliberately piss on the Constitution because they don't happen to like that fact and are too lazy to get off their fat asses to pass an amendment are just common criminals, nothing more.
While I agree that current copyright laws are ridiculous beyond all reasonable measure, that doesn't give a bunch of pimply-faced little shits the 'right' to go out and infringe any time they feel like it, vomiting up variations of "information wants to be free 'cuz I don't like paying for stuff" mantra whenever their illegal activities are challenged.
What I am saying is that you can make a reasonable living on fan-money.
Which has nothing to do with the law. Don't like the law? Then change it.
We, as a society, need to discuss how much money a single person needs, also.
This is both a republic and a capitalism. "Society" has no business telling anyone how much they can earn, nor putting restrictions on the wealth they can accumulate - not in a capitalism, and sure as hell not in a republic.
Do movie stars really need more than a middle-upperclass living?
Who are you to set universal wages for other people? You don't employ them; you aren't their boss and you don't have any say, nor any right, to infringe on their opportunity to earn as much money as they can. If you don't like that Actor X makes $25 million a movie *then stop watching his bloody movies*.
But, honestly, do they really need all this profit?
It doesn't matter what you think they 'need'. You don't get to decide. It isn't up to you. The Constitution grants you no such power.
Max
I agree that your solution, forbidding companies from supplying assistance to oppressive regimes could pass Congress and become law.
As a previous poster pointed out, any such law would also apply to China and Saudi Arabia, which are both clearly oppressive.
Max
allow the user to choose himself, give him the power to filter.
My company is my property. While on my property you obey my rules, within the strictures of the law. If you don't like my rules you can always leave my property. If I decide to restrict your ability to reach certain sites on the internet, or to ban you from reaching the internet at all, you can either suck it up and live with it, or quit and go work for someone else.
It's that simple. You don't get a vote, nor do you have any 'right' to choose in this matter beyond whether or not you want to work for me.
Max
while the public simply calls you on your evil nature after you have done something.
Evil, of course, being defined by the people who decide you've done something wrong. I'd take issue with PETA being allowed to brand me as 'evil' simply because I enjoy a good steak.
But I suppose that's par for the course, since every group of idiots thinks they have the One True and Right Way(TM), and anyone who disagrees with them is the tool of the Antichrist.
Max
The only person who's braindead here is you. The poster correctly informed you that you had no entitlement to his approval, but that he refused to legislate against your particular perversion. Since no children were harmed in the production of the erotica the erotica itself is nothing more than speech and shouldn't be banned - simple as that.
That doesn't, however, mean that he can't think that you're a disgusting, filthy little pervert, or tell others that he thinks you a disgusting, filthy little pervert, or try to convince others that your perversion is something to be avoided. His own right to free speech isn't trumped by your right to jack off to child erotica. You both have equal rights, and neither of you has any business legislating against the other. Which is the point he was making.
Although I agree with him, in that if you're into child erotica then you're a nasty little perv, and I have no problem whatsoever exercising my right to free speech in saying that publicly to everyone who happens to stumble across this post. But I too won't try to get you thrown in jail for your deviant personal failings, so long as you leave actual living children alone.
Max
That's a pretty harsh view.
It's an absolutely practical view.
What about all the things on earth that do have needs, but aren't sentient? Are they to be disregarded as well?
Sounds about right. Although non-sentient organisms can't have "needs" beyond the biological. Mold doesn't think, nor do rocks or trees.
We might be inclined to preserve certain ecosystems, or parts of certain ecosystems, for a few reasons:
a) it's good for our continued health, as a species;
b) we might derive some useful information out of those parts; or
c) because we're human and we feel like it
All of those are excellent reasons for conservation. Treating the planet or its constituent parts of some sort of mystical being, or object of worship is NOT a good reason for doing anything. That sort of pseudo-mystical bullshit has no place in a technological society, any more than astrology or crystal power or reflexology does. It's the province of the stupid, the ignorant, and the willfully gullible.
Max
Now, I don't believe in either of those gods, and don't care if you do, either, but that's obnoxious and stupid.
The point is to piss people off with no sense of humor. Seem to have scored a direct hit in your case.
I'm not going to bother schooling you in the Greenhouse science
Good, because there's no such thing as "Greenhouse science". Never has been, never will be.
Which the levees were up against.
The levees were up against a hurricane of a particular force, and similar hurricanes with equal or more force have occurred in the past along the Gulf coast for millions of years. New Orleans has been lucky up until now, a point driven home time and again by government studies done over the last fifty years. Everyone knew that that sort of luck couldn't last forever and that the levees needed to be strengthened (most of New Orleans being *below the sea level*) but political bullshit got in the way and the needed changes were never made.
It had nothing to do with "Greenhouse science", whatever the fuck you think that means, nor did it have anything to do with global warming.
If it were last year, you'd be denying that those levees would be breached, because Bush wasn't funding their upgrade (or even maintenance).
No, I wouldn't. It's a simple matter of engineering, not "Greenhouse science". People have known since the '50's that the levees weren't sufficient against a major hurricane, and that major hurricanes have struck the New Orleans area repeatedly over millions of years, and that it was inevitable that it would happen again some day. Hence the whole repeated, failed lobby to strengthen the levees. Major hurricanes along the Gulf coast are not a new development.
It is your cohort of apocalyptic Greenhouse deniers
There will be no "apocalypse" under ANY reasonable model of greenhouse warming. The fact that you and your little friends - who clearly couldn't even pass the most basic of high science courses - believe that we're all going to die, horribly, due to global warming is fucked up beyond words. You aren't a scientist and it's bloody apparent you don't have the brainpower to actually become one, so why don't you try shutting the fuck up and letting your betters comment intelligently on this matter?
Last month arctic climatologists noted that the previous "worst case" scenario for Antarctic/Greenland ice melts, completion by 2070, now look like "best case", given the catastrophic melt rates sustained the past 3 years. That means 35 feet of average sealevel rise from land ice runoff is coming in the next 50-70 years, which will swamp most of the land where over 80% of humans live.
Ah, yes - all climatologists, everywhere, a homogenous groupthink sort of clan if there ever was one. Might as well be the Borg, the way those guys always jump up in perfect agreement on the topic of global warming.
But you also got it completely wrong. Bill Bud, a rather famous professor of Meteorology at the CRC (and one of the premier scientists studying ice melts in Antarctica), correctly points out that the melting of floating ice shelves around the Antarctic land mass are no cause cause for concern in terms of sea levels because melting sea ice has no effect whatsoever on those sea levels. Basic physics, wouldn't you know. And that it would take *at least* one hundred years to melt *just the sea ice*, not the doom-and-gloom half-century you rant on about to melt ALL the ice, everywhere. The concern isn't about rising water levels, but the effect on ocean ecology and how oxygen is transported through the coldest lower layers of the sea.
But your dick seems to get hard at the mere thought of millions of people suddenly drowning in swamped cities, so I'm willing to bet that cold-layer oxygen levels in the ocean just don't do the trick for you.
Not to mention all of Europe assuming a Scandinavian climate.
You seem to forget that no one has ever managed to prove, in
What I don't like is people who really don't care about the environment, but are just using it as a political tool because they hate capitalism.
They don't hate capitalism, they hate anyone else who has more money than they do. The whole 'we have to change our lifestyle NOW' shtick really means 'YOU have to change your lifestyle now, and I'll use the government to force you to make that change if I can get away with it'. Typical extremist behavior, trying to subvert government power through public opinion so they can tell some other group of people what to do, or think, or say, or how to live their lives, and punish that group if they step out of line.
Whether they be hard-core environmentalists or religious fundamentalists, an extremist is an extremist is an extremist. All extremists have the exact same goal: to get you on your knees, kneeling before them, beaten and defeated, while they think of ways to get their malicious little rocks off by doing unto you in whatever fashion they think will upset you the most, or cause the most harm. Extremists are dangerous and evil people.
Max
Oh. So the Earth is just a resource to be used to our benefit?
To put it succinctly, yes. The Earth isn't sentient; it has no needs, desires, or wants. We are, we do, we do, and we do. End of story.
Max
Your lack of respect for the world around us is scary.
Why should I have "respect" for the world? The world isn't a god, or a sentient being. It doesn't deserve my respect. It *might* deserve some consideration, out of purely selfish interests (e.g., cleaner air is healthier for me and mine), but that's pretty much the sum total of my responsibility right there.
Why should WE be the agents of change?
Why shouldn't we? You act as if it's some grave sin to change the Earth to suit our needs, or our whims. As if the Earth were some sort of god, and we were insulting it by, say, actually daring to live upon it. Me, I don't hold with that kind of crap, and I believe we can do whatever the fuck we want with the Earth, for whatever reason we like. If you think otherwise, please provide a sound argument for *not* doing so - something that doesn't include dubious morality or new-age bullshit Gaia-is-Earthmother religious tripe.
Perhaps because sustainable ecosystems are probably good for human health and wellbeing? That I might listen to.
How is it acceptable for us to cause mass extinctions, to remake the planet as we see fit?
How is it not acceptable? Like I said, the Earth isn't a sentient organism or a deity. It isn't immoral to reshape the Earth as we see fit. It might be dangerous to our long-term health, but it sure as shit isn't immoral.
Your selfish attitude should absolutely appall anyone with a sense of personal responsibility.
Oh please. Stop being such a fucking drama queen. People who don't agree with you on this matter are somehow your moral inferiors? Let's pause for a moment while I laugh my ass off.
What gives you the right to deprive future generations from experiencing the Earth in its natural state
If this argument held any weight at all, we'd kill off 99% of the human race and go back to being small tribes of hunter-gatherers with bad teeth, suffering a 50% infant mortality rate, starvation one out of every three years, premature aging, and an average lifespan of 30-35 years. That's the "natural state" you seem to have such a hard-on for.
Me, I'll take modern medicine, dentristy, hot showers, and knowing that my wife almost certainly won't die in childbirth. Call me "selfish" all you like, and I'll call you an eco-fruitcake in return.
Max
How about the fact that reducing human Greenhouse pollution now
This isn't a fact and never has been. No empirical evidence of any sort supports your assertion, mainly because we've never done any empirical studies of this nature. We don't have an extra Earth around to try to warm up, then cool back down to see what happens.
that it will destroy us
Oh, please. Not even the most radical scientist would make the claim that global warming of any sort would "destroy us". You seem to have this idea that global warming is a real-life remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still", and we're all going to die if Something Isn't Done Now(TM)! Buck up, grow a spine, and stop being such an alarmist. The human race will survive and adapt, and there's no reason to believe it won't do so in it's usual ingenious fashion.
Regardless of whether humans "created the mess", we can do something to avoid its extinctual conclusion.
We aren't going to go extinct, and nobody has any real clue how to 'reverse' global warming, or even if it's possible.
What blows my mind is that plenty of these Ecocaust deniers
What blows my mind is that there are people who actually believe in bullshit like an "Ecocaust", and practically jizz themselves just thinking about it. You sound like you belong to one of those far-left death cults, just waiting for the human race to be wiped out so you and your friends can become the new priesthood of what's left of humanity, or at the very least scream "I told you so!" before you die along with the rest of us.
Then they followup their Greenhouse denials with happy talk like "no one expected the levees to fail in New Orleans", because they've ignored all the Greenhouse science explicitly predicting the levees to fail.
What the fuck are you talking about, you whacked-out loonjob? There was no "Greenhouse science" involved in predicting levee failures in New Orleans; that was from a science called "engineering". Try looking it up sometime. Your mystical capital-G "Greenhouse" had nothing to do with New Orleans at all.
These people cannot be allowed into any legitimate debate
No, it's crazies like you that can't be allowed into a rational debate. You're too busy sucking on the tits of Mother Gaia to actually look up and try to understand the basics of things like "empiricism". Which makes you no different than any other loony religious nut, come to think about it - you've just replaced an old god with a new one.
Max
because I select insightful articles
Goddamn Doc, you must be a fucking genius compared to us half-wits. Everything you quote is insightful and right, and anything to the contrary is the work of the evil propaganda-meisters. Good to know we have a bona-fucking-fide genius around to enlighten us poor enslaved proles!
Max
And our chances are much, much worse: head or tails we lose fingers, if the coin lands on the edge and stays up we're safe.
This is nothing more than alarmist extremism. You've made the erroneous claim that nearly every road into the future leads to disaster, and only a miracle would save the day...unless, what? We follow your prescription plan for avoiding that disaster? Has it occurred to you that not only do we not have a clue what is going to happen, or why, or how much humans may or may not be responsible for it, but we also don't know if climate change is reversible in any way, shape or form? That any action at all we can take will have any effect whatsoever, or any positive effect? That it's equally likely that any action we take will have no measurable influence on climate change, or could even make things worse?
There are no definitive answers for any of the questions posed, despite what the chicken littles keep screaming. The only way we're going to get any answers is by heavily investing in related sciences, e.g., geology, climatology, ecological biology, and so forth. Investing at a level far beyond anything we've come even remotely close to in the past, and that sure as shit isn't going to happen any time in the near future. The best we can do is watch for changes, and then do what we humans do best: adapt to those changes. So life may become a bit harsher? So what? It won't compare to some of the things our species has weathered (har har!) before, with technology little beyond the ability to create fire on demand. Hand-wringing and whining isn't going to help, but perhaps dike-building might.
Max
Otherwise I could go in front of your kid's grade school and pass out sexually explicit fliers.
This has nothing to do with using the bullshit called "community standards" to persecute folks for certain sexual practices that you, personally, don't happen to approve of. It doesn't matter if you approve or not; if you're a real American you realize it isn't any of your damn business and move on. Nor is it your business if they post pictures of their bizarre antics to the internet, or write stories about it, or just write stories of their fantasies about it (or anything else, for that matter).
If you aren't a real American then you use "community standards" to practice persecution and probably hold a barbecue afterwards to celebrate your 'victory' over 'them fags and pervs'. This sort of American is the scum on the bottom of my shoe, the sort who uses the Constitution to wipe the shit off their ass. This sort of American deserves neither liberty, nor freedom, nor equality, nor even citizenship in my country. This sort of American is only deserving of deportation to a country more in line with their sort of thinking, e.g., Iran or China.
You don't get to compromise on the Constitution - ever. You want to change it, then amend it. But until then your only option, as a real American, is to support it. Or haul your sorry ass off to a country more in line with your nasty little views on persecution.
Max
I understand why Europeans feel this way. When you encounter somebody who is wildly successful and totally full of himself, it is only natural to want to knock him down a peg.
Especially when your country once occupied that coveted position, and are just now realizing that EU or no EU it will never again rise to its former glory. Makes for some real bitter assholes across the pond.
Max
Anyway, you've broadened the intent of my statement, I mean "Americans with attitude like yours" not "All Americans".
He did nothing of the sort. You're doing the desperate backpedaling, either because you're just now realizing what sort of arrogant little fuckwit you've portrayed yourself as to hundreds of thousands of strangers, or because your grasp on your (supposedly) native language doesn't even meet minimal standards. So either you're an egomaniacal ass, or just plain stupid, or both.
Max
The bottom line is that the UN represents international democracy
How so? There are more than eighty dictatorships world-wide, and they all get a vote in the UN. How the fuck does this represent "democracy", unless your view of democracy is so narrow it only applies to the voting structure of the General Assembly?
the US is one country who has repeatedly ignored international opinion and law to do what it wants and has gotten away with it because of it's military and economic might.
Which makes us no different than a great many other countries in history - including a fair number of European countries. The only difference that I can see is that some Europeans are pissed off that we're doing what they used to do, and wish they could do again - futilely, since it's abundantly clear that no nation in Europe will ever be a superpower again.
When the rest of the world has a piece of critical infrastructure in the hands of a nation that has repeatedly ignored their opinion, it's hardly suprising that they are unhappy with the situation.
Like a three-year-old that sees another three-year-old with a shiny toy, and wants to take it away from him. There's absolutely no reason to believe that either the UN or the EU would do a better job than the U.S.; in fact, plenty of reason to think that they wouldn't since we've proven ourselves in this particular arena, and they haven't. And as an American I don't trust either the EU or the UN to do anything even remotely in line with American ideals, so tell me again why I'd give a flying fuck about what either organization thinks about the situation? What are they going to do, throw a tantrum and piss their shorts?
Like it or not, the UN DOES represent global democracy
Get over the fucking propaganda. The UN isn't a democracy, nor does it represent democracy. Never has, never will. Just look at a) it's members, and b) it's structure. Only the General Assembly is even remotely "democratic", assuming you buy into the bullshit that letting a dictatorship vote on the same ground as a republic is in any way, shape or form democratic, which smells like horseshit to me. And then there's this matter of the Security Council, which can piss on your "democratic" General Assembly any time it feels like, so even the GA isn't anything more than a mostly-tolerated dog and pony show, anyway.
if the US values democracy
If anyone, including the U.S., valued democracy they wouldn't treat with brutal dictatorships. They sure as hell wouldn't give them world-wide voting power in the U.N.
and allow the internet to be democratically controlled by the opinion of the whole world
Riiight! Those eighty-plus dictatorships are *so* into listening to the opinions of their serfs, er, citizens. Yessirree!
Max