We're not talking about other countries though, are we? If you're measuring your freedoms against PRK or the Soviet Union, then I suggest you have real troubles with your freedoms.
Why would *I* be the only one who can tell you it's tough to be gay? Do you not know any gay people? In all probability, you do - it's an extremely high probability you know plenty of people who are gay, yet *I'm* the only one who can tell you what it's like to be gay? This tells me your gay friends have trouble trouble talking to you about their gayness. I wonder why.
Let's take his airline analogy for example. Yes people can pay more to ride the business class / first class seats. That is the Internet equivalent of buying a wider pipe that has better customer support and uptime guarantee.
Please supply a car analogy - in my experience a cattle class ticket on a flight gets the holder to the destination at the same time as someone with a first class ticket.
There's your problem right there: being judgmental. That's your problem, not theirs
But everyone does it, all the time. In fact you have to be judgmental in order to differentiate. You cannot treat everyone the same, regardless of who they are.
Wow really. So do you don't mind if I publish your phone call records, credit card purchases, SSN, credit card numbers, bank account informations, home address, phone number, and voting history?
There is your answer.
The difference is he is not your servant, you are not supplying all the money in his bank account, you do not own the property at his address. For the Federal Government, all these things are true - and you can check the voting records of your congressperson I believe, as well as check their political funding status.
How would you like to be forced to change your career because you did the right thing?
If it was a core principle of my career choice, I'd not only have embraced that chance, but been proud to have been part of the exposure that brought about my change in career. Though as an IT person, I'm unlikely to come across a position where I have to choose between my career and "doing the right thing".
A journalist, I'd have thought, would either be in it for the uncovering of truth or at least have known that there may be a time when it came to such a career-ending choice. Personally, if I were a journalist and I broke a story that legitimately called into question the acts of my government, I'd stand on my words. I'd like to be able to sleep at night.
Why do you think that provably innocent people should submit to the incorrect will of the State? Because the enforcers are armed? Or because obedience is more important than accuracy?
Because the system is enforced by fallible human beings. The process has safeguards built into it to account for such imperfections.
An arrest is nothing more than taking you in for proper booking, questioning, etc. Arrest and imprisonment are NOT the same thing.
One is holding you against your will, while the other is holding you against your will. Yes, I see the distinction you are trying to make in showing me that the two are unrelated.
This is covered by the 5th Amendment, so well within the rules which bind everyone in the US.
But you are aware that a car always shows too much speed? I.e. if you set it a mile below, you will prolly end up driving about 6-7 miles below the limit. If you are blocking others behind you by doing that, that is wrong as well.
For a car shown to be driving at the posted speed limit, and given that "a car always shows too much speed", those cars he'll be blocking will also be showing that they are driving at the posted speed limit - so he'll only be blocking cars wanting to drive faster than the posted limit, ergo his actions are not "wrong as well".
Amnesty International is an incredibly infiltrated organization. As are the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières. Their members are almost the only people not suspect in a war-zone, making them ideal. All of these organizations have been used as cover by British, French, American, German and Russian secret services, going back to the second world war, and those are just the known cases. I would trust them with my life if I lay bleeding on the ground in some hell-hole. Their opinions and motivations not so much.
While I agree with your sentiment about the great work these organisations do, I should point out that MSF was founded in the 1970's, and Amnesty International in the 1960's - well after the second world war.
An early recorded piece of attempted modern terrorism would be "Remember, remember the fifth of November." An event that dates back to 1605 and now is actually celebrated now in the UK.
We don't celebrate the attempt at terrorism - we celebrate the fact he (Fawkes) was caught and punished.
Ah, I see. So it only matters if wikileaks is responsible for as many civilian deaths as the US? Until that point, they bear no responsibility for exposing the people who are killed?
Your moral compass. It seems skewed.
Not at all. Consider the Trolley Problem. Imagine that the train goes around and around, killing five people at a time, until someone pushes the fat guy off the bridge. Whoever does so does not have a skewed moral compass, despite the fact they just killed a guy.
When you are - literally - in the crossfire between two opposing forces, neutrality is a luxury that most of these people probably can't afford.
So if you're expecting people to pick sides, then the ones who pick the Taliban are legitimate targets, and the ones who pick the Americans can expect to get murdered?
Okay, so... let's accept your definition of innocent. Are you saying that you're okay with any "innocents" dying as a result of Wikileaks' actions? Are you saying that their vetting policies are perfect and need no review or improvement? Are you saying that releasing names and locations of informants is okay, even if it puts them and their families, neighbors, and villages at risk?
Far from perfect - they're human after all, but the Whitehouse was given advance notice and the opportunity to vet the documents, the documents that were actually published by the US military in the first place.
Wikileaks' release of these documents does NOTHING to reduce or prevent civilians from dying to American or Taliban operations - all this does is INCREASE the level of violence by giving the Taliban a list of informants who they can go after to punish.
I disagree. If I hear domestic abuse from the apartment next door, my first thought is to call the police, not to wonder if by calling the police the wife may get battered a hell of a lot more because I called the police. At some point someone has to say "This government is killing more people than would be killed by releasing the information that the government is killing people".
If the release of these documents does NOTHING to reduce or prevent civilians from dying, then it's a sick, sick country. And I mean the US, not Afghanistan.
I generally don't. I don't own anything anyone else wants that much, so I generally don't need to prove my ownership.
What if someone shows up with a piece of paper saying the land you own is actually their land? Who decides who is right? Once the government gets involved, the government decides who owns the land.
The notion of property rests on the principle that one's entitled to the fruits of one's labor.
Entitlement != ownership
Yes, quite. Unless you're a creationist, man didn't simply appear in completed form with some instructions for governance.
Indeed, and in those days it was "Finders Keepers". If I had a bigger club than you, I could just take what I wanted from you - the rule of muscle.
Man created government to serve man's ends.
Precicely - and one of those ends was to sort out who owned what.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note consistently the use of the negative to constrain government. It presupposes "life, liberty, [and] property." The entire history of American Constitutional jurisprudence relies on the notion that government does not grant rights; it is constituted to safeguard them.
So how do you prove you own the property? Who did you buy it from? Who did *they* buy it from? Keep going back until you hit the beginning of the ownership. In all likelihood it was one form of government or another.
Haha, a day never goes by when I am not stunned by something on slashdot.
So far I've only been able to find one person who was able to cite a death that follows on from the information in the leak that WL passed to the three newspapers.
I'm also confused that you confer the term "innocent" on those who inform. Whether it's for one side or the other, once you "snitch" you lose the right to be an innocent in the war - you are a willing participant. Granted, the families of those people may also be targetted, but let those be the only figures that count towards the "innocent".
Celebrating a wedding, but being bombed by US warplanes - that's innocent. More than 30 innocents were killed in that single US action. When you can cite more than 30 innocent victims of the WL action, let me know.
Slashdot Mirror
We're not talking about other countries though, are we? If you're measuring your freedoms against PRK or the Soviet Union, then I suggest you have real troubles with your freedoms.
Why would *I* be the only one who can tell you it's tough to be gay? Do you not know any gay people? In all probability, you do - it's an extremely high probability you know plenty of people who are gay, yet *I'm* the only one who can tell you what it's like to be gay? This tells me your gay friends have trouble trouble talking to you about their gayness. I wonder why.
PS. I'm not gay.
Meh. Google search for "US police brutality gay" produces about 437,000 results but if you want to deny it happens that's your choice.
Last I head they were winning in court.
Winning? Still banned in 2/3 of states by the look of it.
When a judge issues blanket gag orders for entire classes of people without due process and are then enforced by cops with truncheons, get back to me.
Does expressing your love for your same sex partner by getting married count?
Let's take his airline analogy for example. Yes people can pay more to ride the business class / first class seats. That is the Internet equivalent of buying a wider pipe that has better customer support and uptime guarantee.
Please supply a car analogy - in my experience a cattle class ticket on a flight gets the holder to the destination at the same time as someone with a first class ticket.
Banks are highly regulated.
Have you been following the news this past year? Regulation was not what caused the meltdown.
There's your problem right there: being judgmental. That's your problem, not theirs
But everyone does it, all the time. In fact you have to be judgmental in order to differentiate. You cannot treat everyone the same, regardless of who they are.
Depends. Is he white with black markings, or black with white markings?
Wow really. So do you don't mind if I publish your phone call records, credit card purchases, SSN, credit card numbers, bank account informations, home address, phone number, and voting history?
There is your answer.
The difference is he is not your servant, you are not supplying all the money in his bank account, you do not own the property at his address. For the Federal Government, all these things are true - and you can check the voting records of your congressperson I believe, as well as check their political funding status.
How would you like to be forced to change your career because you did the right thing?
If it was a core principle of my career choice, I'd not only have embraced that chance, but been proud to have been part of the exposure that brought about my change in career. Though as an IT person, I'm unlikely to come across a position where I have to choose between my career and "doing the right thing".
A journalist, I'd have thought, would either be in it for the uncovering of truth or at least have known that there may be a time when it came to such a career-ending choice. Personally, if I were a journalist and I broke a story that legitimately called into question the acts of my government, I'd stand on my words. I'd like to be able to sleep at night.
Why do you think that provably innocent people should submit to the incorrect will of the State? Because the enforcers are armed? Or because obedience is more important than accuracy?
Because the system is enforced by fallible human beings. The process has safeguards built into it to account for such imperfections.
An arrest is nothing more than taking you in for proper booking, questioning, etc. Arrest and imprisonment are NOT the same thing.
One is holding you against your will, while the other is holding you against your will. Yes, I see the distinction you are trying to make in showing me that the two are unrelated.
This is covered by the 5th Amendment, so well within the rules which bind everyone in the US.
You are speaking of an individual's actions not a corporation's. What additional rights does a corporation have that an individual doesn't?
Suicide? Cannibalism?
But you are aware that a car always shows too much speed? I.e. if you set it a mile below, you will prolly end up driving about 6-7 miles below the limit. If you are blocking others behind you by doing that, that is wrong as well.
For a car shown to be driving at the posted speed limit, and given that "a car always shows too much speed", those cars he'll be blocking will also be showing that they are driving at the posted speed limit - so he'll only be blocking cars wanting to drive faster than the posted limit, ergo his actions are not "wrong as well".
well yes, you are correct. I guess I typed a bit fast there.
Should we take that as some kind of admission?
http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/cowcheck.asp
Amnesty International is an incredibly infiltrated organization.
As are the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières.
Their members are almost the only people not suspect in a war-zone, making them ideal.
All of these organizations have been used as cover by British, French, American, German and Russian secret services, going back to the second world war, and those are just the known cases. I would trust them with my life if I lay bleeding on the ground in some hell-hole.
Their opinions and motivations not so much.
While I agree with your sentiment about the great work these organisations do, I should point out that MSF was founded in the 1970's, and Amnesty International in the 1960's - well after the second world war.
When did they take it away? He was using it a couple of weeks ago ...
http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2010/07/29/washington-extra-obamas-blackberry-10/
Wish I had mod points
An early recorded piece of attempted modern terrorism would be "Remember, remember the fifth of November." An event that dates back to 1605 and now is actually celebrated now in the UK.
We don't celebrate the attempt at terrorism - we celebrate the fact he (Fawkes) was caught and punished.
There are no CIA, DoD or law enforcement agencies with drones operating in public areas of the United States imaging civilians.
I admire the confidence of this statement.
Why risk having sex with someone who isn't a prostitute? It is simply irresponsible.
I keep telling my wife this, but she won't listen.
Ah, I see. So it only matters if wikileaks is responsible for as many civilian deaths as the US? Until that point, they bear no responsibility for exposing the people who are killed?
Your moral compass. It seems skewed.
Not at all. Consider the Trolley Problem. Imagine that the train goes around and around, killing five people at a time, until someone pushes the fat guy off the bridge. Whoever does so does not have a skewed moral compass, despite the fact they just killed a guy.
When you are - literally - in the crossfire between two opposing forces, neutrality is a luxury that most of these people probably can't afford.
So if you're expecting people to pick sides, then the ones who pick the Taliban are legitimate targets, and the ones who pick the Americans can expect to get murdered?
Okay, so... let's accept your definition of innocent. Are you saying that you're okay with any "innocents" dying as a result of Wikileaks' actions? Are you saying that their vetting policies are perfect and need no review or improvement? Are you saying that releasing names and locations of informants is okay, even if it puts them and their families, neighbors, and villages at risk?
Far from perfect - they're human after all, but the Whitehouse was given advance notice and the opportunity to vet the documents, the documents that were actually published by the US military in the first place.
Wikileaks' release of these documents does NOTHING to reduce or prevent civilians from dying to American or Taliban operations - all this does is INCREASE the level of violence by giving the Taliban a list of informants who they can go after to punish.
I disagree. If I hear domestic abuse from the apartment next door, my first thought is to call the police, not to wonder if by calling the police the wife may get battered a hell of a lot more because I called the police. At some point someone has to say "This government is killing more people than would be killed by releasing the information that the government is killing people".
If the release of these documents does NOTHING to reduce or prevent civilians from dying, then it's a sick, sick country. And I mean the US, not Afghanistan.
I generally don't. I don't own anything anyone else wants that much, so I generally don't need to prove my ownership.
What if someone shows up with a piece of paper saying the land you own is actually their land? Who decides who is right? Once the government gets involved, the government decides who owns the land.
The notion of property rests on the principle that one's entitled to the fruits of one's labor.
Entitlement != ownership
Yes, quite. Unless you're a creationist, man didn't simply appear in completed form with some instructions for governance.
Indeed, and in those days it was "Finders Keepers". If I had a bigger club than you, I could just take what I wanted from you - the rule of muscle.
Man created government to serve man's ends.
Precicely - and one of those ends was to sort out who owned what.
All property rights come from the government.
Really? Have you looked at the Fifth Amendment?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note consistently the use of the negative to constrain government. It presupposes "life, liberty, [and] property." The entire history of American Constitutional jurisprudence relies on the notion that government does not grant rights; it is constituted to safeguard them.
So how do you prove you own the property? Who did you buy it from? Who did *they* buy it from? Keep going back until you hit the beginning of the ownership. In all likelihood it was one form of government or another.
Haha, a day never goes by when I am not stunned by something on slashdot.
So far I've only been able to find one person who was able to cite a death that follows on from the information in the leak that WL passed to the three newspapers.
I'm also confused that you confer the term "innocent" on those who inform. Whether it's for one side or the other, once you "snitch" you lose the right to be an innocent in the war - you are a willing participant. Granted, the families of those people may also be targetted, but let those be the only figures that count towards the "innocent".
Celebrating a wedding, but being bombed by US warplanes - that's innocent. More than 30 innocents were killed in that single US action. When you can cite more than 30 innocent victims of the WL action, let me know.
If the only way to right a wrong is to commit a wrong, do you do it? Inaction assumes compliance with the ongoing wrongs.