So does anyone have any ideas about a good international treaty that can be used to help citizens of all countries? Maybe an extension to the UN Charter of Human Rights [un.org].
Compromise is needed; and the tolerance
inherent in the Human Right chapter
must be taken to its logical end. Perhaps
if countries are allowed to enact their
own laws (up to beheading for theft or
filtering of all Net access) - they have
sovereignty over their own land, air and
seas. But with that allowing the people
to choose their place of residence.
This is a pipe dream, but it may allow for
a society of drones coexist with a society
of hippies and a society of religious fundamentalists, where each is constrained
by the others in attempts to encroach upon
their territory, but at least is allowed
reign in their province. (Oh yeah, land
distribution is not equitable, etc.) - but
something is better than nothing - one of
the premises of compromise.
Another, of course, is the belief that
everything one wants can be achieved,
damn all the others, which is as much
a case of the US as of bin Laden (to
borrow the most recent example:).
*sigh*. Some years ago, I thought - how can
a rational person not believe in Libertarianism.
Now I think - I was more religious than rational.
Let the debunking of Libertarianism begin.
You'd best think about what you're saying before you go criticising the most principled, consistent, and well-respected political philosophy in the world.
When a Libertarian starts to sound like a Soviet-era leader of the Komsomol, it's ironic, don't
you think?
Children are not adults, and can't make most decisions for themselves. It is the job of parents to be responsible for their children until they're of an appropriate age to arbitrate their own lives.
Why? Because you say so? Furthermore, why is
sex with minors bad (assume for now sexual
activities without the risk of pregnancy
and STD)? Because they can't make their
judgment (for this, we don't even use the
first argument)? But you allow them to do
other things that they like and feel good.
What is wrong with sexual experiences? That
a child will be traumatised mostly because
of the prevailing societal attitudes, perhaps;
but so may your geeky son -- should you
pressure him into being a jerk of a jock?
Simple. Sex without consent is considered a forceful act. As a 9 year old cannot consent to sex, any sex is a forceful act against their will, whether they are persuaded to or not.
Simple my foot. Can a 9-year-old consent to
take a candy or five from her overindulgent
grandparents (or even parents), when genetically
she may be predisposed to diabetes? Is your
forcing her to take music lessons she hates
also an initiation of force? Please, please,
think deeper than knee-jerk reactions.
One could also suggest that persuading a 9 year old to have sex is prima facie fraud. The child is inevitably being deceived.
Lock up parents who tell Santa Claus stories -
they're committing fraud.
Beyond that, complain to the owner of the street, and convince the owner of the street to enforce a speed limit. You're only free to do what you want on your OWN property, on someone else's property, you have to follow their rules, otherwise you're using force against their property and they're free to defend themselves.
Continuing further from owner of a house to
owner of the street - we will come to
an owner of the country, which is the government.
Or for some arbitrary reason a street or
neighborhood can have an owner, but the
whole country can't? How is a neighborhood
association different from a federal government
philosophically here?
It just takes a little bit of common sense.
Common sense is good for deciding whether to
buy insulated windows or pay more for
heating oil. Not much else. When it
comes to freedom of speech, drug policy
or TV violence, one man's common sense is
another man's abominable heresy.
A slovenly neighbor leaves all manner of junk in his yard, bringing down local property values.
> something other than platitudes, here. As a
> member of society with children, I have every
> expectation that society make a point to
> confirm their humanity and spritituality at
> least as strongly as it confirms your so called > right to
Why would your expectation exceed his right?
And for that matter, let us dig deeper.
Not citing religious belief, please give
substantiation to the claim that pr0n
would somehow "diminish" your daughter,
other than because you will impose your
system of beliefs on her without her
or yourself ever questioning any of it.
> Syntax errors, yes, fine, whatever, I don't
> care. Logic errors, no. An algorithm is an
> algorithm, and none of C/C++/Java/Pascal/or
> even BASIC are far enough apart to make this a
> viable excuse. 'If' is 'If' and 'For' is 'For'
Well, for one, static vs. dynamic scoping
can screw you up there:)...
...in addition to his obvious ignorance I would
remind slashdotters that neither Einstein, not
Tesla, nor any other great minds of the past
seeked glory and recognition. They did it for
the sake of the people, or at least just for
the heck of it (read: science) but never seeked
a reward. He does.
Well, that is not quite true. I'm sure Edison
loved his work, but he, for example, was not one
to refuse renumeration, quite the opposite...:)
Slashdot Mirror
So does anyone have any ideas about a good international treaty that can be used to help citizens of all countries? Maybe an extension to the UN Charter of Human Rights [un.org].
:).
Compromise is needed; and the tolerance
inherent in the Human Right chapter
must be taken to its logical end. Perhaps
if countries are allowed to enact their
own laws (up to beheading for theft or
filtering of all Net access) - they have
sovereignty over their own land, air and
seas. But with that allowing the people
to choose their place of residence.
This is a pipe dream, but it may allow for
a society of drones coexist with a society
of hippies and a society of religious fundamentalists, where each is constrained
by the others in attempts to encroach upon
their territory, but at least is allowed
reign in their province. (Oh yeah, land
distribution is not equitable, etc.) - but
something is better than nothing - one of
the premises of compromise.
Another, of course, is the belief that
everything one wants can be achieved,
damn all the others, which is as much
a case of the US as of bin Laden (to
borrow the most recent example
A reply both to you and Milky Bar Kid...
*sigh*. Some years ago, I thought - how can
a rational person not believe in Libertarianism.
Now I think - I was more religious than rational.
Let the debunking of Libertarianism begin.
You'd best think about what you're saying before you go criticising the most principled, consistent, and well-respected political philosophy in the world.
When a Libertarian starts to sound like a Soviet-era leader of the Komsomol, it's ironic, don't
you think?
Children are not adults, and can't make most decisions for themselves. It is the job of parents to be responsible for their children until they're of an appropriate age to arbitrate their own lives.
Why? Because you say so? Furthermore, why is
sex with minors bad (assume for now sexual
activities without the risk of pregnancy
and STD)? Because they can't make their
judgment (for this, we don't even use the
first argument)? But you allow them to do
other things that they like and feel good.
What is wrong with sexual experiences? That
a child will be traumatised mostly because
of the prevailing societal attitudes, perhaps;
but so may your geeky son -- should you
pressure him into being a jerk of a jock?
Simple. Sex without consent is considered a forceful act. As a 9 year old cannot consent to sex, any sex is a forceful act against their will, whether they are persuaded to or not.
Simple my foot. Can a 9-year-old consent to
take a candy or five from her overindulgent
grandparents (or even parents), when genetically
she may be predisposed to diabetes? Is your
forcing her to take music lessons she hates
also an initiation of force? Please, please,
think deeper than knee-jerk reactions.
One could also suggest that persuading a 9 year old to have sex is prima facie fraud. The child is inevitably being deceived.
Lock up parents who tell Santa Claus stories -
they're committing fraud.
Beyond that, complain to the owner of the street, and convince the owner of the street to enforce a speed limit. You're only free to do what you want on your OWN property, on someone else's property, you have to follow their rules, otherwise you're using force against their property and they're free to defend themselves.
Continuing further from owner of a house to
owner of the street - we will come to
an owner of the country, which is the government.
Or for some arbitrary reason a street or
neighborhood can have an owner, but the
whole country can't? How is a neighborhood
association different from a federal government
philosophically here?
It just takes a little bit of common sense.
Common sense is good for deciding whether to
buy insulated windows or pay more for
heating oil. Not much else. When it
comes to freedom of speech, drug policy
or TV violence, one man's common sense is
another man's abominable heresy.
A slovenly neighbor leaves all manner of junk in his yard, bringing down local property values.
I SUE YOU! I sue you all!
Why sue? Not be angry. Kiss!
I kiss you! I kiss you all! And I kiss
your little dog.
- Mahir
> something other than platitudes, here. As a
> member of society with children, I have every
> expectation that society make a point to
> confirm their humanity and spritituality at
> least as strongly as it confirms your so called > right to
Why would your expectation exceed his right?
And for that matter, let us dig deeper.
Not citing religious belief, please give
substantiation to the claim that pr0n
would somehow "diminish" your daughter,
other than because you will impose your
system of beliefs on her without her
or yourself ever questioning any of it.
> Syntax errors, yes, fine, whatever, I don't > care. Logic errors, no. An algorithm is an > algorithm, and none of C/C++/Java/Pascal/or > even BASIC are far enough apart to make this a > viable excuse. 'If' is 'If' and 'For' is 'For' Well, for one, static vs. dynamic scoping can screw you up there :)...
Well, that is not quite true. I'm sure Edison loved his work, but he, for example, was not one to refuse renumeration, quite the opposite... :)