Essentially, yes. Make it obvious, all the time, that hate is not acceptable behavior....
I may not have the best solution but that doesn't mean I can't see that outlawing hate isn't a good one.
So you want to make it illegal then? Oh, no, it's not illegal, it's forced education. Those two concepts have totally different connotations! They are more or less the same thing, yet I feel so differently about them based on the context you put them in. Thank you.
Ah. "We must do something, and this is something, so we must do this". Sorry, it doesn't make it right.
If that's what you read, that's not what I meant. I meant that to be somewhat critical of the EU law. I've been trying to say that thinking "oh, but it's so obvious.... in abstract theory" doesn't automatically mean the problem is as easy to solve in real life. I like to think in practical terms, that's all.
The better solution is to teach tolerance before they can learn hate.
That's not a "real" solution, that's a basis for a solution, not a solution itself. That's like saying, "we should solve the problem by getting rid of it." It's like a corporate mission statement: it specifically avoids practical meaning.
So teach everyone, all the time? I don't get it. How can you tell whether someone's been "taught" or not? Having a principle for a solution and having an actual solution are two very different things. And that's why we see laws like this.
All viewpoints have something to offer, and none is totally correct; as humans, we are incapable of perceiving absolute Truth. That truth lies somewhere between the viewpoints, and by censoring any viewpoint -any viewpoint- we permanently cripple our ability to get closer to that Truth, whatever it may be.
Recursively this idea does not work. What about those viewpoints that advocate the exact opposite of what you said? How does that work? Is such a viewpoint the only viewpoint which is totally false? Then therefore is your viewpoint about all over viewpoints the only which is absolutely true?
Generalizations regarding the truth or falsity of all other possible ideas never work. (heehee! contradiction!)
It's human nature to question everything.. No matter how a person is brought up, eventually they'll find their own truth.
What if your truth overlaps mine? What if your truth was "All Americans must die" and mine was "I just want to work and go to the bar in the evening?"
I hate to say it, but sometimes different "truths" are incompatible, can't coexist and, I hate to say it even more, one of those truths is going to have to beat out the other.
While I agree with you mostly, you got a few points wrong yourself.
Hate speech can only cause people to hate another group of people if they are uninformed and uneducated. Rascism (and other discrimination) comes from fear of the unknown. Remove that fear and the racism dies, no matter what anybody else has to say about that group of people.
Your answer doesn't imply a better solution. Should we outlaw fear or ignorance?
Bullshit. The guy that pulls the trigger or swings the bat is 100% responsible for his actions, regardless of who told him to do it, and those actions are illegal without hate speech laws.
In most cases legally the person who instructs or commands you to do something illegal is considered at least partially culpable, depending on the circumstances.
Thank you, what a great post that would have been modded down except for the analogy to a spam filter.
According to contract theorists, with which our founding fathers seemed to agree, The Constitution is a legal contract in which both parties (the government, you) agree to give up something in exchange for a greater total good.
Unfortunately most of discussion here involves only subjective, poorly constructed definitions of what a right is, perhaps based mostly on how it makes them feel.
Most privileges come with risks. Some people may not value the privilege enough to undertake the risk -- and that is not necessary irrational. I could drive a motorcycle without a helmet, but I don't value it enough to undertake the risks associated with it. Some people do. You shouldn't choose to undertake an action solely by first asking yourself: "Is it a privilege?". That's irrational.
Yeah, I agree, and I don't see an end in sight. I don't think the system of letting business-run-amok is sustainable in the long run, the question is how much is it going to take down with it before people change their minds.
It's one of those pendulum things, anyway:
Big Government --> "The government is too big and expensive. We should make it smaller." (Current view)
Small Government --> "The government is too small and ineffective. We should make it bigger." (Previous view)
And particularly in America it applies to the economic destruction wreaked on us by trial lawyers.
The problem isn't the lawyers themselves, the problem is the legal system that allows/encourages them to exist. In the US we have to internalize insurance costs of lawsuit, while in Europe the government essentially insures everyone of such costs. Which of these systems is better I don't know and won't try to argue.
It's like saying big corporations are truly evil. Of course they aren't evil, there is simply a system that allows them to exist, and that system can, with effort, be changed. Instead everyone just spends their energy attacking the corporations themselves, which probably won't do any good.
Whether or not we have gun laws, those who want to use a gun will get one and use it. Example: see sniper.
Why, it was legal for him to own and carry the gun he used? He was acting perfectly within the law until he pulled the trigger. The kind of statement you made can't be supported except by an endless cycle of single examples and counter-examples. So why bother making it?
A spokeswoman for the Federal Communications Commission says the agency can't require cable operators to advertise the new option because that would violate the constitutional right to free speech.
Tell that to the cigarette companies. They are being forced to advertise the cancer-causing properties of their products -- against their right to free speech!
For-profit companies do not have the same right to the freedom of speech as do individuals. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are addressed to human beings, not commercial entities. The Constitution begins with the famous phrase "We the people" and the Bill of Rights amendements all specifically designate people as the recipients of those important freedoms.
This law will be totally ineffective unless the corporations are forced to inform their own customers about their legal rights and options when purchasing services from them. It's not such a radical idea -- there are plently of examples of this already. The FCC should stop its laissez faire approach to regulation and actually try to enforce the law for a change.
The astronauts left several special reflectors (I forget the name) that reflect light straight back at the target...
uh, mirrors?
Re:International observers in Florida
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 2
Ha! I wrote an article (sarcastically) predicting this last week! Another one of my "predictions" comes true.
Re:Fritz Hollings out as commerce committee chair!
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You have to be encouraged by the growing possibility of Republicans taking back control of the Senate.... should make a geek upbeat about this election.
Nevermind Fritz Hollings (D-Disney), I'm worried about the kind of Stone Age judiciary GWB can appoint without opposition review. Remember what happened for those few months when he could? Maybe John Ashcroft would be more comfortable as a member Supreme Court than as AG.
Screaming several times a day for telemarketing calls could strain your vocal cords.
Instead, I recommend hooking up a small, 5 watt amplifier up to your phone line. Be sure to use a switch that will disconnect your own phone speaker when you turn it on.
No, you've got it all wrong. Stealth technology works by reflecting the radar signal away from the radar receiver, not by absorbing it. The F-117's body is made entirely out of flat planes and sharp edges -- curves would scatter the radio signal so that it reflects in all directions, while flatness reflects it in only *one* direction, which by overwhelming probability won't be the direction of the radar receiver.
Supposedly the B-2 works by having an F-117-like layer underneath a smoother shell. It could be harder to make this outer shell ignore radio and reflect laser waves at the same time, though... otherwise, I don't see how laser defense and radar stealth is incompatible.
np ya I went through a fair amount of frustation figuring out that problem myself.
Use curl -I http://site/~whatever to look at the headers the server is sending for a particular url, that's part of how I figured it out.
I had the same problem. The problem is your hostname is not configured properly. When you send a request for http://site/~whatever, or any other directory without a trailing slash, Apache will send a 302 Found response and redirect the user to http://site/~whatever/ .
However, unless you configure it yourself, Apache on Mac OS X does not know what hostname it is running on so it can't redirect properly, and will send a redirect to the user to a url with the wrong site.
You can fix this either by changing the ServerName directive in/etc/httpd/httpd.conf or by formally changing your machine's hostname using NetInfo (some instructions here).
I would agree with you, but for some reason the creepos at freerepublic.org love to link to my images. It's a giant, sudden bandwidth waste. Don't know why they do that, don't care, I stopped them and I needed their referer headers to do it.
True, but at the same time wrong. Has anybody else noticed that the internet is currently the most active battlefield in history?
haha I've also noticed the beer inside my stomach is the most delicious outside of my body. And the milk in my fridge is the best drink on my desk. And the car that's in my driveway is at the shop.
Slashdot Mirror
I may not have the best solution but that doesn't mean I can't see that outlawing hate isn't a good one.
So you want to make it illegal then? Oh, no, it's not illegal, it's forced education. Those two concepts have totally different connotations! They are more or less the same thing, yet I feel so differently about them based on the context you put them in. Thank you.
Ah. "We must do something, and this is something, so we must do this". Sorry, it doesn't make it right.
If that's what you read, that's not what I meant. I meant that to be somewhat critical of the EU law. I've been trying to say that thinking "oh, but it's so obvious.... in abstract theory" doesn't automatically mean the problem is as easy to solve in real life. I like to think in practical terms, that's all.
That's not a "real" solution, that's a basis for a solution, not a solution itself. That's like saying, "we should solve the problem by getting rid of it." It's like a corporate mission statement: it specifically avoids practical meaning.
So teach everyone, all the time? I don't get it. How can you tell whether someone's been "taught" or not? Having a principle for a solution and having an actual solution are two very different things. And that's why we see laws like this.
Recursively this idea does not work. What about those viewpoints that advocate the exact opposite of what you said? How does that work? Is such a viewpoint the only viewpoint which is totally false? Then therefore is your viewpoint about all over viewpoints the only which is absolutely true?
Generalizations regarding the truth or falsity of all other possible ideas never work. (heehee! contradiction!)
What if your truth overlaps mine? What if your truth was "All Americans must die" and mine was "I just want to work and go to the bar in the evening?"
I hate to say it, but sometimes different "truths" are incompatible, can't coexist and, I hate to say it even more, one of those truths is going to have to beat out the other.
Hate speech can only cause people to hate another group of people if they are uninformed and uneducated. Rascism (and other discrimination) comes from fear of the unknown. Remove that fear and the racism dies, no matter what anybody else has to say about that group of people.
Your answer doesn't imply a better solution. Should we outlaw fear or ignorance?
Bullshit. The guy that pulls the trigger or swings the bat is 100% responsible for his actions, regardless of who told him to do it, and those actions are illegal without hate speech laws.
In most cases legally the person who instructs or commands you to do something illegal is considered at least partially culpable, depending on the circumstances.
According to contract theorists, with which our founding fathers seemed to agree, The Constitution is a legal contract in which both parties (the government, you) agree to give up something in exchange for a greater total good.
Unfortunately most of discussion here involves only subjective, poorly constructed definitions of what a right is, perhaps based mostly on how it makes them feel.
Most privileges come with risks. Some people may not value the privilege enough to undertake the risk -- and that is not necessary irrational. I could drive a motorcycle without a helmet, but I don't value it enough to undertake the risks associated with it. Some people do. You shouldn't choose to undertake an action solely by first asking yourself: "Is it a privilege?". That's irrational.
It's one of those pendulum things, anyway:
Big Government --> "The government is too big and expensive. We should make it smaller." (Current view)
Small Government --> "The government is too small and ineffective. We should make it bigger." (Previous view)
Rinse, repeat.
The problem isn't the lawyers themselves, the problem is the legal system that allows/encourages them to exist. In the US we have to internalize insurance costs of lawsuit, while in Europe the government essentially insures everyone of such costs. Which of these systems is better I don't know and won't try to argue.
It's like saying big corporations are truly evil. Of course they aren't evil, there is simply a system that allows them to exist, and that system can, with effort, be changed. Instead everyone just spends their energy attacking the corporations themselves, which probably won't do any good.
Why, it was legal for him to own and carry the gun he used? He was acting perfectly within the law until he pulled the trigger. The kind of statement you made can't be supported except by an endless cycle of single examples and counter-examples. So why bother making it?
But not with the TiBook, whose owners I guess would be the primary market for a $300 battery.
Tell that to the cigarette companies. They are being forced to advertise the cancer-causing properties of their products -- against their right to free speech!
For-profit companies do not have the same right to the freedom of speech as do individuals. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are addressed to human beings, not commercial entities. The Constitution begins with the famous phrase "We the people" and the Bill of Rights amendements all specifically designate people as the recipients of those important freedoms.
This law will be totally ineffective unless the corporations are forced to inform their own customers about their legal rights and options when purchasing services from them. It's not such a radical idea -- there are plently of examples of this already. The FCC should stop its laissez faire approach to regulation and actually try to enforce the law for a change.
or the only G3 they sell.
uh, mirrors?
Ha! I wrote an article (sarcastically) predicting this last week! Another one of my "predictions" comes true.
Nevermind Fritz Hollings (D-Disney), I'm worried about the kind of Stone Age judiciary GWB can appoint without opposition review. Remember what happened for those few months when he could? Maybe John Ashcroft would be more comfortable as a member Supreme Court than as AG.
No, thanks.
Instead, I recommend hooking up a small, 5 watt amplifier up to your phone line. Be sure to use a switch that will disconnect your own phone speaker when you turn it on.
Supposedly the B-2 works by having an F-117-like layer underneath a smoother shell. It could be harder to make this outer shell ignore radio and reflect laser waves at the same time, though... otherwise, I don't see how laser defense and radar stealth is incompatible.
Correction: Apache actually sends a 301 Moved Permanently response code, not a 302. (Not that there's any functional difference.)
np ya I went through a fair amount of frustation figuring out that problem myself. Use curl -I http://site/~whatever to look at the headers the server is sending for a particular url, that's part of how I figured it out.
However, unless you configure it yourself, Apache on Mac OS X does not know what hostname it is running on so it can't redirect properly, and will send a redirect to the user to a url with the wrong site.
You can fix this either by changing the ServerName directive in /etc/httpd/httpd.conf or by formally changing your machine's hostname using NetInfo (some instructions here).
Oh, well, I tried. At least I didn't get modded down : )
but when can I get a dvd player off kazaa? I can't wait
I would agree with you, but for some reason the creepos at freerepublic.org love to link to my images. It's a giant, sudden bandwidth waste. Don't know why they do that, don't care, I stopped them and I needed their referer headers to do it.
haha I've also noticed the beer inside my stomach is the most delicious outside of my body. And the milk in my fridge is the best drink on my desk. And the car that's in my driveway is at the shop.
riiiight.