Oh stop apologizing for being harsh. I can dish it out, I can certainly take it too.
But I ask, is it a violation of your rights if I drink a beer and kill an occupant in your vehicle? Suppose I drink the beer outside your house and wait for you to exit your driveway, whereupon I ram your vehicle? I'd say that in either case you hadn't given me permission to do either, simply by the act of getting on the road.
When you pull out of your driveway, you're expecting me to drive as safely as I can. That expectation of others to be as safe as they can be is important here. Driving with a cell phone is certainly much safer than drunk driving, most of the time. But it's still not as safe as possible. The expectation is that others will drive as safely as possible, not that others will make their own judgement about how to trade safety for other goals.
Safety is the product of all the efforts of all drivers on the road to drive safely. That is what I meant when I said that an individual cannot make the decision by themselves. If I choose to be as safe as possible, I cannot create a safe road condition unless all the other drivers around me are also choosing to create a safe road condition. When I said that an individual "cannot" make the decision to be a dangerous driver, what I probably should have said is that an individual "must not" make the decision to be a dangerous driver.
It's not a ridiculous argument at all. I pointed out a consideration which you failed to take into account. Safety on the road is a collective action, the product of individuals driving as safely as they can. Individuals make the decision to enter the roads based on their judgement of the risk, which is normally acceptably low. But when another person fails to abide by the assumption that everyone is driving as safely as they can as individuals, there's no communication mechanism to let others know.
Whenever you pick your phone up on the road people around you don't have any clue that you're not driving as safely as possible. The information by which others make their decision to get on the road is incomplete. They weren't informed that there's a possibly dangerous cell-phone talker on the road. You've made a decision about their safety for them, which you have no right to do.
I don't what you're talking about with the "it could hurt others" standard. I think it's something you made up yourself.
1) Just because you perform both tasks worse, doesn't mean it's less efficient.
Right. What's the goal? Getting more work done, or getting a raise? If the boss values crap work as long as you can work on 5 crap things at a time, then that's what you do. You get your raise more efficiently. When the boss wants you to do one thing only, that's what you'll be told to do. It's his capital that's invested in the business, and there's no reason why you should help him use it more wisely.
You don't have the right to make that decision for me. If you're on the phone in your car while you're all alone 4-wheeling in the woods that's one thing. But if you're in the car right behind me, that's another. Your decision about sacrificing safety for a cell phone conversation is also about my safety too. That kind of decision cannot be made by an individual.
That's not what you said. You said there was a real risk, and in your very next comment you said the risk was not real.
Your ridiculous parsing is amusing to me. I've pointed out your own words, and you're wiggling around like a worm. You bring up some kind of lame context argument to defend yourself. It's shit, and so is your hypocrisy. What a little baby.
Look at the motherfucker parse. Parse like a little girl. First you said there was a real risk, then you said it was a fake risk. See how that works?
My statement about freedom of speech isn't extreme. It's the definition of the ideal. You're not even smart enough to use philosophical arguments concerning the existence of Platonic ideals. If you did use those, we might have a conversation. But instead, you resorted to extreme semantic parsing. That's the sign of an idiot, and when I do it to you, you aren't even smart enough to recognize it. That's proof you're an idiot.
Maybe you're one of Pudge's sock puppets. Actually, I doubt that because you don't have the same annoying smugness that he has. I apologize for that accusation.
No, I didn't. If you think so, you don't understand what I wrote, and you're ignoring the context of the actual discussion that the statements were made in.
You wrote this:
"People know they are taking a risk when they copy, so for a lot of people it just isn't worth it."
And then later you wrote:
"or many the perceived risk is not worth it, and that's what counts."
Is it risk or not? A perceived risk? You said people were taking a risk and then you waffled and said that it's not a risk - it's a fake risk. Obviously, when you were questioned further, you changed your tune. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Once again, if you read the discussion, you'll see that several different things were discussed throughout. My opinion on all aspects of the first amendment is not the same. There are some cases where restrictions on speech are justified, and some cases where it is not. Any restriction means that free speech isn't really free, and thus those restrictions should only be made when some other right might be compromised.
If you can't understand that, then you're just a pendantic moron. Should I go through your posting history and troll you with every inconsistency, regardless of what your actual beliefs are, or what the context of the comments were?
If you read the comments that I wrote to you directly there would be absolutely no way for you to conclude that I think about this in black and white. And now, you resort to personal attacks. I guess you don't have anything to add.
I quote: If I make speech 'A' in the context of a riot and it makes the riot worse, that can be limited.
I wrote that, to you. If you had read that and understood it, you'd have understood that it's a nuanced point about a restriction on the first that has a justification, but nevertheless it still is a restriction. I'm not saying that restriction is bad, I'm saying that the restriction necessarily means that speech cannot be completely 100% unrestricted. Yet, completely unrestricted Platonically idealistic speech should always be our goal. And no, I never said that something close to but not quite free speech wasn't useful.
If you accuse me of black and white thinking, then there is only one conclusion. You have a problem with thinking somewhere.
Go learn some math. You'll get an education in all kinds of things that are defined in black and white, yet nevertheless are full of undecidability and incompleteness.
OK, I read it, so what? Are you going to bust my balls over an inconsistent use of the word "restricted"? OK, fine, but if you read what I wrote you can understand what I'm talking about. If you go through the thread, you find where I've outlined places where free speech has legitimate restrictions placed on it because it comes up against other rights. These are gray areas and decided by courts for the most part.
Yes you did, when you responded to the original Chinese poster. His only point was that speech isn't as restricted as some make it out to be. He never claimed the ideal "free speech", which no country has anyways. So what was the point of your reply?
My point I am making is that free speech is a Platonic ideal, and nowhere is it achieved. Yet, that Platonic ideal should be the ultimate goal, and nothing less should be tolerated. Even though free speech is a Platonic perfect thing, because of the nature of the universe, there are gray areas when it comes to deciding free speech, because it's not the only right that we hold to be valuable. I think I made that perfectly clear, and if you had read the thread with even a little understanding, you could hardly come to the conclusion that I believed it to be black and white.
I never said the world is black and white, and there's no way to construe that from my statements. It is true that speech is either completely free, or it's not free at all.
But I did NOT say that free speech is the same as unrestricted speech. I pointed out quite clearly that when speech would harm another right that may be a place for a reasonable restriction. If you can't see that's a huge gray area then I don't know what to tell you.
Also, I have not implied that having some unrestricted speech is not useful. Obviously if you can't have free speech, then coming as close to that as possible is very desirable. But coming close is not the same as having free speech.
And so we are at an impasse. My arguments have been laid out, and rebutting you here would involve repeating myself. So now, that is all that I have to say. I don't think your reasons for rejecting my arguments are very good, but what I think of your arguments is irrelevant. I think if you go back through our discussion, you'll find that all your points were addressed previously.
The NYT is a rag and always has been. Their byline "All the news that's fit to print" is complete bullshit. I look forward to the day when newspapers are completely out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
I just wanted to let you know that I'm thinking about you. Actually, I'm also jacking off at the same time.
You don't get it, do you?
Allah, could I have just one experienced whore instead?
Oh stop apologizing for being harsh. I can dish it out, I can certainly take it too.
But I ask, is it a violation of your rights if I drink a beer and kill an occupant in your vehicle? Suppose I drink the beer outside your house and wait for you to exit your driveway, whereupon I ram your vehicle? I'd say that in either case you hadn't given me permission to do either, simply by the act of getting on the road.
When you pull out of your driveway, you're expecting me to drive as safely as I can. That expectation of others to be as safe as they can be is important here. Driving with a cell phone is certainly much safer than drunk driving, most of the time. But it's still not as safe as possible. The expectation is that others will drive as safely as possible, not that others will make their own judgement about how to trade safety for other goals.
Safety is the product of all the efforts of all drivers on the road to drive safely. That is what I meant when I said that an individual cannot make the decision by themselves. If I choose to be as safe as possible, I cannot create a safe road condition unless all the other drivers around me are also choosing to create a safe road condition. When I said that an individual "cannot" make the decision to be a dangerous driver, what I probably should have said is that an individual "must not" make the decision to be a dangerous driver.
It's not a ridiculous argument at all. I pointed out a consideration which you failed to take into account. Safety on the road is a collective action, the product of individuals driving as safely as they can. Individuals make the decision to enter the roads based on their judgement of the risk, which is normally acceptably low. But when another person fails to abide by the assumption that everyone is driving as safely as they can as individuals, there's no communication mechanism to let others know.
Whenever you pick your phone up on the road people around you don't have any clue that you're not driving as safely as possible. The information by which others make their decision to get on the road is incomplete. They weren't informed that there's a possibly dangerous cell-phone talker on the road. You've made a decision about their safety for them, which you have no right to do.
I don't what you're talking about with the "it could hurt others" standard. I think it's something you made up yourself.
1) Just because you perform both tasks worse, doesn't mean it's less efficient.
Right. What's the goal? Getting more work done, or getting a raise? If the boss values crap work as long as you can work on 5 crap things at a time, then that's what you do. You get your raise more efficiently. When the boss wants you to do one thing only, that's what you'll be told to do. It's his capital that's invested in the business, and there's no reason why you should help him use it more wisely.
You don't have the right to make that decision for me. If you're on the phone in your car while you're all alone 4-wheeling in the woods that's one thing. But if you're in the car right behind me, that's another. Your decision about sacrificing safety for a cell phone conversation is also about my safety too. That kind of decision cannot be made by an individual.
70 degrees? That's a smart fucking tree.
Yea, what am I, some kind of Information meta-technologist?
You are of course correct. Being corrected by a rude haiku is AWESOME.
Profane Muthafucka
Would purchase a water car
And fuel it with sperm.
I don't want a slave, I just want a robot to clean my house and mow my lawn. Also to have realistic skin and soft hair.
Are you aware that you just proposed that a murder be committed as a form of some kind of science fair experiment?
Please please please make the Republicans more libertarian. That way the Republicans will be just as crazy, but an awful lot more fun at parties.
That's not what you said. You said there was a real risk, and in your very next comment you said the risk was not real.
Your ridiculous parsing is amusing to me. I've pointed out your own words, and you're wiggling around like a worm. You bring up some kind of lame context argument to defend yourself. It's shit, and so is your hypocrisy. What a little baby.
Define "conservative". I'll bet you're going to offer a definition of libertarian and try to pass it off as conservative. But you may surprise me.
Look at the motherfucker parse. Parse like a little girl. First you said there was a real risk, then you said it was a fake risk. See how that works?
My statement about freedom of speech isn't extreme. It's the definition of the ideal. You're not even smart enough to use philosophical arguments concerning the existence of Platonic ideals. If you did use those, we might have a conversation. But instead, you resorted to extreme semantic parsing. That's the sign of an idiot, and when I do it to you, you aren't even smart enough to recognize it. That's proof you're an idiot.
Maybe you're one of Pudge's sock puppets. Actually, I doubt that because you don't have the same annoying smugness that he has. I apologize for that accusation.
No, I didn't. If you think so, you don't understand what I wrote, and you're ignoring the context of the actual discussion that the statements were made in.
You wrote this:
"People know they are taking a risk when they copy, so for a lot of people it just isn't worth it."
And then later you wrote:
"or many the perceived risk is not worth it, and that's what counts."
Is it risk or not? A perceived risk? You said people were taking a risk and then you waffled and said that it's not a risk - it's a fake risk. Obviously, when you were questioned further, you changed your tune. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Once again, if you read the discussion, you'll see that several different things were discussed throughout. My opinion on all aspects of the first amendment is not the same. There are some cases where restrictions on speech are justified, and some cases where it is not. Any restriction means that free speech isn't really free, and thus those restrictions should only be made when some other right might be compromised.
If you can't understand that, then you're just a pendantic moron. Should I go through your posting history and troll you with every inconsistency, regardless of what your actual beliefs are, or what the context of the comments were?
If you read the comments that I wrote to you directly there would be absolutely no way for you to conclude that I think about this in black and white. And now, you resort to personal attacks. I guess you don't have anything to add.
I quote:
If I make speech 'A' in the context of a riot and it makes the riot worse, that can be limited.
I wrote that, to you. If you had read that and understood it, you'd have understood that it's a nuanced point about a restriction on the first that has a justification, but nevertheless it still is a restriction. I'm not saying that restriction is bad, I'm saying that the restriction necessarily means that speech cannot be completely 100% unrestricted. Yet, completely unrestricted Platonically idealistic speech should always be our goal. And no, I never said that something close to but not quite free speech wasn't useful.
If you accuse me of black and white thinking, then there is only one conclusion. You have a problem with thinking somewhere.
Go learn some math. You'll get an education in all kinds of things that are defined in black and white, yet nevertheless are full of undecidability and incompleteness.
OK, I read it, so what? Are you going to bust my balls over an inconsistent use of the word "restricted"? OK, fine, but if you read what I wrote you can understand what I'm talking about. If you go through the thread, you find where I've outlined places where free speech has legitimate restrictions placed on it because it comes up against other rights. These are gray areas and decided by courts for the most part.
Yes you did, when you responded to the original Chinese poster. His only point was that speech isn't as restricted as some make it out to be. He never claimed the ideal "free speech", which no country has anyways. So what was the point of your reply?
My point I am making is that free speech is a Platonic ideal, and nowhere is it achieved. Yet, that Platonic ideal should be the ultimate goal, and nothing less should be tolerated. Even though free speech is a Platonic perfect thing, because of the nature of the universe, there are gray areas when it comes to deciding free speech, because it's not the only right that we hold to be valuable. I think I made that perfectly clear, and if you had read the thread with even a little understanding, you could hardly come to the conclusion that I believed it to be black and white.
But the world is not black and white,
I never said the world is black and white, and there's no way to construe that from my statements. It is true that speech is either completely free, or it's not free at all.
But I did NOT say that free speech is the same as unrestricted speech. I pointed out quite clearly that when speech would harm another right that may be a place for a reasonable restriction. If you can't see that's a huge gray area then I don't know what to tell you.
Also, I have not implied that having some unrestricted speech is not useful. Obviously if you can't have free speech, then coming as close to that as possible is very desirable. But coming close is not the same as having free speech.
And so we are at an impasse. My arguments have been laid out, and rebutting you here would involve repeating myself. So now, that is all that I have to say. I don't think your reasons for rejecting my arguments are very good, but what I think of your arguments is irrelevant. I think if you go back through our discussion, you'll find that all your points were addressed previously.
The NYT is a rag and always has been. Their byline "All the news that's fit to print" is complete bullshit. I look forward to the day when newspapers are completely out of business.
The car that said "ni!"