"It's amazing what rationalization media thieves go through to justify their actions."
It's amazing what rationalization people without clues use to justify calling copyright violation theft, when they are two very distinctly different things.
What did he steal? Last I heard, this was called copyright violation. Stealing is when you physically remove something and that entity no longer has use of it. Did the studio loose the real spiderman was on? Did they lose the cost of the kids admissions? Can they prove that they have lost or would have lost money by the kid making the copy?
Fine by me, I've got an sks with a 30 round clip and a bayonet to take care of myself. I've also got an alarm that lets me know when someone comes into my house, and I'm about 4 minutes away, which is just enough time to load the clip on the glock in the glove box.
Hell, the more criminals you send to my house the better. I bet I can single handedly lower the crime rater in my neighborhood about 20% this way.
In Texas, failure to identify is a class c misdemeanor. You can be arrested and charged simply for refusing to identify yourself, even if you are not suspected of anything.
I could give a shit less if police solve crimes. They spend most of their time fucking with people over petty stuff, and when they do actually arrest someone for something substantial, it doesn't benefit me in anyway. My house was broken into along with 5 of my neighbors. None of us are getting any of our stuff back, and the asshole who did it got probation, even though he had priors. So how exactly did I benefit in any way from the cops "solving a crime." Most of the shitsack law enforcement I've come across would rather spend their time harassing kids drinking than investigating a rape.
I'm in Austin too, and I also make less than half of what I'm supposed to be making. Hell I even make 18k less than what the company police and salary grades say I should be. These fuckwits won't pay me what I'm worth so I'm quitting and going to law school. It's going to be fun sueing this company in three years.
amen brother. I love it when the little snot nosed smart ass kids try to start shit with me in the theatre for asking them nicely to be quiet. When I stand up out of my seat and they realize I'm 6'5" and 265 pounds they shut their little pie holes real quick, and if they don't I'm happy to take it outside and rip them to pieces.
I didn't say health care was a tax. My point was that when people slam universal health coverage, they always point out the tax discrepency between the us and the countries who have this. If you factor in free college education and free health care into their taxes, and add the cost of that to what we pay in taxes, I bet it comes out pretty close. Also citing a study from a group called citizens for taxation justice doesn't really strike me as non-biased. Let's see something from the IRS/Department of Commerce. I know personally that my federal income tax alone runs about 30% not counting the social security and medicare. So if your only pay 13% total income taxes then good for you, but it's not the same for all of us.
once again, you're not factoring in social security, medicare, sales tax, and all of the other bullshit seemingly innocuos ways the government takes our money. Then on top of that we have to pay ridiculous amounts of money for health care. I bet if you factor in the cost of health care for a family of four along with the cost of a college education for two children we as Americans come out behind. I'd rather pay half up front, and get basic services for free, than pay 60-70% total and get next to nothing for it. My personal income tax is 30 percent, not including social security and medicare which adds about another 5 percent. Every purchase I make is taxed at least 8.5 percent. My mortgage which is my biggest expense is roughly 2000 a year in taxes, which is about 5% of my yearly income. So, 35% for income ss+5% for property tax+8.5% sales tax + about another 1000 or so in miscellaneous fees like vehicle registration etc which is about 2.5 percent of my income comes out to around 50.5 without me buying gas/alcohol/driving a toll road, having a phone or cell phone/ getting a ticket (which in many small towns is their only source of revenue)/going to the hospital/going to the movies or concert( they've recently decided to levy 1 dollar onto the sale of any entertainment ticket to pay for the schools)/ and a new hospital district tax that will be added to my already ridiculous fucking property taxes. On top of this I have to pay around 200 a month for health insurance, even though I haven't been to the doctor in four years, am in very good shape, don't smoke, and have no history of major hereditary diseases in my family. Don't even get me started on the ridiculous cost of a college education. So tell me, once again, how we're better off here?
I agree with most of what you said. My overall point wasn't that I'm bitching about all of the taxes, as I think some serve a purpose. What my point was, is that people constantly slam Canada and many of the European countries and say "they get free health care, school, etc, but they pay like 10% higher taxes than us. Filthy socialists." I bet if you did a real comparison factoring in all of the hidden taxes you'd find that we are taxed evenly.
The US has the highest taxation percentage in the world when you factor in the many hidden taxes. I'm personally taxed around 30%, with an additional 5-10% taken out for medicare/social security. Then with the income I have left, I pay 8.5% on every purchase I make, 3.5% on my mortgage for property taxes, 65 dollars a year for vehicle registration, tolls on the roads I drive on, exhorbitant tax on gasoline, alcholol, and tobacco. We even get double taxed on a portion of our income, as social security is based on your before tax income, even though a large portion of that you will never see. Then when you get older, all of the social security taxes you paid may give you back some social security payments, which you will have to pay taxes on. Let's also not forget that most of the products we buy are imported, and they are taxed at importation and that cost is passed along to us. Their are infrastructure taxes on every form of communication, usage taxes, 911 taxes, about 50% tax of various kinds on airline tickets. So tell me please, how the US has lower taxation and all of those stupid socialist countries pay way higher taxes for things like universal health care, etc. I sat down one day and did the math, and by the time I was done, I realized that about 68% of my income goes to paying one form of tax or another. Think about that before you go spouting off your inaccurate tax comparisons between the US and the "socialist" countries.
They are very selective. They select everyone in their path. They hit their intended targets and killed who they were intended to kill, which was everyone in the city.
You are comparing murder to file sharing, that's what you're whole point was. You make no valid argument whatsoever. You can take any scenario and put it to the extreme and it sounds ridiculous, so this type of reasoning has little merit.
All information is produced at a cost, whether it be the cost of the time, thought, labor, capital, etc? Should all information cost money? Get this through your skull, it's not stealing. I'm not going to go buy the Digital Underground album, just to get a copy of the humpty dance for my nephew. The only price at which I will acquire this song is free, therefor I'm not depriving them of money or anything else. There's not some magic transaction that happens where everytime I download an mp3 2 dollars goes missing from someone pocket. I'm not depriving them of anything, because I wouldn't have paid them if file sharing didn't exist, I just wouldn't have used the product. Downloading isn't taking anything. You're not removing someone elses property, you're making a copy. If I make a copy of my friends cd at his house and leave him the original, is that stealing? No, because he still has his copy. Maybe you think the underpants gnomes go an steal a cd from the Riaa warehouse everytime we download?
Look at this from another perspective, if you were a muslim, would you want to go to trial in the Alabama judge's court? What if the local Buddhist wanted to put up a large statue of Buddha in the courthouse? Is that their right as well? How about if the Muslims wanted to put up a statue of a Muslim beheading and infidel and a scripture from the koran talking about smiting the infidels? Is this their right too? What if I have a church that promotes eating dead bodies, and I want to put up a statue of that as well? When you allow the recognition of one religion in a public institution, you have to allow the recognition of all. This creates more problems than you can imagine so the rational thing to do is say, worship how you want, just don't do it in your official capacity.
I realize that people's beliefs come into play in the way they do their jobs and see the world, and I don't think anyone believes that there can be 100% seperation, but that you have to at least make an effort.
Another tangent to consider about the Alabama judge, anyone who is tried in his court that isn't Christian now has a right to appeal. "You're honor, as a muslim/hindu/pagan/etc there was no way I could have gotten a fair trial under the TEN COMMANDMENTS JUDGE and there was obvious bias shown. Request for a retrial."
This type of thing is the reason why we should strive to seperate our own, often irrational religious beliefs, from the public call of duty.
Like I said, the constitution itself doesn't explicitly say that their is a seperation of church and state, but the body of constitutional doctrine includes the judicial interpretations of the law related to the constitution. The Constitution is like the skeleton, the framework, and judicial interpretation is the meat. If someone doesn't want the statue there, and the government fights to keep there and uses law enforcement to make sure it stays, then it is in essence making the law respect an establishment of religion. The true argument to attack though is that the constitution only prevents congress from doing this. At the county level, there may or may not be a local law or policy that deals with this, but once again judicial interpretation has made it pretty clear that there is to be a seperation of church and state, at least in the opinions of our SCJs.
If mexican citizens were suicide bombing us, this would be a valid criticism, but they're not. If arabs start suicide bombing us daily, expect to see them all deported to the other side of the globe shortly, and then the suicide attacks will end.
if it was a wmd then wmd's sure aren't very scary. I think this killed like three people. If I blew up a bottle of charcoal lighter it would probably be about as deadly. Oh shit, now my backyard is going to get invaded for having wmd!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
This to me says seperation of church and state.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The right to privacy.
While the constitution may not be explicit in it's definition of either of these two topics, the tradition of common law, going back to England, gives judges the power to define the law and constitution by creating precedence through judicial decisions.
I'm not saying they deserve to die. What I am saying is that it's not my responsibility to childproof my home to compensate for a parents potential negligence. I in no way wish death on a child of any age, but what I find absurd and sickening is the idea that if a parent fails to guard their child, it's somehow my responsibility to have had the forthought to childproof my home. I've chosen not to have children, and as a result my home is not child friendly. I have large agaves in my yard with very sharp points. If a child wanders on to my property and puts an eye out, should I be liable because I didn't file the points down on my cactus. My point is, there are a lot of dumbshit people having children, they don't supervise them, then when little johnny falls into a pool or gets hit by a car, they want to sue and blame anyone but themselves. I personally don't care if kids play in my yard. Hell they even set up a bike ramp in my drive way the other day, which I ignored once I got my car parked. If their parents are ok with them doing this then fine, but if they launch off of the ramp and into a cactus and have to go to the hospital, then how is that my fault? There are people in this society who choose to be caretakers and people who choose not to. I'm not a caretaker, I don't want nor do I accept that responsiblity, and it's absolute bullshit that I should be forced to bear the cost of someone elses child beyond the school taxes I already pay.
If your five year old wanders onto my property and drowns, then you didn't need to have children to begin with. If you can't keep track of where your child is, then you have no business raising children. People want to let their kids run amok and not pay attention to what they are doing, and then when they get hurt they want to sue. I'm not going to coat my entire yard with soft foam rubber to keep your child from getting hurt. If an antelope doesn't take care of her child and keep track of it, it gets eaten by a lion, same should apply to people. There are too many fucking people to begin with, so if you can't be bothered to supervise your child, I'm not going to feel real terrible when they prove Darwin's point.
What if I lock the door, and they still break in and take my gun and shoot someone? How far do I have to go to secure it? Do i need bulletproof windows and solid iron doors?
First point, they are detaining people who may have had knowledge of terrorist attacks, not people who certainly had knowledge. So now they're detaining people because they might know something, not just those who actually do know something.
You then claim they are treated humanely as enemy combatants, but then you go back and claim that the rules of law do not apply because they're not enemy combatants but terrorists. If they're terrorist then normal criminal procedings must take place. if they are enemy combatants then the geneva convention applies.
Lastly, your statement about provocation. How is a bombing considered to be provocation for a massive invasion with no ties to the actual bombinb. If we are using 911 as justification saudi seems like a better target.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's amazing what rationalization media thieves go through to justify their actions." It's amazing what rationalization people without clues use to justify calling copyright violation theft, when they are two very distinctly different things.
What did he steal? Last I heard, this was called copyright violation. Stealing is when you physically remove something and that entity no longer has use of it. Did the studio loose the real spiderman was on? Did they lose the cost of the kids admissions? Can they prove that they have lost or would have lost money by the kid making the copy?
If I buy cd's as well as share files, then I'm still a consumer. I may be pirate as well, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
Fine by me, I've got an sks with a 30 round clip and a bayonet to take care of myself. I've also got an alarm that lets me know when someone comes into my house, and I'm about 4 minutes away, which is just enough time to load the clip on the glock in the glove box. Hell, the more criminals you send to my house the better. I bet I can single handedly lower the crime rater in my neighborhood about 20% this way.
In Texas, failure to identify is a class c misdemeanor. You can be arrested and charged simply for refusing to identify yourself, even if you are not suspected of anything.
I could give a shit less if police solve crimes. They spend most of their time fucking with people over petty stuff, and when they do actually arrest someone for something substantial, it doesn't benefit me in anyway. My house was broken into along with 5 of my neighbors. None of us are getting any of our stuff back, and the asshole who did it got probation, even though he had priors. So how exactly did I benefit in any way from the cops "solving a crime." Most of the shitsack law enforcement I've come across would rather spend their time harassing kids drinking than investigating a rape.
I'm in Austin too, and I also make less than half of what I'm supposed to be making. Hell I even make 18k less than what the company police and salary grades say I should be. These fuckwits won't pay me what I'm worth so I'm quitting and going to law school. It's going to be fun sueing this company in three years.
1.Men hunting and gathering 2.men farming 3.Europeans invading and killing the farming me 4.Europeans farming 5.Europeans becoming Americans.
amen brother. I love it when the little snot nosed smart ass kids try to start shit with me in the theatre for asking them nicely to be quiet. When I stand up out of my seat and they realize I'm 6'5" and 265 pounds they shut their little pie holes real quick, and if they don't I'm happy to take it outside and rip them to pieces.
I didn't say health care was a tax. My point was that when people slam universal health coverage, they always point out the tax discrepency between the us and the countries who have this. If you factor in free college education and free health care into their taxes, and add the cost of that to what we pay in taxes, I bet it comes out pretty close. Also citing a study from a group called citizens for taxation justice doesn't really strike me as non-biased. Let's see something from the IRS/Department of Commerce. I know personally that my federal income tax alone runs about 30% not counting the social security and medicare. So if your only pay 13% total income taxes then good for you, but it's not the same for all of us.
once again, you're not factoring in social security, medicare, sales tax, and all of the other bullshit seemingly innocuos ways the government takes our money. Then on top of that we have to pay ridiculous amounts of money for health care. I bet if you factor in the cost of health care for a family of four along with the cost of a college education for two children we as Americans come out behind. I'd rather pay half up front, and get basic services for free, than pay 60-70% total and get next to nothing for it. My personal income tax is 30 percent, not including social security and medicare which adds about another 5 percent. Every purchase I make is taxed at least 8.5 percent. My mortgage which is my biggest expense is roughly 2000 a year in taxes, which is about 5% of my yearly income. So, 35% for income ss+5% for property tax+8.5% sales tax + about another 1000 or so in miscellaneous fees like vehicle registration etc which is about 2.5 percent of my income comes out to around 50.5 without me buying gas/alcohol/driving a toll road, having a phone or cell phone/ getting a ticket (which in many small towns is their only source of revenue)/going to the hospital/going to the movies or concert( they've recently decided to levy 1 dollar onto the sale of any entertainment ticket to pay for the schools)/ and a new hospital district tax that will be added to my already ridiculous fucking property taxes. On top of this I have to pay around 200 a month for health insurance, even though I haven't been to the doctor in four years, am in very good shape, don't smoke, and have no history of major hereditary diseases in my family. Don't even get me started on the ridiculous cost of a college education. So tell me, once again, how we're better off here?
I agree with most of what you said. My overall point wasn't that I'm bitching about all of the taxes, as I think some serve a purpose. What my point was, is that people constantly slam Canada and many of the European countries and say "they get free health care, school, etc, but they pay like 10% higher taxes than us. Filthy socialists." I bet if you did a real comparison factoring in all of the hidden taxes you'd find that we are taxed evenly.
The US has the highest taxation percentage in the world when you factor in the many hidden taxes. I'm personally taxed around 30%, with an additional 5-10% taken out for medicare/social security. Then with the income I have left, I pay 8.5% on every purchase I make, 3.5% on my mortgage for property taxes, 65 dollars a year for vehicle registration, tolls on the roads I drive on, exhorbitant tax on gasoline, alcholol, and tobacco. We even get double taxed on a portion of our income, as social security is based on your before tax income, even though a large portion of that you will never see. Then when you get older, all of the social security taxes you paid may give you back some social security payments, which you will have to pay taxes on. Let's also not forget that most of the products we buy are imported, and they are taxed at importation and that cost is passed along to us. Their are infrastructure taxes on every form of communication, usage taxes, 911 taxes, about 50% tax of various kinds on airline tickets. So tell me please, how the US has lower taxation and all of those stupid socialist countries pay way higher taxes for things like universal health care, etc. I sat down one day and did the math, and by the time I was done, I realized that about 68% of my income goes to paying one form of tax or another. Think about that before you go spouting off your inaccurate tax comparisons between the US and the "socialist" countries.
They are very selective. They select everyone in their path. They hit their intended targets and killed who they were intended to kill, which was everyone in the city.
You are comparing murder to file sharing, that's what you're whole point was. You make no valid argument whatsoever. You can take any scenario and put it to the extreme and it sounds ridiculous, so this type of reasoning has little merit.
All information is produced at a cost, whether it be the cost of the time, thought, labor, capital, etc? Should all information cost money? Get this through your skull, it's not stealing. I'm not going to go buy the Digital Underground album, just to get a copy of the humpty dance for my nephew. The only price at which I will acquire this song is free, therefor I'm not depriving them of money or anything else. There's not some magic transaction that happens where everytime I download an mp3 2 dollars goes missing from someone pocket. I'm not depriving them of anything, because I wouldn't have paid them if file sharing didn't exist, I just wouldn't have used the product. Downloading isn't taking anything. You're not removing someone elses property, you're making a copy. If I make a copy of my friends cd at his house and leave him the original, is that stealing? No, because he still has his copy. Maybe you think the underpants gnomes go an steal a cd from the Riaa warehouse everytime we download?
Look at this from another perspective, if you were a muslim, would you want to go to trial in the Alabama judge's court? What if the local Buddhist wanted to put up a large statue of Buddha in the courthouse? Is that their right as well? How about if the Muslims wanted to put up a statue of a Muslim beheading and infidel and a scripture from the koran talking about smiting the infidels? Is this their right too? What if I have a church that promotes eating dead bodies, and I want to put up a statue of that as well? When you allow the recognition of one religion in a public institution, you have to allow the recognition of all. This creates more problems than you can imagine so the rational thing to do is say, worship how you want, just don't do it in your official capacity. I realize that people's beliefs come into play in the way they do their jobs and see the world, and I don't think anyone believes that there can be 100% seperation, but that you have to at least make an effort. Another tangent to consider about the Alabama judge, anyone who is tried in his court that isn't Christian now has a right to appeal. "You're honor, as a muslim/hindu/pagan/etc there was no way I could have gotten a fair trial under the TEN COMMANDMENTS JUDGE and there was obvious bias shown. Request for a retrial." This type of thing is the reason why we should strive to seperate our own, often irrational religious beliefs, from the public call of duty.
Like I said, the constitution itself doesn't explicitly say that their is a seperation of church and state, but the body of constitutional doctrine includes the judicial interpretations of the law related to the constitution. The Constitution is like the skeleton, the framework, and judicial interpretation is the meat. If someone doesn't want the statue there, and the government fights to keep there and uses law enforcement to make sure it stays, then it is in essence making the law respect an establishment of religion. The true argument to attack though is that the constitution only prevents congress from doing this. At the county level, there may or may not be a local law or policy that deals with this, but once again judicial interpretation has made it pretty clear that there is to be a seperation of church and state, at least in the opinions of our SCJs.
If mexican citizens were suicide bombing us, this would be a valid criticism, but they're not. If arabs start suicide bombing us daily, expect to see them all deported to the other side of the globe shortly, and then the suicide attacks will end.
if it was a wmd then wmd's sure aren't very scary. I think this killed like three people. If I blew up a bottle of charcoal lighter it would probably be about as deadly. Oh shit, now my backyard is going to get invaded for having wmd!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " This to me says seperation of church and state. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The right to privacy. While the constitution may not be explicit in it's definition of either of these two topics, the tradition of common law, going back to England, gives judges the power to define the law and constitution by creating precedence through judicial decisions.
I'm not saying they deserve to die. What I am saying is that it's not my responsibility to childproof my home to compensate for a parents potential negligence. I in no way wish death on a child of any age, but what I find absurd and sickening is the idea that if a parent fails to guard their child, it's somehow my responsibility to have had the forthought to childproof my home. I've chosen not to have children, and as a result my home is not child friendly. I have large agaves in my yard with very sharp points. If a child wanders on to my property and puts an eye out, should I be liable because I didn't file the points down on my cactus. My point is, there are a lot of dumbshit people having children, they don't supervise them, then when little johnny falls into a pool or gets hit by a car, they want to sue and blame anyone but themselves. I personally don't care if kids play in my yard. Hell they even set up a bike ramp in my drive way the other day, which I ignored once I got my car parked. If their parents are ok with them doing this then fine, but if they launch off of the ramp and into a cactus and have to go to the hospital, then how is that my fault? There are people in this society who choose to be caretakers and people who choose not to. I'm not a caretaker, I don't want nor do I accept that responsiblity, and it's absolute bullshit that I should be forced to bear the cost of someone elses child beyond the school taxes I already pay.
If your five year old wanders onto my property and drowns, then you didn't need to have children to begin with. If you can't keep track of where your child is, then you have no business raising children. People want to let their kids run amok and not pay attention to what they are doing, and then when they get hurt they want to sue. I'm not going to coat my entire yard with soft foam rubber to keep your child from getting hurt. If an antelope doesn't take care of her child and keep track of it, it gets eaten by a lion, same should apply to people. There are too many fucking people to begin with, so if you can't be bothered to supervise your child, I'm not going to feel real terrible when they prove Darwin's point.
What if I lock the door, and they still break in and take my gun and shoot someone? How far do I have to go to secure it? Do i need bulletproof windows and solid iron doors?
First point, they are detaining people who may have had knowledge of terrorist attacks, not people who certainly had knowledge. So now they're detaining people because they might know something, not just those who actually do know something. You then claim they are treated humanely as enemy combatants, but then you go back and claim that the rules of law do not apply because they're not enemy combatants but terrorists. If they're terrorist then normal criminal procedings must take place. if they are enemy combatants then the geneva convention applies. Lastly, your statement about provocation. How is a bombing considered to be provocation for a massive invasion with no ties to the actual bombinb. If we are using 911 as justification saudi seems like a better target.