I am thinking that it is the same as saying, "If I kill someone on somebody else's property then they can be sued or arrested." Though I don't recommend trying it I would guess that only the killer is liable. Common carrier status, or does that only apply to rich people who can lobby laws or afford lawyers?
For that particular program I don't know. It could be good to try it and quite later if it really is horrible or unchangeable. Of course the quest is, "Is quitting or not trying for a job for moral reasons a good reason to quit?" Is getting money at any cost just to live, better than doing work you either don't like or abhor or think is ethically wrong? I know I wouldn't want to work at a company I hate because of it's bad policies, I could list several now but won't, is worse than living on the street. Being jobless may be physically demanding but working for a scrupulous company is more mentally and morally demanding.
Even though you have a spelling error every ninth word you are probably still smarter than most people. In any case I also learn similarly. I never did good with books, except when I could do it myself. Excluding very early grades, I got smarter as I got "away" from standard methods. In any case, remember that some people who couldn't pass a tenth grade math course can still be geniuses. Faraday was brilliant with science but couldn't do math to save his life.
I remember hearing about a case that Congress made some sort of law allowing the Exec. branch to decide what to make legal. The courts said that only Congress can maky laws and they can't even pawn it off on other branchs. In other words, it is only illegal if Congress specifically makes a law forbiding it.
What do you mean? We don't have taxation without representation. Unless you live in DC. Or are too young so you can get taxed and have the excuse, "you don't know better so we will decide how much money to take." Or are a felon so the you don't get to decide laws that actually affected you. Or the fact that people need millions of dollars just to get elected to a national position and small people have no real effect other than 1 measly vote. Or have alot of mony to lobby and buy "sharing toys, er music is wrong." Of course we can change the world. But only if we have alot of money and live in the right place and are the right age and haven't already been convicted of a crime that may not be moral in the first place. P.S. Schools do teach us right anc wrong. They just teach us that big business is right.
Yes in general I think young people are "dumber" or more accurately less wise, than adults. I don't think all are though. I also think that someone more experienced should in some cases, not all though, act for less experienced. That is what parents are for though. I do not think the state should decide.
I think it is taking away rights. The right to buy stuff when others can. They are in fact taking it away totally from kids to buy it. It is probably seen by it's opposers to be taking away rights, at least me.
In the case of alcohol I also think those laws are bad. In the case of any kind of license, on public property, should be given if and only if the receiver is capable of using it wisely. A baby cannot operate a car because he can't see and reach the pedals at the same time.
I think laws shouldn't apply to just one group. If a particular person, perhaps through a DUI conviction, is unable to control a substance then it should be banned but only to that person. Even if it has to be proven that they can handle it first it still has to be the same for all races and genders and ages.
"What part of the constitution says that you should drive on the right?" It is public so the state can make any law that is both constitutional, with the side one is and applicable to all, which it also is.
"Or wear clothes?" In NY the state or courts decided that women can be topless of it is not for selling reasons. The only reason I know that people want others to wear cloths is for moral and modest reasons. So it can count as against "due process" in that it "hurts" someone. In other countries, such as Arab, people have to wear other sets of garments. They might in fact be different between men and women. I think that laws have to be the same for all. I also think that laws have to actually cause harm, not just may cause it according to some people. Many people, apparently less that 51%, think that nudity is not wrong; that is doesn't corrupt people. I agree in that I don't think it corrupts people. It may not make them, for the sake of a better term or argument, "good Christians" but I don't think it harms them.
"Or not serve broken glass to people in sandwiches?" I do think they should be allowed to serve them if the customer desires. Most if not all don't. I don't think the store should be able to lie and say it isn't glassy but it really is. Most people expect food to be free of stuff like that. But if they do want broken glass or cockroaches or strange diseases then they should be able to order the food. In fact many restaurants now say that rare meats may be undercooked, as the customer ordered, and therefore have more bacteria in them. The person wanted that so they should be able to get a meat that probably does not but might have diseases.
Many older people, let's say 100+, are unable to operate cars. If they get a permit when they are young but continue to have it, it is completely legal for them to drive but obviously bad. Young driver OTOH might be better but illegal.
If you agree that games, booze, and autos are allowed to be limited then what do you think should not be? Walking on sidewalks? Speaking in public? Going to a university?
Do you think that people under 4 should legally not be allowed to cross the street without a parent? What about 1? what about 8? I do think that people of that age, how young though I don't know, might not be capable of crossing safely. It should be for the parent to determine it though. They can punish them for trying, teach them correctly, or whatever.
"Or so" I think it takes 17 years. Democracy is the rule of the majority and the rights, the important word, of the minority, even if only 26% of people. You are right. I should try courts. But there is the fact that courts can be wrong and my opinion, right or wrong, has no effect and people in charge can do virtually anything if 51% of people, wrong 49% of the time, agree to it. Unfortunately the voters can do stuff, vie electors, and courts will often agree using the "excuse" that they should not legislate from the bench. Many courts will alread go under the assumption that young people have less or no rights and therefore rule against them. I can't do anything but fuss unless you think voting matters. DC is hundreds of miles away. Should I go there, find a young enough person, get them to try to buy a game, get the person or their parents, neither likely, or possibly the store, very unlikely, to sue, get an expensive lawyer, wait half a dozen years, finally get to SCOTUS, if they even think it is an issue for kids to have rights, wait months or years, and get a decision and have them rule against me or possibly even for me? What rights can the community remove if enough agree besides this? All? Does the B. of R. only apply if the courts agree?
Why don't they have some rights? Are they not human? Why can't the state set the minor age to 30 or even 10? Is a 17 minus person really dumb? Where does it say in the Constitution say that young enough people have less rights? Where does it say the state, or city in this case, say the the gov't can set any random age and curtial rights below them? Why not above them?
There is not a difference to me. Do you agree that suicide should be illegal? If legal then it allows people to harm themselves. I don't care what people do to themselves as longs as it doesn't affect others, i.e. the somewhat libertarian view. What is the difference between selling a games that like this and a game that kills terrorists? Will kids extrapolate, no one ever uses interpolate, to any human? In fact I am older that that by many years and I am complaining as I have for over a decade. I can buy the games regardless. Well unless the law gets upped to 30. In other words lets the state legislate force and the parents/church/whatever determine morality.
It's a fuss to me because it discriminates between one group of people, old enough, and another group of sentient beings, the kids who are too young such that any laws can affect them and any right removed without even voting rights. People are people. Dumb or smart. What about "dumb" people who are old enough? Should the age be raised to 19? Any number is arbitrary and doesn't apply to everyone anyways. I does provide a tool for parents but it also takes one away. If parents don't care, perhaps because the game is not actually bad in their eyes or that they know their kids can handle it then why should they have to be present? Why shouldn't stores prevent all kinds of games, movies, books, and foods from being sold? Maybe if this is a problem then the parents are bad. Or at least not teaching correct values.
It's not really voluntary since they can prevent certain people from watching or lose the ability to buy some things from a monopoly. Can the theater prevent blacks from going legally? Do you even think that is a good idea? Blacks years ago had even less rights then kids. Well actually the same but they could also be slaves. I don't think any commercial place should be able to prevent anyone from buying, morally, physically, or through threat, important word meaning extortion, of having them arrested, a product. Non white male landowner, black, women, or kid.
Lets assume I do agree that kids shouldn't play those. In fact that is true mostly. I don't think they should be prohibited from buying them either. I also don't think movies houses should do that as well. The movie people should not decide who gets to see what. That is the parents, or the kids/adults, decision only.
Cities and states, via their elected representatives can remove the right of everyone to not have guns, vote, or buy things. What is different between just kids and all people? Are kids dumber? I know I wasn't that dumb 10 years ago. Elected representatives can't remove any kind of right. The Bill of rights, and other documents, prevent them from doing some things, even in the name of security or safety.
"Grow up;" why because we want parents to decide. It's not the state that should decide if certain games are good. If a law gets passed that prohibits games depicting the goodness of Republicans then why should it not be stopped? If the parents think it shouldn't be their kids then they can attempt to prevent it. If they can't then maybe shouldn't be parents. Maybe it isn't actually bad. I killed trolls, wizards, and apes bloodily, is that a word, when I was young. I don't commit crimes now. I thought games did that. If my parents thought it bad then they wouldn't get it. "Which is more chilling?" Both are bad. The usual duality fallacy not withstanding; games may not do that. Other kids, movies as well, even books and the news, all effect it. So do parents themselves. Maybe your son is smarter and his cousin dumb. Maybe you are a good parent but your sibling, or in law, is dumb. Maybe your nephew was already going to do that stuff and the games was because of it. Both the game and the bragging were because of another cause.
It's chilling because it is taking away rights from one group of people. Or do kids not count as people? If the parents want to be involved then they should go with their children. If not then either they are bad parents or they think/know that their offspring are mature enough to determine the correct game or can't be "harmed" by it.
Is it illegal for a city or state to remove rights from a group of people? Or do people of that age not count as people as therefore can have any rights removed as such? In other words, let the parents do it.
You don't have any rights until the that magic moment at midnight, according to cig stores at least, on that anniversery when you get Constitution rights. They can do almost anything to you without fear of reprisal. I thought the usual "tax without repre." applied or do "stupid," i.e. young, people not get that?
Technically evolution is a theory. It just matches so well that most people, including me, think of it as fact. What is the 3rd party? Only 2 dominate Congress. The other 2 branches are even more lopsided. Darn dualoply. I know where all kinds of countries are. Canada is all tucked away down there. "Rand Mcnally" is where people where hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people. Prussia has autogyros to Siam all the time. Simpsons notwithstanding, "not with stand ing?" I do know where Chad, Trinidad, and Georgia are. As well as the capitals of many. Unfortunately since I am smarter than all, except people who read Slashdot or listen to them, then that is the exception.
So if someone has to broadcast it and you don't have enough money to make your own host then you have no right to have people see it if they want. Oh so that means only rich people get to have their message. I was lucky there. I have lots of money now I can overrule those poor people who must have nothing good to say since they can't afford it.
Oh so I get to deny people with tattoos, not natural at all, onto my store. Cool. Oh wait sorry that is different so you can win your argument. A commercial place means that you cannot deny someone because you don't like them. The only reason is if the gov't prevents you from doign so. And only in that country. It is both illegal, depending on where, and morally wrong.
What if it is made by a corp? Does it last 70 years after the charter removal by the state, ie never? What if it is transfered? How can it even be sued if the author is not alive? Who get's the money?
Slashdot Mirror
I am thinking that it is the same as saying, "If I kill someone on somebody else's property then they can be sued or arrested." Though I don't recommend trying it I would guess that only the killer is liable. Common carrier status, or does that only apply to rich people who can lobby laws or afford lawyers?
For that particular program I don't know. It could be good to try it and quite later if it really is horrible or unchangeable.
Of course the quest is, "Is quitting or not trying for a job for moral reasons a good reason to quit?"
Is getting money at any cost just to live, better than doing work you either don't like or abhor or think is ethically wrong?
I know I wouldn't want to work at a company I hate because of it's bad policies, I could list several now but won't, is worse than living on the street. Being jobless may be physically demanding but working for a scrupulous company is more mentally and morally demanding.
Even though you have a spelling error every ninth word you are probably still smarter than most people. In any case I also learn similarly. I never did good with books, except when I could do it myself. Excluding very early grades, I got smarter as I got "away" from standard methods.
In any case, remember that some people who couldn't pass a tenth grade math course can still be geniuses. Faraday was brilliant with science but couldn't do math to save his life.
I remember hearing about a case that Congress made some sort of law allowing the Exec. branch to decide what to make legal. The courts said that only Congress can maky laws and they can't even pawn it off on other branchs. In other words, it is only illegal if Congress specifically makes a law forbiding it.
What do you mean? We don't have taxation without representation. Unless you live in DC. Or are too young so you can get taxed and have the excuse, "you don't know better so we will decide how much money to take." Or are a felon so the you don't get to decide laws that actually affected you. Or the fact that people need millions of dollars just to get elected to a national position and small people have no real effect other than 1 measly vote. Or have alot of mony to lobby and buy "sharing toys, er music is wrong."
Of course we can change the world. But only if we have alot of money and live in the right place and
are the right age and haven't already been convicted of a crime that may not be moral in the first place.
P.S. Schools do teach us right anc wrong. They just teach us that big business is right.
Yes in general I think young people are "dumber" or more accurately less wise, than adults. I don't think all are though. I also think that someone more experienced should in some cases, not all though, act for less experienced. That is what parents are for though. I do not think the state should decide.
I think it is taking away rights. The right to buy stuff when others can. They are in fact taking it away totally from kids to buy it. It is probably seen by it's opposers to be taking away rights, at least me.
In the case of alcohol I also think those laws are bad. In the case of any kind of license, on public property, should be given if and only if the receiver is capable of using it wisely. A baby cannot operate a car because he can't see and reach the pedals at the same time.
I think laws shouldn't apply to just one group. If a particular person, perhaps through a DUI conviction, is unable to control a substance then it should be banned but only to that person. Even if it has to be proven that they can handle it first it still has to be the same for all races and genders and ages.
"What part of the constitution says that you should drive on the right?"
It is public so the state can make any law that is both constitutional, with the side one is and applicable to all, which it also is.
"Or wear clothes?"
In NY the state or courts decided that women can be topless of it is not for selling reasons.
The only reason I know that people want others to wear cloths is for moral and modest reasons. So it can count as against "due process" in that it "hurts" someone. In other countries, such as Arab, people have to wear other sets of garments. They might in fact be different between men and women.
I think that laws have to be the same for all. I also think that laws have to actually cause harm, not just may cause it according to some people. Many people, apparently less that 51%, think that nudity is not wrong; that is doesn't corrupt people. I agree in that I don't think it corrupts people. It may not make them, for the sake of a better term or argument, "good Christians" but I don't think it harms them.
"Or not serve broken glass to people in sandwiches?"
I do think they should be allowed to serve them if the customer desires. Most if not all don't. I don't think the store should be able to lie and say it isn't glassy but it really is. Most people expect food to be free of stuff like that. But if they do want broken glass or cockroaches or strange diseases then they should be able to order the food. In fact many restaurants now say that rare meats may be undercooked, as the customer
ordered, and therefore have more bacteria in them. The person wanted that so they should be able to get a meat that probably does not but might have diseases.
Many older people, let's say 100+, are unable to operate cars. If they get a permit when they are young but continue to have it, it is completely legal for them to drive but obviously bad. Young driver OTOH might be better but illegal.
If you agree that games, booze, and autos are allowed to be limited then what do you think should not be? Walking on sidewalks? Speaking in public? Going to a university?
Do you think that people under 4 should legally not be allowed to cross the street without a parent? What about 1? what about 8? I do think that people of that age, how young though I don't know, might not be capable of crossing safely. It should be for the parent to determine it though. They can punish them for trying, teach them correctly, or whatever.
"Or so" I think it takes 17 years. Democracy is the rule of the majority and the rights, the important word, of the minority, even if only 26% of people.
You are right. I should try courts. But there is the fact that courts can be wrong and my opinion, right or wrong, has no effect and people in charge can do virtually anything if 51% of people, wrong 49% of the time, agree to it.
Unfortunately the voters can do stuff, vie electors, and courts will often agree using the "excuse" that they should not legislate from the bench. Many courts will alread go under the assumption that young people have less or no rights and therefore rule against them.
I can't do anything but fuss unless you think voting matters. DC is hundreds of miles away. Should I go there, find a young enough person, get them to try to buy a game, get the person or their parents, neither likely, or possibly the store, very unlikely, to sue, get an expensive lawyer, wait half a dozen years, finally get to SCOTUS, if they even think it is an issue for kids to have rights, wait months or years, and get a decision and have them rule against me or possibly even for me?
What rights can the community remove if enough agree besides this? All? Does the B. of R. only apply if the courts agree?
Why don't they have some rights? Are they not human? Why can't the state set the minor age to 30 or even 10? Is a 17 minus person really dumb?
Where does it say in the Constitution say that young enough people have less rights? Where does it say the state, or city in this case, say the the gov't can set any random age and curtial rights below them? Why not above them?
There is not a difference to me. Do you agree that suicide should be illegal? If legal then it allows people to harm themselves. I don't care what people do to themselves as longs as it doesn't affect others, i.e. the somewhat libertarian view.
What is the difference between selling a games that like this and a game that kills terrorists? Will kids extrapolate, no one ever uses interpolate, to any human?
In fact I am older that that by many years and I am complaining as I have for over a decade. I can buy the games regardless. Well unless the law gets upped to 30.
In other words lets the state legislate force and the parents/church/whatever determine morality.
It's a fuss to me because it discriminates between one group of people, old enough, and another group of sentient beings, the kids who are too young such that any laws can affect them and any right removed without even voting rights. People are people. Dumb or smart. What about "dumb" people who are old enough?
Should the age be raised to 19? Any number is arbitrary and doesn't apply to everyone anyways.
I does provide a tool for parents but it also takes one away. If parents don't care, perhaps because the game is not actually bad in their eyes or that they know their kids can handle it then why should they have to be present? Why shouldn't stores prevent all kinds of games, movies, books, and foods from being sold?
Maybe if this is a problem then the parents are bad. Or at least not teaching correct values.
It's not really voluntary since they can prevent certain people from watching or lose the ability to buy some things from a monopoly. Can the theater prevent blacks from going legally? Do you even think that is a good idea? Blacks years ago had even less rights then kids. Well actually the same but they could also be slaves. I don't think any commercial place should be able to prevent anyone from buying, morally, physically, or through threat, important word meaning extortion, of having them arrested, a product. Non white male landowner, black, women, or kid.
Lets assume I do agree that kids shouldn't play those. In fact that is true mostly. I don't think they should be prohibited from buying them either. I also don't think movies houses should do that as well. The movie people should not decide who gets to see what. That is the parents, or the kids/adults, decision only.
Cities and states, via their elected representatives can remove the right of everyone to not have guns, vote, or buy things. What is different between just kids and all people? Are kids dumber? I know I wasn't that dumb 10 years ago. Elected representatives can't remove any kind of right. The Bill of rights, and other documents, prevent them from doing some things, even in the name of security or safety.
"Grow up;" why because we want parents to decide. It's not the state that should decide if certain games are good. If a law gets passed that prohibits games depicting the goodness of Republicans then why should it not be stopped? If the parents think it shouldn't be their kids then they can attempt to prevent it. If they can't then maybe shouldn't be parents. Maybe it isn't actually bad.
I killed trolls, wizards, and apes bloodily, is that a word, when I was young. I don't commit crimes now. I thought games did that. If my parents thought it bad then they wouldn't get it.
"Which is more chilling?" Both are bad. The usual duality fallacy not withstanding; games may not do that. Other kids, movies as well, even books and the news, all effect it. So do parents themselves.
Maybe your son is smarter and his cousin dumb. Maybe you are a good parent but your sibling, or in law, is dumb. Maybe your nephew was already going to do that stuff and the games was because of it. Both the game and the bragging were because of another cause.
It's chilling because it is taking away rights from one group of people. Or do kids not count as people? If the parents want to be involved then they should go with their children. If not then either they are bad parents or they think/know that their offspring are mature enough to determine the correct game or can't be "harmed" by it.
If you saw their plates you would know that. I think the residents should have some sort of rally to get the required amendment to get them rights.
Is it illegal for a city or state to remove rights from a group of people? Or do people of that age not count as people as therefore can have any rights removed as such?
In other words, let the parents do it.
You don't have any rights until the that magic moment at midnight, according to cig stores at least, on that anniversery when you get Constitution rights. They can do almost anything to you without fear of reprisal. I thought the usual "tax without repre." applied or do "stupid,"
i.e. young, people not get that?
Technically evolution is a theory. It just matches so well that most people, including me, think of it as fact.
What is the 3rd party? Only 2 dominate Congress. The other 2 branches are even more lopsided. Darn dualoply.
I know where all kinds of countries are. Canada is all tucked away down there. "Rand Mcnally" is where people where hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people. Prussia has autogyros to Siam all the time.
Simpsons notwithstanding, "not with stand ing?" I do know where Chad, Trinidad, and Georgia are. As well as the capitals of many. Unfortunately since I am smarter than all, except people who read Slashdot or listen to them, then that is the exception.
Oddly enough my parents have one of those from a while ago. It still works too.
So if someone has to broadcast it and you don't have enough money to make your own host then you have no right to have people see it if they want. Oh so that means only rich people get to have their message. I was lucky there. I have lots of money now I can overrule those poor people who must have nothing good to say since they can't afford it.
Oh so I get to deny people with tattoos, not natural at all, onto my store. Cool.
Oh wait sorry that is different so you can win your argument. A commercial place means that you cannot deny someone because you don't like them. The only reason is if the gov't prevents you from doign so. And only in that country. It is both illegal, depending on where, and morally wrong.
What if it is made by a corp? Does it last 70 years after the charter removal by the state, ie never? What if it is transfered? How can it even be sued if the author is not alive? Who get's the money?
You mean if 51% of people decide that the other 49% should be enslaved then that isn't enough? Rats.
Also I think it only requires a 51% in 75% of states. I could be wrong though.
I hope I never get banned.