While you are free as a private citizen to ignore what I have to say, that does not impose on me any burden to censure myself in your presence.
This is the corollary to what I was saying. While you are free to speak, your speech does not impose on me any burden to listen while in your presence.
The only exception is the thing you listed above which occurs under very specific circumstances: The right to compel others at trial.
Even the right to petition does not entail a compulsion to be heard. Politicians are free to ignore petitions of the populace, though they do so at varying degrees of peril to their political careers.
If we were to limit rights only to what has no impact or effect on others for fear of offense or any reason other than actual (measurable) harm, we'd have no rights to speak of at all.
I advocated no such thing. In fact I quite agree. Coercion is a form of harm, and should only be used within the context of due process or in the case of an actual violation of rights. My, or anyone else, ignoring you is not generally a violation of your rights. My ignoring you as a juror at your trial might well be, but that is a notable exception which should not have needed explicit mention.
If they require it in order to engage in other protected activities, then that falls under protection of those other rights. The technical details of that access are irrelevant so long as access is available.
Adding "on the Internet" just leads to the sort of stupid arguments currently filling up the comment section of this story. The Internet is a means to an end, and should be treated exactly the same as paper, pencils, typewriters, printing presses, and other similar things. Not to be prohibited, but not to be provided unless that provision is to fulfill other obligations a government may have to the populace.
Coercive rights only exist for the purpose of defense against actions taken to violate other rights. In the absence of an active attempt to violate a negative right, they have no place or meaning.
If the government is attempting to take away a negative right, it must follow certain procedures at its own expense rather than acting summarily.
If someone attempts to rob or kill me, I have the right to defend myself with coercive action.
What's freedom to live, if you have a terminal disease?
Rights are about guaranteed opportunity, not guaranteed results. Life isn't fair. Not everyone can actualize the use of all their rights, even if they aren't oppressed by some other person. Exercising some rights, in some ways, will always require work and resources. Even simply living requires that most people put in effort and use their own resources.
Either "We aren't going to provide them. The Internet isn't a right."
Or "If we aren't going to provide them, the Internet isn't a right."
The Internet isn't a right (currently, when speaking in terms of provided access vs opportunity to access), and the only way it could be made a right is by providing universal access and all of the infrastructure necessary to accomplish that.
Providing access does not equal preventing the denial of access. You're disagreeing with something the poster did not actually say, and in actuality are agreeing with them.
The previous poster was saying nobody can be forced to give you access to their printing press, radio transmitter, or TV transmitter, not that you cannot access them if you come to a mutually acceptable arrangement with the owner of one or if you own one such device yourself.
So you believe you have a right to be provided with the means to publish in any method you so desire?
I'd like to write a book, so I'm going to require that someone provide me with a free computer, free paper, free writing utensils, free access to commercial printing and binding machines, etc.
That's not how rights work. Exercising rights does, in some cases, require money, unless you believe you have the right to appropriate any property you desire without compensation.
There's not a single thing twisted about it. I have a right to ignore anyone, as does everyone else. A "right to be heard" requires that others be prevented from ignoring the speaker (or whatever term fits the form of transmission."
A right to speak does not require coercing anyone else. A right to be heard does require coercion.
There's a huge difference between preventing access and providing access. The government cannot prevent access to the internet, as it would be an infringement of your rights to freely publish material. However, they are under absolutely zero obligation to provide you with access.
Too many people conflate the right to access something at whatever cost is required with a right to access something at whatever cost they desire.
You just restated what tangelogee said. Access is an opportunity, not a guarantee. Lots of people arguing seem to believe that a right equals a guarantee, which is much more than the government not being able to ban access.
Credit appears easier, and US culture is all about what's easy.
In any event, it's somewhere between incredibly hard and impossible to get a non-contract plan from a carrier that isn't based on abusive pricing. I just found out last week that T-Mobile no longer has non-contract plans for multi-line accounts. Their non-contract plans used to actually give people a discount for bringing their own phone. Not any longer. They're still the least of the 4 evils though, so I'll stay with them for the moment. If there's no change for the better in the next two years, I may just ditch my cell and return to using a landline. Can still keep a cell around for mobile emergency calls, and not pay the carrier anything.
The drivers in urban areas in the NW are among the nicest you'll encounter amongst city drivers. Not that there aren't drivers who are assholes or clueless nearly to the point of criminal negligence, but there are far fewer of them than in other areas.
I've never bothered to try and define a line, because the only way to do that is to get inside the head of a given person. That doesn't change the fact there is one. Anyway, none of this is relevant to the point that addiction and physical dependency are not the same thing.
Let me put it another way: Had I reached the point where my liver failed there would have been zero chance of recovery (which would equal zero quality of life). There was no big question of when to give up hope. It's frequently never a question, at least for those who are rational. Even in a narcotic fog, I was easily capable of grasping exactly where the line was. Just because I didn't end up crossing it doesn't mean it wasn't obvious where it was.
Yes, because in my case there was hope. The issue is when there is none, which is what the article is about. There are many situations, usually with the elderly, where there is absolutely no possible recovery of quality of life.
There are many cases where it is absolutely crystal clear to anyone rational that there is zero chance of living your final days in anything but agony.
My point was, I've been there, and in a situation where there existed no hope of recovery I would sooner die than be given a couple more days (or greater) with nothing to look forward to but pain and barely lucid consciousness.
This solves poverty, which is the root of the problem. Not disease or famine. Those are related symptoms, not causes.
So yes, it is wrong. Eliminating disease and famine won't make people stop having as many babies. Eliminating poverty will. Just like lowering birth rates, reductions in disease and famine are a result of improved means.
It's funny that people latched onto the Africa angle brought up by the person who originally replied to me. Africa is a bit part in global poverty and the resulting population pressures that it creates.
It's probably best to take cues from the person who's ill. Everyone is different, any people deal with the prospect of death in different ways.
I prefer being straightforward and looking at the humor in things. I know it is difficult for many around me to discuss my condition and current mental and physical state, but I've worked fairly hard to make people feel comfortable with talking about it. I'm not particularly bitter or depressed, so that helps.
Slashdot Mirror
Not trolling.
I did misread what you wrote.
While you are free as a private citizen to ignore what I have to say, that does not impose on me any burden to censure myself in your presence.
This is the corollary to what I was saying. While you are free to speak, your speech does not impose on me any burden to listen while in your presence.
The only exception is the thing you listed above which occurs under very specific circumstances: The right to compel others at trial.
Even the right to petition does not entail a compulsion to be heard. Politicians are free to ignore petitions of the populace, though they do so at varying degrees of peril to their political careers.
If we were to limit rights only to what has no impact or effect on others for fear of offense or any reason other than actual (measurable) harm, we'd have no rights to speak of at all.
I advocated no such thing. In fact I quite agree. Coercion is a form of harm, and should only be used within the context of due process or in the case of an actual violation of rights. My, or anyone else, ignoring you is not generally a violation of your rights. My ignoring you as a juror at your trial might well be, but that is a notable exception which should not have needed explicit mention.
If they require it in order to engage in other protected activities, then that falls under protection of those other rights. The technical details of that access are irrelevant so long as access is available.
Adding "on the Internet" just leads to the sort of stupid arguments currently filling up the comment section of this story. The Internet is a means to an end, and should be treated exactly the same as paper, pencils, typewriters, printing presses, and other similar things. Not to be prohibited, but not to be provided unless that provision is to fulfill other obligations a government may have to the populace.
I completely agree he should've kept his mouth shut, or at least expected consequences. Bahrain isn't known for its tolerance of dissent.
Coercive rights only exist for the purpose of defense against actions taken to violate other rights. In the absence of an active attempt to violate a negative right, they have no place or meaning.
If the government is attempting to take away a negative right, it must follow certain procedures at its own expense rather than acting summarily.
If someone attempts to rob or kill me, I have the right to defend myself with coercive action.
What's freedom to live, if you have a terminal disease?
Rights are about guaranteed opportunity, not guaranteed results. Life isn't fair. Not everyone can actualize the use of all their rights, even if they aren't oppressed by some other person. Exercising some rights, in some ways, will always require work and resources. Even simply living requires that most people put in effort and use their own resources.
To me, both of those readings are true.
Either "We aren't going to provide them. The Internet isn't a right."
Or "If we aren't going to provide them, the Internet isn't a right."
The Internet isn't a right (currently, when speaking in terms of provided access vs opportunity to access), and the only way it could be made a right is by providing universal access and all of the infrastructure necessary to accomplish that.
This comment is both funny and sad at the same time, because it is so true.
Providing access does not equal preventing the denial of access. You're disagreeing with something the poster did not actually say, and in actuality are agreeing with them.
The previous poster was saying nobody can be forced to give you access to their printing press, radio transmitter, or TV transmitter, not that you cannot access them if you come to a mutually acceptable arrangement with the owner of one or if you own one such device yourself.
This is so true, and yet lost on so many grossly ignorant people.
So you believe you have a right to be provided with the means to publish in any method you so desire?
I'd like to write a book, so I'm going to require that someone provide me with a free computer, free paper, free writing utensils, free access to commercial printing and binding machines, etc.
That's not how rights work. Exercising rights does, in some cases, require money, unless you believe you have the right to appropriate any property you desire without compensation.
There's not a single thing twisted about it. I have a right to ignore anyone, as does everyone else. A "right to be heard" requires that others be prevented from ignoring the speaker (or whatever term fits the form of transmission."
A right to speak does not require coercing anyone else. A right to be heard does require coercion.
There's a huge difference between preventing access and providing access. The government cannot prevent access to the internet, as it would be an infringement of your rights to freely publish material. However, they are under absolutely zero obligation to provide you with access.
Too many people conflate the right to access something at whatever cost is required with a right to access something at whatever cost they desire.
You just restated what tangelogee said. Access is an opportunity, not a guarantee. Lots of people arguing seem to believe that a right equals a guarantee, which is much more than the government not being able to ban access.
Point taken, though he's still not American.
It doesn't mean the desktop is dying, it just means the industry has matured and saturation levels of desktops have reached their peak.
It's like saying the phone was going to die once it reached nearly universal saturation levels.
Credit appears easier, and US culture is all about what's easy.
In any event, it's somewhere between incredibly hard and impossible to get a non-contract plan from a carrier that isn't based on abusive pricing. I just found out last week that T-Mobile no longer has non-contract plans for multi-line accounts. Their non-contract plans used to actually give people a discount for bringing their own phone. Not any longer. They're still the least of the 4 evils though, so I'll stay with them for the moment. If there's no change for the better in the next two years, I may just ditch my cell and return to using a landline. Can still keep a cell around for mobile emergency calls, and not pay the carrier anything.
The drivers in urban areas in the NW are among the nicest you'll encounter amongst city drivers. Not that there aren't drivers who are assholes or clueless nearly to the point of criminal negligence, but there are far fewer of them than in other areas.
Get back to me when poverty is solved to the point where we have sustainable population growth. Actually, don't. I'll be long dead at that point.
I've never bothered to try and define a line, because the only way to do that is to get inside the head of a given person. That doesn't change the fact there is one. Anyway, none of this is relevant to the point that addiction and physical dependency are not the same thing.
Let me put it another way: Had I reached the point where my liver failed there would have been zero chance of recovery (which would equal zero quality of life). There was no big question of when to give up hope. It's frequently never a question, at least for those who are rational. Even in a narcotic fog, I was easily capable of grasping exactly where the line was. Just because I didn't end up crossing it doesn't mean it wasn't obvious where it was.
Yes, because in my case there was hope. The issue is when there is none, which is what the article is about. There are many situations, usually with the elderly, where there is absolutely no possible recovery of quality of life.
There are many cases where it is absolutely crystal clear to anyone rational that there is zero chance of living your final days in anything but agony.
My point was, I've been there, and in a situation where there existed no hope of recovery I would sooner die than be given a couple more days (or greater) with nothing to look forward to but pain and barely lucid consciousness.
Note the word "buy" in the quoted line. :)
This solves poverty, which is the root of the problem. Not disease or famine. Those are related symptoms, not causes.
So yes, it is wrong. Eliminating disease and famine won't make people stop having as many babies. Eliminating poverty will. Just like lowering birth rates, reductions in disease and famine are a result of improved means.
It's funny that people latched onto the Africa angle brought up by the person who originally replied to me. Africa is a bit part in global poverty and the resulting population pressures that it creates.
It's probably best to take cues from the person who's ill. Everyone is different, any people deal with the prospect of death in different ways.
I prefer being straightforward and looking at the humor in things. I know it is difficult for many around me to discuss my condition and current mental and physical state, but I've worked fairly hard to make people feel comfortable with talking about it. I'm not particularly bitter or depressed, so that helps.