It's not a matter of where the tyranny of the majority is ok or not. It is always present in every democratic group larger than about 100* people, and it's frequently present in smaller groups too. Like I said before, what's important are the protections against tyranny, not the size of group. It's like the libertarians say "Democracy is 2 wolves a sheep voting on what's for dinner". If the wolves are allowed to vote sheep, the result is inevitable.
Which is why the US is supposed to be a republic, and that's where the indivdual states come in... as a protection against the tyranny of the majority.
Frankly, I sincerely doubt your ability to get your point across to 1 person who doesn't agree with you, let alone 599,999. And that's exactly why I said the difference between 300,000,000 and 600,000 is irrelevant, you have no influence in either group.
You're playing fast and loose with numbers to try and make you're point, but you're failing. You act as if I am the only person with my beliefs, and everyone else in my state is against me. You're wrong. With a very few exceptions, there will always be a reasonable number of people on a given side.
* There's research that indicates once a group grows beyond approximately 100 people it's impossible to actually care about all of the members of the group as individuals.
There's research that says your research is wrong. See how easy it is to throw out facts without support? Besides, no one has to care about another as an individual. They only need care about themselves, and realize that by restricting another's rights they are also restrciting their own. It's enlightened self-interest.
No, this notion of "society" acting as if it were its own identity is nonsense. Individuals have decided to be stupid and lazy. The facts are there; simply looking at the nutrution panel will tell you all you need to know about nutrition.
I still eat plenty of things with corn syrup in them, and while I'd like to see more choices without added corn syrup, it's not causing me to be overweight. The main problem seems to be the amount of fat people intake. Fat is 9 calories per gram, vs. 4 for protien or carbohydrates (which include your corn syrup). Cutting fat is the best way to cut calories, so blaming the obesity problem on corn syrup is silly, since it's less than half the calories per gram of fat. People are plain and simply eating too much. If people simply cut the portion size, they'd lose weight. If they make a conciece effort to not eat high fat foods, they'd lose even more.
Stealing has nothing to do with legality. My definition of stealing is "taking someone else's possessions by force or deception." The law should reflect a shared morality. Call taxes what you want, but they certainly are stealing, legal or not.
Given that the raise in diabetes is directly attributable to fatasses not wanting to put down the donut, I say good, let them eat themselves to a point where they lose their legs (and no, I'm not talking about amputations at this point). Then let them keep eating until their dead.
How about people take some personal responsiblity for their health instead of demanding that I pay for their healthcare when they are too lazy to take a walk, and too stupid to cook their own food.
You're delusional. It's much easier for me to get my point across to 600,000 people than to 300,000,000. With 600,000, it's much more likely that we'll be able to work out a compromise.
As far as protection from the tyranny of the majority; you JUST advocated that such tyranny is ok (your voice doesn't matter at all). Also, that's exactly why our founders had envisioned that the STATE, not the Federal government would do most of the law making. I suppose you'd only know that though if you studied the system, instead of commenting on what you "hear" an ocean away.
Well, I could care less about the physical disc, it's the content I want anyway. Otherwise it'd make no difference to me if I bought Metallica or Clay Akin.
Like the first one to respond to me, this sounds like you "own a copy" of the movie, but have not licensed it.
So... only the rich and / or powerful really have the right to free speech? What good is it calling it a right if you are still effectively prohibitied from exercising the right?
Then maybe the average person is better off with a Blackberry than a PC or Mac.
Macs are better than PCs for their photo collection
In what way? Maybe that used to be true, but certainly not anymore.
better for web browsing and emails because there is less concern about viruses, and just as good as PCs for word processing.
Only because there are far fewer Macs / Linux users, but there's nothing inherent about Mac or Linux that makes them any more secure. It's the same reason Civics are the most stolen car; there are simply tons of them out there.
What part of "/. is a DISCUSSION site" do you not understand? Please, stop going on an on like you have been in computers longer than I have, or that I'm a gamer (both are bad assumptions).
The next time you don't want to debate a point, I suggest you not post it on a discussion board.
Well, then we'd be burning trees much, much faster than they could replenish. That's why they aren't really renewable.
Nuclear is really the only way to go. Reprocess and re-use the fuel in breeder reactors, and we'll have enough energy for a long time, and little dangerous waste.
The common consensus is apple is easier. That they don't have nearly as many problems, and they are "high quality". I'm not going to debate this.
Ahh, a fanboy. If Apple is so easy to use and doesn't break, please explain my wifes iPod that regularly starts skipping, locks up, and doesn't seem to sync properly using iTunes. Put down the crack pipe; Apples may have a reputation for high quality and "just works," but the reality is far different.
If all people are doing is surfing the web and checking email, a PC will work just as well, and for much less the cost.
Lately a lot have just said screw it and buy a MAC. My company president came to me and said "its time to get a new laptop, this time get me a Mac. My wife loves hers." You can also play any game on a Mac as you can a PC. The idea of running windows in a protected virtual machine is appealing to many.
Thanks for your anecdote! I'm sure that will work out well.
You can play any game on a Mac provided you buy a Windows license and boot to Windows. Wow... must as well just have gotten a PC.
Apple is a hardware company, lest you forget.
They are? I thought they were selling Intel chips on Intel boards. What hardware do they make on their own anymore, that isn't some other product rebranded?
Oh... the Apple ads are supposed to be funny? Huh.
The ironic part is that the fun, easy to use Mac can only point out that it "runs Microsoft Office just as well as [PC]," but otherwise has to pretty much lie about PCs and that they're good for work only (which is odd considering how small the Mac game library is compared to PCs).
Wow, what an arrogant ass. You assume I'm willing to trample the rights of others even if I could.
And yes, that's exactly the advantage; I get more say over a system trying to control my life.. which means I have a say over how my tax dollars are spent, or even if they are collected at all. Ya, what a travesity.
You realize of course that we can go back to states rights, because we have an amendment outlawing slavery, right? The only reason southern states were allowed to have slaves at all was because it was originally part of the constitution, but it's not anymore.
But please, you, who doesn't appear to be a US citizen, I'm sure you can explain how being one of 300,000,000 protects my freedom more than being only one of 624,000, which is the populate of my state. Where do you think my vote matters more?
Everyone does have them; the fact that they are being violated by some gives justification to those whose rights are violated to stand up and demand that they stop, and failing that, violently stop their rights from being infringed.
The fact that rights are routinely violated means that people are not standing up for themselves. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but should they decide to do so, they would be justified.
Which by the way is the whole point of rights; it means you CAN ligitimately overthrow a standing government, and be justified in doing so. Which is exactly what our founders did. It's also why our goverment is expressly limited in it's scope. Read very carefully the wording of the amendments and the constitution itself.
Of course, you're still free to disagree; but you're not free to force your idiology on me. You may be happier in another country with another philosophical idiology behind it. Perhaps China or North Korea, or even Japan. They seem to value society more than individual rights, so you'd probably be happier there.
Buying a box of pencils doesn't require a willingness to do harm to someone. Chances are those who buy AK47's have plans to use them for something other than a prop in a school play. You must not have seen Bowling For Columbine, where a kid that was shot by another kid confronted Walmart for selling the shooter the ammunition. Try telling their parents that enlightened comparison with pencils.
What's wrong will having a willingness to harm someone that wants to harm you? I see no wrong there. As far a selling bullets goes.. you can buy a knife or rat posion with a "willingness to do harm" too. What the parents should be asking is "why did that kid shoot my kid?" As far as the "victims," as you said victims choose themselves, don't they? So what did THEY do to get themselves on this guy's hit list?
But how many muggings with guns would not have happened without the guns? You can't say that every one of them would have happened with knives instead. You can hold up 10 people at once with a gun. Try that with a knife. Access to guns enables crimes, which creates situations where the criminals would rather injure or kill victims or police officers rather than face a substantial jail sentence. Most gun-toting muggers would shoot a cop just to hide the fact that they had the gun.
Muggings happen anwway, regardless of the availablity of guns. Or is mugging something new that only started in the last few hundred years?
Get insurance, get secure plastic means of payment, give them your damned wallet, call the police. It's not worth the risk over such a relatively minor inconvenience. Credit cards can be canceled, ID can be gotten online in most cases, and cash is hardly worth carrying around anymore. Carrying weapons is no guarantee of protection, and it's a huge legal liability. If you carry a licensed handgun, fire it at a mugger for example, wing him, then the bullet carries on through a wall into a baby's crib, you might as well have stood over the crib and opened fire. Intent follows the bullet. Shooting at anything in a residential area under any circumstances is only for trained law enforcement. That's their entire purpose, so you don't have to. Buying insurance generates funds to research criminal activity and make communities safer.
First, buying insurance makes some other guy richer. Second, police are unable to protect you. You said it yourself; you're already been victimized. What if the guy wants more than your wallet? What's really to stop him from killing you? How do the police help there? Oh, you also totally ignore the problem of police abusing their power, which is done everyday, including outright murdering people.
And no, carrying a gun isn't a guarntee of protection. But it really helps balance the odds, much more than having some asshole with a gun and a badge sitting in a donut shop while you're being assaulted.
No, you actually did get it very wrong. Rights are NOT granted, they are part of human nature. Read what the founders wrote, or if you want just one book, read Rights of Man by Thomas Paine.
Those are the ideas our country was founded on... people have rights simply by existing.
Oh, and just because our current government routinly infringes our rights does not mean that we don't have them.
When you say "society has a right to protect itself," you're basically saying the rights of a larger group of people outweight the rights of a smaller group. For example, suppose society would be better off if we allowed slavery. Does that mean we should be able to infringe rights of a smaller group to better society by keeping the smaller group as slaves?
If you buy into the belief that people always have rights, that they are not granted (as our founders did, or as Thomas Paine did), then the answer is no.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, if you don't mind buying a monitor that is blurrier than it was brand new, possibly with scratches in the glass.
It's not a matter of where the tyranny of the majority is ok or not. It is always present in every democratic group larger than about 100* people, and it's frequently present in smaller groups too. Like I said before, what's important are the protections against tyranny, not the size of group. It's like the libertarians say "Democracy is 2 wolves a sheep voting on what's for dinner". If the wolves are allowed to vote sheep, the result is inevitable.
Which is why the US is supposed to be a republic, and that's where the indivdual states come in... as a protection against the tyranny of the majority.
Frankly, I sincerely doubt your ability to get your point across to 1 person who doesn't agree with you, let alone 599,999. And that's exactly why I said the difference between 300,000,000 and 600,000 is irrelevant, you have no influence in either group.
You're playing fast and loose with numbers to try and make you're point, but you're failing. You act as if I am the only person with my beliefs, and everyone else in my state is against me. You're wrong. With a very few exceptions, there will always be a reasonable number of people on a given side.
* There's research that indicates once a group grows beyond approximately 100 people it's impossible to actually care about all of the members of the group as individuals.
There's research that says your research is wrong. See how easy it is to throw out facts without support? Besides, no one has to care about another as an individual. They only need care about themselves, and realize that by restricting another's rights they are also restrciting their own. It's enlightened self-interest.
No, this notion of "society" acting as if it were its own identity is nonsense. Individuals have decided to be stupid and lazy. The facts are there; simply looking at the nutrution panel will tell you all you need to know about nutrition.
I still eat plenty of things with corn syrup in them, and while I'd like to see more choices without added corn syrup, it's not causing me to be overweight. The main problem seems to be the amount of fat people intake. Fat is 9 calories per gram, vs. 4 for protien or carbohydrates (which include your corn syrup). Cutting fat is the best way to cut calories, so blaming the obesity problem on corn syrup is silly, since it's less than half the calories per gram of fat. People are plain and simply eating too much. If people simply cut the portion size, they'd lose weight. If they make a conciece effort to not eat high fat foods, they'd lose even more.
Stealing has nothing to do with legality. My definition of stealing is "taking someone else's possessions by force or deception." The law should reflect a shared morality. Call taxes what you want, but they certainly are stealing, legal or not.
Given that the raise in diabetes is directly attributable to fatasses not wanting to put down the donut, I say good, let them eat themselves to a point where they lose their legs (and no, I'm not talking about amputations at this point). Then let them keep eating until their dead.
How about people take some personal responsiblity for their health instead of demanding that I pay for their healthcare when they are too lazy to take a walk, and too stupid to cook their own food.
You're delusional. It's much easier for me to get my point across to 600,000 people than to 300,000,000. With 600,000, it's much more likely that we'll be able to work out a compromise.
As far as protection from the tyranny of the majority; you JUST advocated that such tyranny is ok (your voice doesn't matter at all). Also, that's exactly why our founders had envisioned that the STATE, not the Federal government would do most of the law making. I suppose you'd only know that though if you studied the system, instead of commenting on what you "hear" an ocean away.
Well, I could care less about the physical disc, it's the content I want anyway. Otherwise it'd make no difference to me if I bought Metallica or Clay Akin.
Like the first one to respond to me, this sounds like you "own a copy" of the movie, but have not licensed it.
Ya, it's rough. I mean, people have ALWAYS had TV to stare at for entertainment.
Um, maybe instead consumers aren't buying it because the economy is in the shitter?
So... only the rich and / or powerful really have the right to free speech? What good is it calling it a right if you are still effectively prohibitied from exercising the right?
So if i scratch up my cd or dvd, I'm entitled to a new one? Interesting..
Then maybe the average person is better off with a Blackberry than a PC or Mac.
Macs are better than PCs for their photo collection
In what way? Maybe that used to be true, but certainly not anymore.
better for web browsing and emails because there is less concern about viruses, and just as good as PCs for word processing.
Only because there are far fewer Macs / Linux users, but there's nothing inherent about Mac or Linux that makes them any more secure. It's the same reason Civics are the most stolen car; there are simply tons of them out there.
What part of "/. is a DISCUSSION site" do you not understand? Please, stop going on an on like you have been in computers longer than I have, or that I'm a gamer (both are bad assumptions).
The next time you don't want to debate a point, I suggest you not post it on a discussion board.
Well, then we'd be burning trees much, much faster than they could replenish. That's why they aren't really renewable.
Nuclear is really the only way to go. Reprocess and re-use the fuel in breeder reactors, and we'll have enough energy for a long time, and little dangerous waste.
The common consensus is apple is easier. That they don't have nearly as many problems, and they are "high quality". I'm not going to debate this.
Ahh, a fanboy. If Apple is so easy to use and doesn't break, please explain my wifes iPod that regularly starts skipping, locks up, and doesn't seem to sync properly using iTunes. Put down the crack pipe; Apples may have a reputation for high quality and "just works," but the reality is far different.
If all people are doing is surfing the web and checking email, a PC will work just as well, and for much less the cost.
Lately a lot have just said screw it and buy a MAC. My company president came to me and said "its time to get a new laptop, this time get me a Mac. My wife loves hers." You can also play any game on a Mac as you can a PC. The idea of running windows in a protected virtual machine is appealing to many.
Thanks for your anecdote! I'm sure that will work out well.
You can play any game on a Mac provided you buy a Windows license and boot to Windows. Wow... must as well just have gotten a PC.
Apple is a hardware company, lest you forget.
They are? I thought they were selling Intel chips on Intel boards. What hardware do they make on their own anymore, that isn't some other product rebranded?
Oh... the Apple ads are supposed to be funny? Huh.
The ironic part is that the fun, easy to use Mac can only point out that it "runs Microsoft Office just as well as [PC]," but otherwise has to pretty much lie about PCs and that they're good for work only (which is odd considering how small the Mac game library is compared to PCs).
Oh well.
Wow, what an arrogant ass. You assume I'm willing to trample the rights of others even if I could.
And yes, that's exactly the advantage; I get more say over a system trying to control my life.. which means I have a say over how my tax dollars are spent, or even if they are collected at all. Ya, what a travesity.
Why are you so fixated on drinking? The OP was talking about moderation in everything, not just drinking.
I think someone needs to step off their high horse and worry more about his own life, and not be so quick to judge the lives of others.
You realize of course that we can go back to states rights, because we have an amendment outlawing slavery, right? The only reason southern states were allowed to have slaves at all was because it was originally part of the constitution, but it's not anymore.
But please, you, who doesn't appear to be a US citizen, I'm sure you can explain how being one of 300,000,000 protects my freedom more than being only one of 624,000, which is the populate of my state. Where do you think my vote matters more?
Life is pretty boring though if you don't go to excess occasionally though.
Everyone does have them; the fact that they are being violated by some gives justification to those whose rights are violated to stand up and demand that they stop, and failing that, violently stop their rights from being infringed.
The fact that rights are routinely violated means that people are not standing up for themselves. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but should they decide to do so, they would be justified.
Which by the way is the whole point of rights; it means you CAN ligitimately overthrow a standing government, and be justified in doing so. Which is exactly what our founders did. It's also why our goverment is expressly limited in it's scope. Read very carefully the wording of the amendments and the constitution itself.
Of course, you're still free to disagree; but you're not free to force your idiology on me. You may be happier in another country with another philosophical idiology behind it. Perhaps China or North Korea, or even Japan. They seem to value society more than individual rights, so you'd probably be happier there.
If guns are outlawed, you can not as easily get a gun to kill somebody with as when they are not outlawed.
Right. Because we banned pot, and it's really really hard to get pot isn't it?
I'm German, and I can walk down most any street in my country without have to fear murder drive-bys or gang crime.
I'm American, and I can say the same thing.
Plus: How often is a weapon, that is meant to be used to defend it's owner, used against him?
Exceedingly rarely.
Buying a box of pencils doesn't require a willingness to do harm to someone. Chances are those who buy AK47's have plans to use them for something other than a prop in a school play. You must not have seen Bowling For Columbine, where a kid that was shot by another kid confronted Walmart for selling the shooter the ammunition. Try telling their parents that enlightened comparison with pencils.
What's wrong will having a willingness to harm someone that wants to harm you? I see no wrong there. As far a selling bullets goes.. you can buy a knife or rat posion with a "willingness to do harm" too. What the parents should be asking is "why did that kid shoot my kid?" As far as the "victims," as you said victims choose themselves, don't they? So what did THEY do to get themselves on this guy's hit list?
But how many muggings with guns would not have happened without the guns? You can't say that every one of them would have happened with knives instead. You can hold up 10 people at once with a gun. Try that with a knife. Access to guns enables crimes, which creates situations where the criminals would rather injure or kill victims or police officers rather than face a substantial jail sentence. Most gun-toting muggers would shoot a cop just to hide the fact that they had the gun.
Muggings happen anwway, regardless of the availablity of guns. Or is mugging something new that only started in the last few hundred years?
Get insurance, get secure plastic means of payment, give them your damned wallet, call the police. It's not worth the risk over such a relatively minor inconvenience. Credit cards can be canceled, ID can be gotten online in most cases, and cash is hardly worth carrying around anymore. Carrying weapons is no guarantee of protection, and it's a huge legal liability. If you carry a licensed handgun, fire it at a mugger for example, wing him, then the bullet carries on through a wall into a baby's crib, you might as well have stood over the crib and opened fire. Intent follows the bullet. Shooting at anything in a residential area under any circumstances is only for trained law enforcement. That's their entire purpose, so you don't have to. Buying insurance generates funds to research criminal activity and make communities safer.
First, buying insurance makes some other guy richer. Second, police are unable to protect you. You said it yourself; you're already been victimized. What if the guy wants more than your wallet? What's really to stop him from killing you? How do the police help there? Oh, you also totally ignore the problem of police abusing their power, which is done everyday, including outright murdering people.
And no, carrying a gun isn't a guarntee of protection. But it really helps balance the odds, much more than having some asshole with a gun and a badge sitting in a donut shop while you're being assaulted.
No, you actually did get it very wrong. Rights are NOT granted, they are part of human nature. Read what the founders wrote, or if you want just one book, read Rights of Man by Thomas Paine.
Those are the ideas our country was founded on... people have rights simply by existing.
Oh, and just because our current government routinly infringes our rights does not mean that we don't have them.
I don't agree with you..
When you say "society has a right to protect itself," you're basically saying the rights of a larger group of people outweight the rights of a smaller group. For example, suppose society would be better off if we allowed slavery. Does that mean we should be able to infringe rights of a smaller group to better society by keeping the smaller group as slaves?
If you buy into the belief that people always have rights, that they are not granted (as our founders did, or as Thomas Paine did), then the answer is no.