Why can't we continue to sleep when the sun is down?
No reason. But now I'll have to remember if my first workday of the week is the one that's partly on Sunday but mostly on Monday, or that's partly Monday and mostly Tuesday. Or I'd have to remember if 3:30 PM is early morning one day or late evening the previous one...
You're just annoyed because you want words to be redefined to suit your political viewpoint.
I don't have any political goals here, nor am I redefining words, (nor am I annoyed - this is quite amusing). I'm just saying that the way they were used was common and understandable.
If no context is stated, it is because it is implicit, not because it doesn't exist.
There was context: "Which is a bigger threat to free speech — direct government action, or fear of lawsuits for frivolous defamation charges?"
When you say "the slaves are freed" you don't mean "for all X, every ex-slave has the freedom to do X".
Exactly. And when you're talking about the US and say "freedom of speech", as you were at the start of your first post, or capitalize it, as the first poster did, you are implicitly citing the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which implies that you're using it in the narrow, legal, government-restriction sense. If you want to use "freedom of speech" to refer to that freedom in general, as you explained later on in your first post, that's fine too. Everything else you've written has been about how people shouldn't use the word in the narrower sense, which is something I simply don't find objectionable.
No, it isn't. It's been hijacked as you describe by some political interests and their adherents in the US...
Now I understand. You want to everybody to use a word only in a specific way favored by you, even if their meaning is still perfectly clear and not objectionable to most people.
I will now consider you posts as important as letters to the editor protesting against the use of the word "pleaded" rather than "pled", or the posts of a "grammar Nazi".
Experiencing a serious consequence "somehow eventually" is not the same thing as being immediately fired for saying something.
Yes, the timeframe is different. How is that relevant?
The determining factor is whether a series of humans have made a series of decisions based on what was perceived to be a freedom.
At least you're no longer implying that gravity restricts your freedom.
If you want to watch this applied, watch what happens when someone is fired on the basis of gender/race/religion.
Yes, the government fails to recognize certain rights (notably freedom of association) in some situations (places of public accommodation, workplaces, etc). Again, how is this relevant?
To think of freedoms only in terms of government enumerations is biased and limiting.
To think of freedoms only in terms of government enumerations is using the word in the manner that most people use the word.
The First Amendment is a right not to have certain laws made, but does not give you the freedom to do anything at all in a general sense. Article 1 of the CA constitution, on the other hand, grants freedoms. Understand?
The First Amendment recognizes a right to speak free of government restriction, which is a political freedom (yes, not an absolute freedom). California fails to recognize certain property rights under some circumstances, which allows people to do various speech-related things in more places.
If the consequences for exercising the freedom are potentially serious to my life - in this case because other humans make it so - then I don't have that freedom at all.
Then nobody has had, or can ever have, any freedom at all. Every action of any kind could somehow eventually lead to some serious consequence.
You may proceed by insisting on an overly-broad definition of "freedom".
I fire you because you called me a cunt. You turn up to work anyway. I call the police to force you to leave. There's your government force behind the consqeuences of your actions.
I do X, which causes my girlfriend to no longer want to have sex with me, but I have sex with her anyway. She has me arrested, which is a government consequence for X. Therefore I don't really have a right to do X.
X = called her a cunt, no freedom of speech.
X = hung out with friends she doesn't like, no freedom of assembly
X = wrote something she didn't like, no freedom of the press
X = converted to religion Y, no freedom of religion
X = did something under "human right Z", "human right Z" doesn't exist
Your line of reasoning would negate the entire concept of rights.
all markets are, by definition, based on sets of rules... ALL MARKETS ARE A HUMAN INVENTION
That's quite an assertion, could you please back it up? I don't think markets are a human invention any more than "the mating game" is a human invention. Both are aspects of human behavior, but both predate any deliberate planning, and would continue to exist without human-made (rather than natural) rules.
"buyer beware" - someone came up with that
That advice on how to deal with a market, not a rule that creates one. Just like "don't be a slut" or "compliment her shoes" is dating advice, not a rule that created dating.
"the government should only enforce contracts"... "don't lie about the ingredients in your prepared food"
Those are ideas about how people want to modify already existing markets. Just like laws against rape are government-enforced changes to preexisting mating behavior. People will have sex (and get jealous) and trade things (and specialize) simply because they are human, not because someone decided that they should behave that way.
When people toss around words like "free market" these days...
Yes, yes. You don't like free-market advocates.
But that's what it is - picking useful rules that serve the people involved.
That's your advice on how to regulate markets, but doesn't at all support your assertion that markets exist only after people make up rules for them.
What that really means is that morality is impossible.
Well, being completely moral probably is impossible.
That's the fundamental flaw with the Randists and the libertarians.
I don't know about that. Every real government (like every real person) is going to be flawed and fail to live up to its highest expectations. I don't see how "we're not perfect, but we can do better" is a fundamental flaw - that would seem to be the basis of any political activism of any kind.
There's absolutely no such thing as a Free Market. There is, by extension, no such thing as Free Trade either.
True- in the real world there probably can never be absolutely free markets or trade. And by your logic there's no such thing as free speech or equality under the law, but just because we can't actually have them doesn't mean that they can't be ideals that we strive to emulate or guidelines for our legal system. In the same way I'll never manage to be perfectly honest or rational, but that doesn't mean that I can't attempt to avoid lying or try to overcome my biases.
At least with proper democratic governments, the laws are more subject to the will of the governed.... it's still better than having the laws set by kings, warlords, and mob bosses.
Right - there will always be the organized use of force in the world, but as you pointed out some methods of organization are preferable to others. As part of the governed, I summarize my preference for regulations to be few over many, necessary over unnecessary, clear over vague, evenly over unevenly applied, etc as "I am generally in favor of free markets". I think that can be just as clear as your preference for democracy.
It seems you didn't hear about the story of that farmer, who unwillingly, had his field infected with GMO, because others around were using it (but not him).
He deliberately bred his crop to isolate the resistant gene for several years, used the resistance for his own advantage, and sold the resulting crop. The courts saw this as equivalent to recording songs off the radio and selling burned CDs of them.
More importantly, this has nothing to do with GM. You can't "borrow" other people's heirloom rose varieties, or naturally-bred over-sized pumpkins either.
In France, they don't produce GMO corn, or things stuffed with round-up, because you see, they care a bit for their health, and very strangely, believe that eating herbicide sprayed-so-much veggies might be harmful.
Farmers in every industrialized nation use round-up and its generic equivalents. France doesn't allow people to use "Round Up Ready" crops, which can withstand a higher dose of the herbicide. Because they can only use small doses, they need to spray more frequently, so they often end up using more.
You think people have freedom of not using GMO in their crops? Think again, freedom not what big-seed company wants, and that's not what is happening in many places.
Even Monsanto still sells non-GM seed, they couldn't care less as long as you buy from them. And when they (Monsanto and the USDA) developed GURT, farmers protested and Monsanto shelved the project - so farmers do have a say in what they plant.
The reason farmers must buy new seeds every year is because of terminator genes
This is false. Period. Your own link points out that they aren't used in commercial products.
Farmers have to buy new seed because:
1. They agreed to do that when they purchased the seed in the first place.
2. Many crops are hybridized, and the second generation doesn't produce very well.
The next time you get your ass handed to you, and you're tempted to post a series of insults that are almost entirely devoid of anything resembling an argument, you might want to hit "Cancel" rather than "Submit".
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't we continue to sleep when the sun is down?
No reason. But now I'll have to remember if my first workday of the week is the one that's partly on Sunday but mostly on Monday, or that's partly Monday and mostly Tuesday. Or I'd have to remember if 3:30 PM is early morning one day or late evening the previous one...
People are also used to Monday turning into Tuesday at 12:00 PM (or 00:00 for sane people.)
Which convention are you going to break?
But others could see it as a death sentence. I know it would probably drive me crazy if I knew.
You're alive, you already have a death sentence.
The Gray or Schrodinger's Whale is sometimes observed doing the hokey-pokey.
And when not observed, it manages to be both in the North Atlantic and not in the North Atlantic simultaneously.
You're just annoyed because you want words to be redefined to suit your political viewpoint.
I don't have any political goals here, nor am I redefining words, (nor am I annoyed - this is quite amusing). I'm just saying that the way they were used was common and understandable.
If no context is stated, it is because it is implicit, not because it doesn't exist.
There was context: "Which is a bigger threat to free speech — direct government action, or fear of lawsuits for frivolous defamation charges?"
When you say "the slaves are freed" you don't mean "for all X, every ex-slave has the freedom to do X".
Exactly. And when you're talking about the US and say "freedom of speech", as you were at the start of your first post, or capitalize it, as the first poster did, you are implicitly citing the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which implies that you're using it in the narrow, legal, government-restriction sense. If you want to use "freedom of speech" to refer to that freedom in general, as you explained later on in your first post, that's fine too. Everything else you've written has been about how people shouldn't use the word in the narrower sense, which is something I simply don't find objectionable.
The latest Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English...
Yes, you are a pedant. Do you write The History Channel about how the slaves were never "freed" because they were still bound by gravity?
Since we have two conversations running, I'll just point you here
No, it isn't. It's been hijacked as you describe by some political interests and their adherents in the US...
Now I understand. You want to everybody to use a word only in a specific way favored by you, even if their meaning is still perfectly clear and not objectionable to most people.
I will now consider you posts as important as letters to the editor protesting against the use of the word "pleaded" rather than "pled", or the posts of a "grammar Nazi".
Experiencing a serious consequence "somehow eventually" is not the same thing as being immediately fired for saying something.
Yes, the timeframe is different. How is that relevant?
The determining factor is whether a series of humans have made a series of decisions based on what was perceived to be a freedom.
At least you're no longer implying that gravity restricts your freedom.
If you want to watch this applied, watch what happens when someone is fired on the basis of gender/race/religion.
Yes, the government fails to recognize certain rights (notably freedom of association) in some situations (places of public accommodation, workplaces, etc). Again, how is this relevant?
To think of freedoms only in terms of government enumerations is biased and limiting.
To think of freedoms only in terms of government enumerations is using the word in the manner that most people use the word.
The First Amendment is a right not to have certain laws made, but does not give you the freedom to do anything at all in a general sense. Article 1 of the CA constitution, on the other hand, grants freedoms. Understand?
The First Amendment recognizes a right to speak free of government restriction, which is a political freedom (yes, not an absolute freedom). California fails to recognize certain property rights under some circumstances, which allows people to do various speech-related things in more places.
If the consequences for exercising the freedom are potentially serious to my life - in this case because other humans make it so - then I don't have that freedom at all.
Then nobody has had, or can ever have, any freedom at all. Every action of any kind could somehow eventually lead to some serious consequence.
You may proceed by insisting on an overly-broad definition of "freedom".
I fire you because you called me a cunt. You turn up to work anyway. I call the police to force you to leave. There's your government force behind the consqeuences of your actions.
I do X, which causes my girlfriend to no longer want to have sex with me, but I have sex with her anyway. She has me arrested, which is a government consequence for X. Therefore I don't really have a right to do X.
X = called her a cunt, no freedom of speech.
X = hung out with friends she doesn't like, no freedom of assembly
X = wrote something she didn't like, no freedom of the press
X = converted to religion Y, no freedom of religion
X = did something under "human right Z", "human right Z" doesn't exist
Your line of reasoning would negate the entire concept of rights.
all markets are, by definition, based on sets of rules ... ALL MARKETS ARE A HUMAN INVENTION
That's quite an assertion, could you please back it up? I don't think markets are a human invention any more than "the mating game" is a human invention. Both are aspects of human behavior, but both predate any deliberate planning, and would continue to exist without human-made (rather than natural) rules.
"buyer beware" - someone came up with that
That advice on how to deal with a market, not a rule that creates one. Just like "don't be a slut" or "compliment her shoes" is dating advice, not a rule that created dating.
"the government should only enforce contracts" ... "don't lie about the ingredients in your prepared food"
Those are ideas about how people want to modify already existing markets. Just like laws against rape are government-enforced changes to preexisting mating behavior. People will have sex (and get jealous) and trade things (and specialize) simply because they are human, not because someone decided that they should behave that way.
When people toss around words like "free market" these days...
Yes, yes. You don't like free-market advocates.
But that's what it is - picking useful rules that serve the people involved.
That's your advice on how to regulate markets, but doesn't at all support your assertion that markets exist only after people make up rules for them.
What that really means is that morality is impossible.
Well, being completely moral probably is impossible.
That's the fundamental flaw with the Randists and the libertarians.
I don't know about that. Every real government (like every real person) is going to be flawed and fail to live up to its highest expectations. I don't see how "we're not perfect, but we can do better" is a fundamental flaw - that would seem to be the basis of any political activism of any kind.
There's absolutely no such thing as a Free Market. There is, by extension, no such thing as Free Trade either.
True- in the real world there probably can never be absolutely free markets or trade. And by your logic there's no such thing as free speech or equality under the law, but just because we can't actually have them doesn't mean that they can't be ideals that we strive to emulate or guidelines for our legal system. In the same way I'll never manage to be perfectly honest or rational, but that doesn't mean that I can't attempt to avoid lying or try to overcome my biases.
At least with proper democratic governments, the laws are more subject to the will of the governed. ... it's still better than having the laws set by kings, warlords, and mob bosses.
Right - there will always be the organized use of force in the world, but as you pointed out some methods of organization are preferable to others. As part of the governed, I summarize my preference for regulations to be few over many, necessary over unnecessary, clear over vague, evenly over unevenly applied, etc as "I am generally in favor of free markets". I think that can be just as clear as your preference for democracy.
It seems you didn't hear about the story of that farmer, who unwillingly, had his field infected with GMO, because others around were using it (but not him).
He deliberately bred his crop to isolate the resistant gene for several years, used the resistance for his own advantage, and sold the resulting crop. The courts saw this as equivalent to recording songs off the radio and selling burned CDs of them.
More importantly, this has nothing to do with GM. You can't "borrow" other people's heirloom rose varieties, or naturally-bred over-sized pumpkins either.
In France, they don't produce GMO corn, or things stuffed with round-up, because you see, they care a bit for their health, and very strangely, believe that eating herbicide sprayed-so-much veggies might be harmful.
Farmers in every industrialized nation use round-up and its generic equivalents. France doesn't allow people to use "Round Up Ready" crops, which can withstand a higher dose of the herbicide. Because they can only use small doses, they need to spray more frequently, so they often end up using more.
You think people have freedom of not using GMO in their crops? Think again, freedom not what big-seed company wants, and that's not what is happening in many places.
Even Monsanto still sells non-GM seed, they couldn't care less as long as you buy from them. And when they (Monsanto and the USDA) developed GURT, farmers protested and Monsanto shelved the project - so farmers do have a say in what they plant.
That said, there's no question its MOSTLY a nefarious plot to make money off farmers ;)
Exactly. Monsanto sells their GM seed for more than their standard seed, and the farmers have to buy less herbicide and pesticide.
The reason farmers must buy new seeds every year is because of terminator genes
This is false. Period. Your own link points out that they aren't used in commercial products.
Farmers have to buy new seed because:
1. They agreed to do that when they purchased the seed in the first place.
2. Many crops are hybridized, and the second generation doesn't produce very well.
The fact is, no antibiotics in general use on farms are also used for human treatments.
The summary itself mentioned "penicillin and tetracycline" that are used on farms. Are you saying those aren't used on humans?
The only source I could find that lent support to any of your claims was Greenpeace. Sorry, citation needed.
Unemployment is about 30% of what you made the past year.
If you're talking about "welfare (which actually refers to many programs)", you can't just cite one of them.
Isn't that just food stamps? What about other programs?
if i was a world renowned physicist..
... you would know what you're talking about.
There are all kinds of situations I can think of that have no bearing, direct or indirect, on any kind of evolutionary instinct.
How can you possibly know this?
Just sayin'...