I would think that arming yourself and chasing someone to confront them would remove your protection from arrest under "stand your ground" laws. After all, they are called "stand your ground", not "chase suspicious people" laws.
And yes, I do favor gun rights, including concealed carry and strong self defense laws, I just think that if you chase someone in order to confront them then a court should decide if you were really defending yourself rather than the police just taking your word for it.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_parte_McCarthy it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
and
The ruling is derived from the principle of natural justice and has been followed throughout the world in countries that use the English legal system.
I am absolutely in favour of stand your ground laws (which we don't have in my country, but chasing someone up the street after police tell you not to would seem to disqualify him from this protection as far as I can see, unless a court finds otherwise.
They're not. The middle-men, i.e., the RIAA, is the one getting bent out of shape.
There is a fair bit of overlap between the RIAA and VEVO. Effectively the organizations putting songs on youtube are the same ones complaining about downloading. It's quite bizarre. The behavior you've pointed out is unquestionably dishonest. What I'm pointing out is that they seem to be actually crazy, and I mean that in the padded cell and medication sense.
You have to actually demonstrate that they are morally equivalent.
No I don't, because nobody in this thread has claimed that they are morally equivalent. You're obviously having trouble understanding this, so I'll try to give you a better explanation.
This AC in a post titled "Thats great news" stated that "Breaking the law is breaking the law." making (in context) a direct implication that breaching copyright is wrong because it is against the law.
This AC posted "Breaking the law is breaking the law! Turn in anyone on your block hiding filthy Jews today!"
The implication in the second AC's post is not that saving Jews is equivalent to copyright infringement but that the legal status of an action is not a definitive indicator of it's moral status.
The original argument is:
[Breaking the law] is [wrong]
[Copyright infringement] is [Breaking the law]
therefore
[Copyright infringement] is [wrong]
The reply is (expounded and adjusted for sarcasm):
[Saving jews] is [right]
[Saving jews] was [Breaking the law]
therefore the statement:
"[Breaking the law] is [wrong]" is incorrect.
If you persist in "not understanding" this point, I will assume you are a troll and won't reply again, because I don't see how anybody could be simultaneously that stupid and able to type.
I will also reply to this AC post here. Everyone already has access, my wife's music is on youtube. I won't be posting a link for you to troll her page, but she does what she can to get as many people as possible to listen to it. If they like it, they can also follow the links to the paid downloads.
Recording artists from major labels now put their songs on youtube for free and still sell copies.
Wow.. so someone got robbed and he _STILL_ has some money left in his wallet ! What the fuck? See ! He still has money ! Wow ! Isn't that a miracle ! Stealing is good !
So authorized downloading from the copyright holders is stealing now too, is it? Amazing. You should tell VEVO. Listening to the radio must be stealing too, right? No wonder you guys post AC.
Infringing copyright to consume and enjoy material someone else has produced is equivalent to "saving jews"? Dude.. you are fucked up in the head.
The statement being replied to did not express the wrongness of copyright infringement, but of breaking the law. If the law is the basis on which you decide morality then it would seem you would have to conclude that saving Jews from Nazi persecution when they were in government was an immoral action since it was illegal. If you can't abide by that conclusion then you need a more thorough justification to claim that copyright infringement is wrong.
An average high school student could be expected to understand that point without having it explained. I pity you, since either your intellect is insufficient to understand the point or your character is insufficient to require you to make an honest argument. Both are serious deficiencies.
Why don't you hire an artist to produce content for you? Then you own it, you can do whatever with it, including sharing it with others for free.
My wife is a musician and we are quite ok without locking the internet down. Recording artists from major labels now put their songs on youtube for free and still sell copies. Why they are still getting bent out of shape over file sharing is beyond me.
More insightful analysis courtesy of USian 'libertarians'. And you lot wonder why nobody votes for you and why Ron Paul gets 1/100th the votes that an idiot like Santorum gets.
It's because you're fucking idiots.
Yes, clearly the other 99% of US voters are intellectual giants.
b) Co-sleeping is dangerous, full stop, especially for neonates/infants.
Nonsense. All our children slept in the bed with us while breastfeeding and in our room for a few years after that. It's not just about bonding, it reduces fatigue for the mother (who doesn't need to get up to feed) and the baby (who doesn't need sustained crying to get their food) and regulates the babies body temperature well. In addition, none of our children have had nightmares, ever.
I took the explanation I was given by experts.
You might want to reconsider your unquestioning trust in experts. With our first child we were told by hospital staff my wife was not producing enough milk and we would need to supplement with formula. They were quite insistent that breastfeeding should be no more frequent than 4 hour feeds. Having some experience in dairy production, I suggested to my wife that she demand feed the baby on the basis that milk production reaches an equilibrium with use. Her breasts were full and the baby hungry well before the four hours. Demand feeding immediately increased her production to provide the required weight gain for our son.
To be fair, we didn't really ignore expert advice, it's just that I apparently knew more about milk production than the midwives and nurses at the hospital, but I don't have any formal qualification to say so. Anybody with dairy experience would have known what to do because it is this very thing that allows a cow to produce enough milk for both the calf and farmer.
Another example was with a child we had that was a few weeks premature (maybe less, dates can be unsure). A doctor informed us with no uncertainty that our daughter could not breastfeed. When I pointed out to him that she was in fact breastfeeding at that very moment about one meter away from where he was standing, he had no answer. His expert knowledge had led him to ignore the easily observable reality right in front of him. I didn't have more knowledge in this case, he was just plainly and demonstrably wrong.
Now I am an expert in my own field and I don't denigrate expert knowledge at all, I'm just saying that you should never give up your responsibility to think for yourself, even in the face of expert opinion.
According to the article, the City of Boston had a policy allowing officers to arrest people in those circumstances. No one will get fired for following this type of policy.
Then fire the person who wrote the policy with a lifetime or long term ban on them being hired by any government department or government contractors. Make writers of policy for government departments extremely wary of violating constitutional rights.
guns don't kill people, but stupid fucking irresponsible redneck retards kill people, and these people will always be a danger to the community around them as long as they have access to guns
Well, since it's Australia we're talking about, how do you explain this. Queensland would by far be considered the "redneck state" even more so back when gun control came in, yet it was NSW, Victoria and Tasmania (all of which had tighter gun control than Queensland) that had the massacres that prompted the introduction of nation wide (state implemented) gun control.
Since the acquittals of Susan Falls and Claire Margaret MacDonald we have the absurd legal situation where self defense is not a legal reason to obtain a firearm, but you may use a firearm for self defense if you are a woman. If you are a man who provides a woman with a firearm which she uses to kill someone (apparently legally) you will be charged with supplying the firearm to her.
Our gun laws in practice are absurd and sexist. The murder rate was already declining before their introduction, there is no evidence that gun laws have lowered the murder rate. Support for the laws is just one more example of the triumph of emotionalism over reason.
regarding "precog". Lets face it, if it were real we would have noticed all the rich and successful people who got that way being precog, there would be government departments staffed by precogs predicting plane crashes, stock market crashes, crimes, weather, asteroids, etc.
<spooky voice>The portal that let's the information through is controlled from the other side.</spooky voice>
Nothing about precog, but I have anecdotes that suggest some form of telepathic communication has occurred. I won't bore you with them since such stories abound, but here is my take on it: The brain is an electrical device more complex than anything we've built. It is not a far stretch of the imagination to think that a "rewiring" could occur that produces radio like capabilities in the brain. However claims of telepathy are generally in one of four categories: (1) done for money by people who avoid skeptical inquiry (likely fraud) (2) random, ie: three times in her life, my grandmother... (3) advocating some religious/spiritual thing (possibly fraud, otherwise requiring decades of meditation or some total lifestyle dedication or lastly (4) crazy people (potentially the opportunity cost of telepathy is sanity).
So from the view of someone who wants the capability to communicate with people over distance, not wishing to give up your life to a new religion, not willing to give up your sanity and requiring better reliability than random, clearly a mobile phone is a better choice than pursuing telepathy.
I think that one thing we can agree on is that statistics are total horseshit.
No they aren't. Statistics would also tell you that blacks are more likely to be victims of crime. Racism (including racist interpretation of statistics) could be described as horseshit. Horseshit is in reality far more useful than racism, but we get what you mean.
Jury nullification undermines the legal process and is not a good thing in any way.
Jury nullification is a part of the legal process and does not undermine it in any way. What do you think a jury is for? To determine the facts? HA! There has never been a reason to believe that a random bunch of twelve people can determine facts better than a well trained and experienced judge. The purpose of a jury is to over-ride the states desire to punish someone. That's why a guilty verdict can be overturned on appeal but a verdict of not guilty can't.
Like many aspects of our justice system (such as the requirement for warrants for searches) the jury system is designed to make it harder to obtain convictions. Like anything, it can be abused by those who seek evil rather than justice. This in no way invalidates the proper use of jury nullification.
Well as the saying goes, it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted.
Then instead of causing harm to one innocent person you enable ten evil doers to harm many innocent people.
The idea being that the ten criminals will cause less damage than an unchecked government. If a criminal tries to take my liberty and I defend myself, there is a great deal of support for me in the law (details subject to jurisdiction). If a government agent tries to take my liberty and I defend myself, they will send more and better armed government agents until they have their way or I am dead.
You don't escape the problem of people being stupid and evil by selecting a sub-group of those same stupid, evil people to be rulers over you.
True democracy doesn't work.
If we apply such strict criteria for a working system of government, neither does anything else. You get unjust laws from dictators and democracy and everything in between. I prefer democracy.
Hang on a minute, Stratfor sell their illegally gained information. It's a business. Anonymous et al are giving it away for FREE!!! PIRATES!!! TERRORISTS!!! VANDALS!!!
that's it, that's it, the whole story: lower barrier of entry = more addicts
The whole story? My my, you are feeling grandiose today aren't you.
you don't understand addiction, and what it does to willpower, what the cost is in human life.
That's a stupid thing to say and you're a stupid person for saying it. You have no idea what my experience is. I am more acquainted than I'd like to be with the effects of addiction, both of legal and illegal drugs.
I know people that, once addicted, got their previous friends on heroin to sell to them to provide for their habit. I'm not making up fanciful rationalizations, I'm giving you the benefit of experience. Moron.
Just to be perfectly clear, I don't think you're a moron because you disagree with me. You're a moron because you decided, solely on the basis that I disagree with you, that I couldn't possibly know anything about addiction. You're a moron because you think a complex societal problem like drugs comes down to the equation "lower barrier of entry = more addicts" and refuse to give further consideration to the issue.
But aruging about the meaning of words is avoiding making any cogent argument.
Pointing out the flaws in your argument is a form of rebuttal.
My point is that if the person rebutting me has a point that is correct or legitimate, they should make that point instead of taking refuge in arguing about the meanings of words.
You used a propaganda term in an attempt to make copying seem unambiguously wrong. If you have a point that is correct or legitimate, you can make it using the correct words. I doubt you're even going to try that.
Someone who argues that they can do anything they like because it feels good and they don't care if society says it's wrong, however, is verging on being the definition of a sociopath.
When the morality of an action is widely disputed, such as in the case of file sharing, that is clearly not the case.
Yes the total amount of debt owed by everyone continually increases. But that's not what's important.
How can perpetually increasing debt possibly be unimportant? You appear to have thought about this so much that you've gone mad. Perpetually increasing debt leads to servitude.
Slashdot Mirror
I like to ask Brits that come over here: "So what are you in for?"
I would think that arming yourself and chasing someone to confront them would remove your protection from arrest under "stand your ground" laws. After all, they are called "stand your ground", not "chase suspicious people" laws.
And yes, I do favor gun rights, including concealed carry and strong self defense laws, I just think that if you chase someone in order to confront them then a court should decide if you were really defending yourself rather than the police just taking your word for it.
Your opinion, and mine, simply don't matter.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_parte_McCarthy
it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
and
The ruling is derived from the principle of natural justice and has been followed throughout the world in countries that use the English legal system.
I am absolutely in favour of stand your ground laws (which we don't have in my country, but chasing someone up the street after police tell you not to would seem to disqualify him from this protection as far as I can see, unless a court finds otherwise.
They're not. The middle-men, i.e., the RIAA, is the one getting bent out of shape.
There is a fair bit of overlap between the RIAA and VEVO. Effectively the organizations putting songs on youtube are the same ones complaining about downloading. It's quite bizarre. The behavior you've pointed out is unquestionably dishonest. What I'm pointing out is that they seem to be actually crazy, and I mean that in the padded cell and medication sense.
You have to actually demonstrate that they are morally equivalent.
No I don't, because nobody in this thread has claimed that they are morally equivalent. You're obviously having trouble understanding this, so I'll try to give you a better explanation.
This AC in a post titled "Thats great news" stated that "Breaking the law is breaking the law." making (in context) a direct implication that breaching copyright is wrong because it is against the law.
This AC posted "Breaking the law is breaking the law! Turn in anyone on your block hiding filthy Jews today!"
The implication in the second AC's post is not that saving Jews is equivalent to copyright infringement but that the legal status of an action is not a definitive indicator of it's moral status.
The original argument is:
[Breaking the law] is [wrong]
[Copyright infringement] is [Breaking the law]
therefore
[Copyright infringement] is [wrong]
The reply is (expounded and adjusted for sarcasm):
[Saving jews] is [right]
[Saving jews] was [Breaking the law]
therefore the statement:
"[Breaking the law] is [wrong]" is incorrect.
If you persist in "not understanding" this point, I will assume you are a troll and won't reply again, because I don't see how anybody could be simultaneously that stupid and able to type.
I will also reply to this AC post here. Everyone already has access, my wife's music is on youtube. I won't be posting a link for you to troll her page, but she does what she can to get as many people as possible to listen to it. If they like it, they can also follow the links to the paid downloads.
Recording artists from major labels now put their songs on youtube for free and still sell copies.
Wow.. so someone got robbed and he _STILL_ has some money left in his wallet ! What the fuck? See ! He still has money ! Wow ! Isn't that a miracle ! Stealing is good !
So authorized downloading from the copyright holders is stealing now too, is it? Amazing. You should tell VEVO. Listening to the radio must be stealing too, right? No wonder you guys post AC.
Infringing copyright to consume and enjoy material someone else has produced is equivalent to "saving jews"? Dude.. you are fucked up in the head.
The statement being replied to did not express the wrongness of copyright infringement, but of breaking the law. If the law is the basis on which you decide morality then it would seem you would have to conclude that saving Jews from Nazi persecution when they were in government was an immoral action since it was illegal. If you can't abide by that conclusion then you need a more thorough justification to claim that copyright infringement is wrong.
An average high school student could be expected to understand that point without having it explained. I pity you, since either your intellect is insufficient to understand the point or your character is insufficient to require you to make an honest argument. Both are serious deficiencies.
Why don't you hire an artist to produce content for you? Then you own it, you can do whatever with it, including sharing it with others for free.
My wife is a musician and we are quite ok without locking the internet down. Recording artists from major labels now put their songs on youtube for free and still sell copies. Why they are still getting bent out of shape over file sharing is beyond me.
Clean up your own hose.
I'm sorry, you're right. From this day forward, I promise to thoroughly clean my hose.
More insightful analysis courtesy of USian 'libertarians'. And you lot wonder why nobody votes for you and why Ron Paul gets 1/100th the votes that an idiot like Santorum gets.
It's because you're fucking idiots.
Yes, clearly the other 99% of US voters are intellectual giants.
Enforcement would consist of the airlines in question not being allowed to fly into the U.S.
Sure, no problem.
I once was seriously considering moving to the US, now I don't even have any plans to visit.
b) Co-sleeping is dangerous, full stop, especially for neonates/infants.
Nonsense. All our children slept in the bed with us while breastfeeding and in our room for a few years after that. It's not just about bonding, it reduces fatigue for the mother (who doesn't need to get up to feed) and the baby (who doesn't need sustained crying to get their food) and regulates the babies body temperature well. In addition, none of our children have had nightmares, ever.
I took the explanation I was given by experts.
You might want to reconsider your unquestioning trust in experts. With our first child we were told by hospital staff my wife was not producing enough milk and we would need to supplement with formula. They were quite insistent that breastfeeding should be no more frequent than 4 hour feeds. Having some experience in dairy production, I suggested to my wife that she demand feed the baby on the basis that milk production reaches an equilibrium with use. Her breasts were full and the baby hungry well before the four hours. Demand feeding immediately increased her production to provide the required weight gain for our son.
To be fair, we didn't really ignore expert advice, it's just that I apparently knew more about milk production than the midwives and nurses at the hospital, but I don't have any formal qualification to say so. Anybody with dairy experience would have known what to do because it is this very thing that allows a cow to produce enough milk for both the calf and farmer.
Another example was with a child we had that was a few weeks premature (maybe less, dates can be unsure). A doctor informed us with no uncertainty that our daughter could not breastfeed. When I pointed out to him that she was in fact breastfeeding at that very moment about one meter away from where he was standing, he had no answer. His expert knowledge had led him to ignore the easily observable reality right in front of him. I didn't have more knowledge in this case, he was just plainly and demonstrably wrong.
Now I am an expert in my own field and I don't denigrate expert knowledge at all, I'm just saying that you should never give up your responsibility to think for yourself, even in the face of expert opinion.
According to the article, the City of Boston had a policy allowing officers to arrest people in those circumstances. No one will get fired for following this type of policy.
Then fire the person who wrote the policy with a lifetime or long term ban on them being hired by any government department or government contractors. Make writers of policy for government departments extremely wary of violating constitutional rights.
They may know about the risks of totalitarianism, but do they know how to prevent it happening? Those are two entirely different things.
guns don't kill people, but stupid fucking irresponsible redneck retards kill people, and these people will always be a danger to the community around them as long as they have access to guns
Well, since it's Australia we're talking about, how do you explain this. Queensland would by far be considered the "redneck state" even more so back when gun control came in, yet it was NSW, Victoria and Tasmania (all of which had tighter gun control than Queensland) that had the massacres that prompted the introduction of nation wide (state implemented) gun control.
Since the acquittals of Susan Falls and Claire Margaret MacDonald we have the absurd legal situation where self defense is not a legal reason to obtain a firearm, but you may use a firearm for self defense if you are a woman. If you are a man who provides a woman with a firearm which she uses to kill someone (apparently legally) you will be charged with supplying the firearm to her.
Our gun laws in practice are absurd and sexist. The murder rate was already declining before their introduction, there is no evidence that gun laws have lowered the murder rate. Support for the laws is just one more example of the triumph of emotionalism over reason.
regarding "precog". Lets face it, if it were real we would have noticed all the rich and successful people who got that way being precog, there would be government departments staffed by precogs predicting plane crashes, stock market crashes, crimes, weather, asteroids, etc.
<spooky voice>The portal that let's the information through is controlled from the other side.</spooky voice>
Nothing about precog, but I have anecdotes that suggest some form of telepathic communication has occurred. I won't bore you with them since such stories abound, but here is my take on it: The brain is an electrical device more complex than anything we've built. It is not a far stretch of the imagination to think that a "rewiring" could occur that produces radio like capabilities in the brain. However claims of telepathy are generally in one of four categories: (1) done for money by people who avoid skeptical inquiry (likely fraud) (2) random, ie: three times in her life, my grandmother... (3) advocating some religious/spiritual thing (possibly fraud, otherwise requiring decades of meditation or some total lifestyle dedication or lastly (4) crazy people (potentially the opportunity cost of telepathy is sanity).
So from the view of someone who wants the capability to communicate with people over distance, not wishing to give up your life to a new religion, not willing to give up your sanity and requiring better reliability than random, clearly a mobile phone is a better choice than pursuing telepathy.
I think that one thing we can agree on is that statistics are total horseshit.
No they aren't. Statistics would also tell you that blacks are more likely to be victims of crime. Racism (including racist interpretation of statistics) could be described as horseshit. Horseshit is in reality far more useful than racism, but we get what you mean.
Jury nullification undermines the legal process and is not a good thing in any way.
Jury nullification is a part of the legal process and does not undermine it in any way. What do you think a jury is for? To determine the facts? HA! There has never been a reason to believe that a random bunch of twelve people can determine facts better than a well trained and experienced judge. The purpose of a jury is to over-ride the states desire to punish someone. That's why a guilty verdict can be overturned on appeal but a verdict of not guilty can't.
Like many aspects of our justice system (such as the requirement for warrants for searches) the jury system is designed to make it harder to obtain convictions. Like anything, it can be abused by those who seek evil rather than justice. This in no way invalidates the proper use of jury nullification.
Well as the saying goes, it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted.
Then instead of causing harm to one innocent person you enable ten evil doers to harm many innocent people.
The idea being that the ten criminals will cause less damage than an unchecked government. If a criminal tries to take my liberty and I defend myself, there is a great deal of support for me in the law (details subject to jurisdiction). If a government agent tries to take my liberty and I defend myself, they will send more and better armed government agents until they have their way or I am dead.
People are stupid and evil.
You don't escape the problem of people being stupid and evil by selecting a sub-group of those same stupid, evil people to be rulers over you.
True democracy doesn't work.
If we apply such strict criteria for a working system of government, neither does anything else. You get unjust laws from dictators and democracy and everything in between. I prefer democracy.
Sigh. Pointing out the flaws in my argument is, indeed, a form of rebuttal. So far, that hasn't occurred.
That's a very subjective judgement. I'd say that an incorrect description of an action is indeed a flaw in your argument.
Please, englighten me - where did I use propaganda?
Calling copying theft. It is propaganda used in the warnings at the beginning of DVD's, among other places.
Look, I'm sorry I was so rude to you. I hope that you can see past that and realize that people who disagree with you aren't necessarily ignorant.
Hang on a minute, Stratfor sell their illegally gained information. It's a business. Anonymous et al are giving it away for FREE!!! PIRATES!!! TERRORISTS!!! VANDALS!!!
that's it, that's it, the whole story: lower barrier of entry = more addicts
The whole story? My my, you are feeling grandiose today aren't you.
you don't understand addiction, and what it does to willpower, what the cost is in human life.
That's a stupid thing to say and you're a stupid person for saying it. You have no idea what my experience is. I am more acquainted than I'd like to be with the effects of addiction, both of legal and illegal drugs.
I know people that, once addicted, got their previous friends on heroin to sell to them to provide for their habit. I'm not making up fanciful rationalizations, I'm giving you the benefit of experience. Moron.
Just to be perfectly clear, I don't think you're a moron because you disagree with me. You're a moron because you decided, solely on the basis that I disagree with you, that I couldn't possibly know anything about addiction. You're a moron because you think a complex societal problem like drugs comes down to the equation "lower barrier of entry = more addicts" and refuse to give further consideration to the issue.
But aruging about the meaning of words is avoiding making any cogent argument.
Pointing out the flaws in your argument is a form of rebuttal.
My point is that if the person rebutting me has a point that is correct or legitimate, they should make that point instead of taking refuge in arguing about the meanings of words.
You used a propaganda term in an attempt to make copying seem unambiguously wrong. If you have a point that is correct or legitimate, you can make it using the correct words. I doubt you're even going to try that.
Someone who argues that they can do anything they like because it feels good and they don't care if society says it's wrong, however, is verging on being the definition of a sociopath.
When the morality of an action is widely disputed, such as in the case of file sharing, that is clearly not the case.
Yes the total amount of debt owed by everyone continually increases. But that's not what's important.
How can perpetually increasing debt possibly be unimportant? You appear to have thought about this so much that you've gone mad. Perpetually increasing debt leads to servitude.