You need not open your mail, esp. when the subject line is something that you aren't interested; it is the same filtering methodology one uses for snail mail, by checking the return address and other identifying markers on an envelope before deciding whether or not to bother opening it or just tossing it. Difference is, you can do the toss action with two clicks online, whereas it is a more extensive process in meatworld. Heck, its even easier with 'spam filters' that do 80% of the work for you.
Thus, there is no 'screaming penis ads in home'; it's a poor and deceptive metaphor. And, yes, advertising generally is free speech. I'm no great fan of spam (in point of fact, I hate it) just as I dislike most modern advertising in general, but it does seem to be a latent unavoidable consequence of valuing free expression in a product-value based society. I deeply love my right to express myself, and often enjoy the way others put that right to use as well.
Many countries, such as Britain, criminalize witholding encryption keys from law enforcement to the extent that unless you are actually a terrorist with detailed and executable plans of action labeled 'evil plot' stupidly stored on your laptop, you are probably better off (in the criminal liability sense) just giving it to them. Sadly, I don't think that the US is far behind on this one, either.
So what you are saying is that rights can't be intrinsic to existence because if you kill the person they cease to have rights?
No, what I am saying is there seems to be no *evidence* that there exists intrinsic rights on the basis that if such a right did exist, it doesn't seem to have any practical effect on whether the genocided victim becomes dead or not. I'm making this point because most people assume rights have causal efficacy, which I also include in my definition of right. I'm arguing that the legitimate moral claim "I'd rather be alive than dead" does not rise to the status of right because it has no causal efficacy to affect whether I become dead or not.
Another way to look at it, and one more in line with what the founding fathers had in mind in their writings, is that rights inhere, but are a statement of morality or ethics, not as you seem to think a statement of existential reality.
Well, and we sort of agree on this. I was striving to make a distinction between moral claims, which many people call human rights, and legal rights that delineate how governments may act and provide for redress of grievances. I have real problem with the conflation of the two, and I think the word 'right' is a very poor descriptor of the first species of entity.
Nearly everybody agrees that all people can make certain moral claims that do inhere to the status of being human, such as 'it would be better for me to be alive than to die' and 'it would be better for me to be free than to be oppressed', etc.. For me, in order to make the leap from a moral claim to a moral right, there must be some concept of justice, which entails as necessary some mechanism for a redress of harm against a moral claim. Usually that sort of justice is codified into a system of laws, hence most 'rights' (including moral ones) are legal rights. It is possible for there to be an alternate system of moral redress; warfare is one such mechanism (and an extremely problematic one at that). Absent any ability to reclaim moral redress for a denied moral claim, under this theory, there is no right; the person experiencing conditions of genocide has nobody, including themselves, to appeal to except perhaps God (if one believes) for moral redress, and it is in this sense that I mean they have no rights.
What you find troubling I also find troubling, but for perhaps very different reasons. That a person can say (and as you point out, many people do say) once a right lacks a mechanism to be defended it no longer exists is dangerous, because absent a system of redress many people do not see any way to validate the moral claim underlying the legal right. That people are so morally vacuous that they cannot stand up for others simply because the predominant system for defending moral claims is damaged or absent is deeply troubling to me; I used the example of genocide pointedly because it is deeply problematic in precisely this sense. Respect for national sovereignty overrrides the moral sense of people who ought to interfere to assert a moral claim on behalf of defenseless people; sovereignty is a useful legal concept in many ways but here it becomes morally problematic.
I would assert that victims of genocide are people whose moral claims are being heinously violated, in a darkly ironical way, by a legal system of national rights which prevent the victims from ever having rights adhere to their moral claims.
No one outside your freshman philosophy course is interested in playing word games about the ontological status of rights and epistemological basis for belief in rights...
While it is incidentally fun to play with ideas and see where they lead, I don't think in the strict sense it can be considered a 'word game'. And I haven't been in a freshman philosophy course for a long time.
To answer your question, ascertaining (if possible) the ontological and epistemic qualities of things under discussion is helpful for figuring out what assumptions lie behind statements in common language, which tends to be frustratingly ambiguous about what precisely is being asserted. People talk about rights all the time, in various senses, but if there is no discussion about what a right is, or how we could identify one if we were to happen upon it, how can any conversation about them beyond that be more than accidentally productive?
Of course, it is also rarely productive to insult people who you have never met but for a short number of written paragraphs on screen, much less ascribe to them motivations about which you can have literally no knowledge.
Back to the argument for a second, you assert as many others do that victims of genocide have rights. I assert that they, being dead, can possess nothing, including rights. They may have had a moral claim that someone (perhaps even themselves) should have acted to invest them with rights, but the claim to deserve something is different altogether than the claim to possess something. If you wish to claim that they had 'rights' such as for example a 'right to not die violently', what precisely does that mean, if clearly the possession of those rights did not benefit them (since the hypothetical possession of that right did not prevent them from becoming dead violently)?
All metaphysics is at its base somewhat arrogant (because it requires the assertion of ungrounded assumptions) but its arrogance is directly proportional to the amount of ungroundedness that is present in its basic structure. So, asserting there are 'rights' which inhere to humans by being human, even when there is no evidence whatsoever of such an occasion's actual existence, goes beyond the simple arrogance of positing any metaphysic.
And I hope you are kidding that you believe there aren't many people who think that, for example the freedom of speech, isn't rooted in law instead of something deeper. That view is widespread in the West, certainly, but the West isn't the whole world, and many people out there would gladly challenge the presumption (and not just people in power, mind you).
Yes. Yes, it does. And before this degenerates into a 'yes it does, no it doesn't' slapfest, it might be best to analyze the underpinnings of the two sides.
The 'no' side is predicated upon the basic (and I believe ultimately erroneous) assumption that some rights are 'inherent'; that is, they literally inhere to (i.e. dwell within) certain classes of beings by virtue of those beings merely existing. This is the only way that one could argue that an unexerciseable right is still a right; it ontologically exists but is 'suppressed' in a manner of speaking by prevailing local conditions. It is certainly *possible* that this view is correct, but I think it problematic because it requires a large degree of epistemic faith, that is, that certain things exist of which we have absolutely no detectable evidence and yet are firmly believed must still exist. Such claims are always rooted in metaphysical arrogance and basically cash out as follows: "the world *must* work this way (despite lack of evidence that it does) because if it didn't, my word-view would collapse!" American society, and world-view, is predicated upon the inherency of certain rights, some of which are listed explicitly in black-and-white in the Declaration of Independence, and others are implied strongly in the Bill of Rights.
The 'yes' side posits the epistemologically more reasonable position that rights adhere to their subjects, and are created, maintained, divested, and destroyed by some agency independent of mere existence. That is, either the agent or some agency on behalf of the agent must use force (take action in any form) to guarantee that the 'right' adheres to the agent and has functional substance. Absent that force, the right dissipates. This seems much more in keeping with evidence observable through the course of human history.
Rights are only such if they can be cashed out into reality. Otherwise, they are just pretty words on paper. I agree with you on the very limited point that rights don't depend on just government, and so your statement "If your government doesn't protect your rights, it doesn't mean you don't still have them." is quite true. There are other means to project force to secure the practical adherence of a right beyond the reliance upon a government, and in fact it would be foolish in many cases to depend on the government to secure some of those rights. But, it does not then logically follow that, as you state, "everyone has rights". There are some people who do not use force and for whom no force is expended to adhere rights to them. Victims of genocide come to mind as the easiest example. They are deprived of rights; literally, they do not possess any.
The benefit I think is being talked about is of this sort: poor people go to public school and receive in return an education (benefit for their taxes). What does the wealthy person get from that same service? A ready-made, basically literate and numerate employee base or workforce. Way bigger benefit; after all educating an entire workforce is hideously expensive and a big time investment.
It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that public education is a major factor that permits employers and factor owners to make fortunes the size that they do. I don't see how rearranging society or changing policies would change this sort of thing across the board. Any social rearrangement radical enough to would eliminate this sort of benefit inequity would, I suspect, eliminate the existence of wealthy people. Hence, it is in fact by definition.
You know, it's people like you who convince people like him to raise kids that beat the crap out of geeks in high school gym class. You are perpetuating a vicious cycle, and the pain and anguish of literally thousands of socially awkward and perhaps painfully homely children are at your feet.
So long as judges are following under the rubric of the law, which they are obligated to interpret, which of course includes Constitutional Law, they're acting properly. Sometimes judges do overreach; that's actual judicial activism. It's pretty fscking rare, and legislatures have remedies (like impeachment) if they overstep grossly. So, no, your 'it's a dictatorship!!!' line is ridiculous.
On marriage: the standard throughout most of the world right up until nearly present times was one man, many women. Little detail. And, if the purpose of marriage changes (as it has radically) the arguments for keeping it between men and women change. If it is just about keeping property in certain families, or pretecting inheritance (as it was for the vast majority of human history) then gay marriage makes little sense. If it is about romantic love and lifelong commitment to an individual, as it has become much, much more recently, then there is no earthly reason why gay people can't marry. The law and its interpretation needs to reflect modern reality.
You are absolutely right. The rights of minority groups should be under the dictates of majoritarian legislature...no, wait...that's just plain silly. Brown v. Board of Education was an important court case becuase, here's a shocker, no southern state on its precious own was going to integrate any time in the next century otherwise. And as history has often taught, in USA as well as elsewhere, the judicial decisions to protect the rights of minorities can and do feed into and bolster popular movemnets that eventually can move legislatures to act. I know it's messy and in a certain by-the-book sort of way, conceptually backwards, but governing humans was never supposed to be neat and easy.
"Legal Activism" means alot of things to alot of people, but for the most part recently it has just been a buzzword for "tell the judges to sit down and shut up." But they have an important role in protecting the rights of peopel that the majority happens to not care for.
BTW, "marriage" in its current form is not by any strecth of the imagination a 'thousands year old institution.' It's actually pretty new. For most of human history, marriages served very differnt functions than they do now, and they took very different forms.
You SCARE me. Seriously, I don't mean to flame or troll or whatever, but if you mean what you just said, then you are in many ways more dangerous than any screed-spewing pulpit-dweller could be, because curtailing the speech of zealots validates their speech in the eyes of the audience. How? If someone wants to supress it, there must be something substantial about it. Otherwise, why would the powers-that-be bother? People do actually think this way. And religions are particularly perverse about feeding off of oppression of their beliefs/practices/way-of-life. Sometimes I honestly think that if the early Christians hadn't been persecuted by the Romans, today they would be just another minor (if not irrelevant and/or extinct) Jewish-Roman mystery cult.
Besides, do you really believe so little in the idea that the best way to show a screed-spewer as an idiot is to let him open his mouth? Sure, he will have pull with some other idiots, but hey! They're, quite seriously, a lost cause anyway. I like the free marketplace of ideas. It brings me a regular torrent of entertaining (and occasionally educational and even enlightening) screed. And the bottom line is, if someone tells you to kill/maim/et cetera in the name of whatever, it is you and you alone who is responsible for whether you listen to the idiot and act on his words or not. You can't stop stupid people being stupid, and you can't stop stupid people from being dangerous to themselves and those around them. It's not a neat and perfect world, I'm afraid.
Yeah. Can you think of a reason free speech for corporations or Christians should be restricted?
Christians? That's easy. No. As an Atheist quite comfortable in my own beliefs I quite enjoy people such as Christians speaking their mind, as it is different from mine (and thus, you know, one of those ways I can expand it). If they use it to be mean, petty, or unenlightening, so be it; opportunity wasted. It is unfortunate that some people of faith believe people not of theistic faith shouldn't enjoy that same basic right to be able to speak our mind (thanks, George Bush. Ass.)
Corporations on the other hand, you bet your ass. This artificial person thing has gone waaaaaaaay too far. The innovation of creating a shell 'person' as a shield for limiting the liability of investors is important for the health of capitalism, to be sure, but we have totally forgotten that it really is a 'shell person'. Hollow. No conscience to be panged, no body to lock away if they hurt people, no soul, consciousness, or other characteristic that are the traditional reasons given for why we give actual humans the rights and responsibilities we generally in western society do.
To hell with the idea that corporations have a legitimate right to speech. Any particular member of any particular board of directors should feel free with their own mouth (and their own checkbook) to say whatever they wish. Being human, they have that intrinsic right. A corporation itself, not being human, should not.
He was exaggerating, but not by much. And then there are three-strike laws in some of the stupider states; if it's your third time getting caught smoking a joint, we may well be talking about decades.
I paid very close attention to the parent post. If he was trying to make the point you assign him, he didn't do a very good job, as it came off simply as a pedantic point about the names of continents and the countries they contain. Nevertheless, if that was the intended point, you will find little disagreement from me; obviously decisions one place affect people in others, and American decisions tend to have a disproportionate impact relative to many other countries due to its relative economic and military power, and so people from other countries have the right and the responsibility to be concerned about the decisions America makes.
Please don't be obtuse. The term 'American', used the world over refers specifically to citizens and residents of the United States. People don't refer to Mexicans, Canadians, Columbians, etc. as Americans, nor do those people refer to themselves that way either.
No, and you misinterpret me. I did not say that those democracies had the correct approach, but only that they were approaching the problem seriously, whereas America has basically given up. I think it an inappropriate use of the State's coercive power to mandate the exercise of the franchise. However, I think it entirely appropriate for the State to remove as many practical barriers to voting as is practically possible, by for instance making voting a task which does not conflict with labor.
IIRC, a citation backed up with a fine. Unlike the USA, many democratic republics take the whole 'duty to vote' thing seriously. The *least* we could do is make today a nat'l holiday...
A person should be allowed to do whatever he/she wishes, but must be held accountable for any resulting damage.
I'm nominally a Libertarian, and this extremity of thought still bothers me. Sometimes, after-the-fact consequences just don't cut it. Occasionally, regulations in a tiny collection of areas can save many lives, without the attendant loss of critical freedoms. I agree generally with the idea that we have drawn the standard of what ought to be regulated far too loosely, but there are still a few areas where regulation isn't exactly the devil's work. Does a person lose a critical freedom if they are prevented from owning or constructing nuclear/biological/chemical weapons? I'd say not. Criminalizing the taking of significant steps towards building such a device is a difficult line to walk, but you surely can't recoup any value of justice after-the-fact. I have very little problem deregulating medicine, but that thinking can't be applied to everything. Just most things. Reflexive ideology without reference to reality can be very destructive.
Slashdot Mirror
You need not open your mail, esp. when the subject line is something that you aren't interested; it is the same filtering methodology one uses for snail mail, by checking the return address and other identifying markers on an envelope before deciding whether or not to bother opening it or just tossing it. Difference is, you can do the toss action with two clicks online, whereas it is a more extensive process in meatworld. Heck, its even easier with 'spam filters' that do 80% of the work for you.
Thus, there is no 'screaming penis ads in home'; it's a poor and deceptive metaphor. And, yes, advertising generally is free speech. I'm no great fan of spam (in point of fact, I hate it) just as I dislike most modern advertising in general, but it does seem to be a latent unavoidable consequence of valuing free expression in a product-value based society. I deeply love my right to express myself, and often enjoy the way others put that right to use as well.
Many countries, such as Britain, criminalize witholding encryption keys from law enforcement to the extent that unless you are actually a terrorist with detailed and executable plans of action labeled 'evil plot' stupidly stored on your laptop, you are probably better off (in the criminal liability sense) just giving it to them. Sadly, I don't think that the US is far behind on this one, either.
For myself, though, I must admit reading the last sentence of the summary more like this:
"At that point, the Constitution may fail us, and we will be screwed."
The Dark Knight is basically unbeatable.
"So remember kids, keep saving those quarters, because with enough MONEY you can do ANYTHING!"
They got William Hurt for Dune.
Not once but TWICE. It was, indeed, sweeter the second time around.
So what you are saying is that rights can't be intrinsic to existence because if you kill the person they cease to have rights?
No, what I am saying is there seems to be no *evidence* that there exists intrinsic rights on the basis that if such a right did exist, it doesn't seem to have any practical effect on whether the genocided victim becomes dead or not. I'm making this point because most people assume rights have causal efficacy, which I also include in my definition of right. I'm arguing that the legitimate moral claim "I'd rather be alive than dead" does not rise to the status of right because it has no causal efficacy to affect whether I become dead or not.
Another way to look at it, and one more in line with what the founding fathers had in mind in their writings, is that rights inhere, but are a statement of morality or ethics, not as you seem to think a statement of existential reality.
Well, and we sort of agree on this. I was striving to make a distinction between moral claims, which many people call human rights, and legal rights that delineate how governments may act and provide for redress of grievances. I have real problem with the conflation of the two, and I think the word 'right' is a very poor descriptor of the first species of entity.
Nearly everybody agrees that all people can make certain moral claims that do inhere to the status of being human, such as 'it would be better for me to be alive than to die' and 'it would be better for me to be free than to be oppressed', etc.. For me, in order to make the leap from a moral claim to a moral right, there must be some concept of justice, which entails as necessary some mechanism for a redress of harm against a moral claim. Usually that sort of justice is codified into a system of laws, hence most 'rights' (including moral ones) are legal rights. It is possible for there to be an alternate system of moral redress; warfare is one such mechanism (and an extremely problematic one at that). Absent any ability to reclaim moral redress for a denied moral claim, under this theory, there is no right; the person experiencing conditions of genocide has nobody, including themselves, to appeal to except perhaps God (if one believes) for moral redress, and it is in this sense that I mean they have no rights.
What you find troubling I also find troubling, but for perhaps very different reasons. That a person can say (and as you point out, many people do say) once a right lacks a mechanism to be defended it no longer exists is dangerous, because absent a system of redress many people do not see any way to validate the moral claim underlying the legal right. That people are so morally vacuous that they cannot stand up for others simply because the predominant system for defending moral claims is damaged or absent is deeply troubling to me; I used the example of genocide pointedly because it is deeply problematic in precisely this sense. Respect for national sovereignty overrrides the moral sense of people who ought to interfere to assert a moral claim on behalf of defenseless people; sovereignty is a useful legal concept in many ways but here it becomes morally problematic.
I would assert that victims of genocide are people whose moral claims are being heinously violated, in a darkly ironical way, by a legal system of national rights which prevent the victims from ever having rights adhere to their moral claims.
No one outside your freshman philosophy course is interested in playing word games about the ontological status of rights and epistemological basis for belief in rights...
While it is incidentally fun to play with ideas and see where they lead, I don't think in the strict sense it can be considered a 'word game'. And I haven't been in a freshman philosophy course for a long time.
To answer your question, ascertaining (if possible) the ontological and epistemic qualities of things under discussion is helpful for figuring out what assumptions lie behind statements in common language, which tends to be frustratingly ambiguous about what precisely is being asserted. People talk about rights all the time, in various senses, but if there is no discussion about what a right is, or how we could identify one if we were to happen upon it, how can any conversation about them beyond that be more than accidentally productive?
Of course, it is also rarely productive to insult people who you have never met but for a short number of written paragraphs on screen, much less ascribe to them motivations about which you can have literally no knowledge.
Back to the argument for a second, you assert as many others do that victims of genocide have rights. I assert that they, being dead, can possess nothing, including rights. They may have had a moral claim that someone (perhaps even themselves) should have acted to invest them with rights, but the claim to deserve something is different altogether than the claim to possess something. If you wish to claim that they had 'rights' such as for example a 'right to not die violently', what precisely does that mean, if clearly the possession of those rights did not benefit them (since the hypothetical possession of that right did not prevent them from becoming dead violently)?
All metaphysics is at its base somewhat arrogant (because it requires the assertion of ungrounded assumptions) but its arrogance is directly proportional to the amount of ungroundedness that is present in its basic structure. So, asserting there are 'rights' which inhere to humans by being human, even when there is no evidence whatsoever of such an occasion's actual existence, goes beyond the simple arrogance of positing any metaphysic.
And I hope you are kidding that you believe there aren't many people who think that, for example the freedom of speech, isn't rooted in law instead of something deeper. That view is widespread in the West, certainly, but the West isn't the whole world, and many people out there would gladly challenge the presumption (and not just people in power, mind you).
Yes. Yes, it does. And before this degenerates into a 'yes it does, no it doesn't' slapfest, it might be best to analyze the underpinnings of the two sides.
The 'no' side is predicated upon the basic (and I believe ultimately erroneous) assumption that some rights are 'inherent'; that is, they literally inhere to (i.e. dwell within) certain classes of beings by virtue of those beings merely existing. This is the only way that one could argue that an unexerciseable right is still a right; it ontologically exists but is 'suppressed' in a manner of speaking by prevailing local conditions. It is certainly *possible* that this view is correct, but I think it problematic because it requires a large degree of epistemic faith, that is, that certain things exist of which we have absolutely no detectable evidence and yet are firmly believed must still exist. Such claims are always rooted in metaphysical arrogance and basically cash out as follows: "the world *must* work this way (despite lack of evidence that it does) because if it didn't, my word-view would collapse!" American society, and world-view, is predicated upon the inherency of certain rights, some of which are listed explicitly in black-and-white in the Declaration of Independence, and others are implied strongly in the Bill of Rights.
The 'yes' side posits the epistemologically more reasonable position that rights adhere to their subjects, and are created, maintained, divested, and destroyed by some agency independent of mere existence. That is, either the agent or some agency on behalf of the agent must use force (take action in any form) to guarantee that the 'right' adheres to the agent and has functional substance. Absent that force, the right dissipates. This seems much more in keeping with evidence observable through the course of human history.
Rights are only such if they can be cashed out into reality. Otherwise, they are just pretty words on paper. I agree with you on the very limited point that rights don't depend on just government, and so your statement "If your government doesn't protect your rights, it doesn't mean you don't still have them." is quite true. There are other means to project force to secure the practical adherence of a right beyond the reliance upon a government, and in fact it would be foolish in many cases to depend on the government to secure some of those rights. But, it does not then logically follow that, as you state, "everyone has rights". There are some people who do not use force and for whom no force is expended to adhere rights to them. Victims of genocide come to mind as the easiest example. They are deprived of rights; literally, they do not possess any.
The benefit I think is being talked about is of this sort: poor people go to public school and receive in return an education (benefit for their taxes). What does the wealthy person get from that same service? A ready-made, basically literate and numerate employee base or workforce. Way bigger benefit; after all educating an entire workforce is hideously expensive and a big time investment.
It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that public education is a major factor that permits employers and factor owners to make fortunes the size that they do. I don't see how rearranging society or changing policies would change this sort of thing across the board. Any social rearrangement radical enough to would eliminate this sort of benefit inequity would, I suspect, eliminate the existence of wealthy people. Hence, it is in fact by definition.
You know, it's people like you who convince people like him to raise kids that beat the crap out of geeks in high school gym class. You are perpetuating a vicious cycle, and the pain and anguish of literally thousands of socially awkward and perhaps painfully homely children are at your feet.
Attica! Attica! Attica!
So long as judges are following under the rubric of the law, which they are obligated to interpret, which of course includes Constitutional Law, they're acting properly. Sometimes judges do overreach; that's actual judicial activism. It's pretty fscking rare, and legislatures have remedies (like impeachment) if they overstep grossly. So, no, your 'it's a dictatorship!!!' line is ridiculous.
On marriage: the standard throughout most of the world right up until nearly present times was one man, many women. Little detail. And, if the purpose of marriage changes (as it has radically) the arguments for keeping it between men and women change. If it is just about keeping property in certain families, or pretecting inheritance (as it was for the vast majority of human history) then gay marriage makes little sense. If it is about romantic love and lifelong commitment to an individual, as it has become much, much more recently, then there is no earthly reason why gay people can't marry. The law and its interpretation needs to reflect modern reality.
You are absolutely right. The rights of minority groups should be under the dictates of majoritarian legislature...no, wait...that's just plain silly. Brown v. Board of Education was an important court case becuase, here's a shocker, no southern state on its precious own was going to integrate any time in the next century otherwise. And as history has often taught, in USA as well as elsewhere, the judicial decisions to protect the rights of minorities can and do feed into and bolster popular movemnets that eventually can move legislatures to act. I know it's messy and in a certain by-the-book sort of way, conceptually backwards, but governing humans was never supposed to be neat and easy.
"Legal Activism" means alot of things to alot of people, but for the most part recently it has just been a buzzword for "tell the judges to sit down and shut up." But they have an important role in protecting the rights of peopel that the majority happens to not care for.
BTW, "marriage" in its current form is not by any strecth of the imagination a 'thousands year old institution.' It's actually pretty new. For most of human history, marriages served very differnt functions than they do now, and they took very different forms.
You SCARE me. Seriously, I don't mean to flame or troll or whatever, but if you mean what you just said, then you are in many ways more dangerous than any screed-spewing pulpit-dweller could be, because curtailing the speech of zealots validates their speech in the eyes of the audience. How? If someone wants to supress it, there must be something substantial about it. Otherwise, why would the powers-that-be bother? People do actually think this way. And religions are particularly perverse about feeding off of oppression of their beliefs/practices/way-of-life. Sometimes I honestly think that if the early Christians hadn't been persecuted by the Romans, today they would be just another minor (if not irrelevant and/or extinct) Jewish-Roman mystery cult.
Besides, do you really believe so little in the idea that the best way to show a screed-spewer as an idiot is to let him open his mouth? Sure, he will have pull with some other idiots, but hey! They're, quite seriously, a lost cause anyway. I like the free marketplace of ideas. It brings me a regular torrent of entertaining (and occasionally educational and even enlightening) screed. And the bottom line is, if someone tells you to kill/maim/et cetera in the name of whatever, it is you and you alone who is responsible for whether you listen to the idiot and act on his words or not. You can't stop stupid people being stupid, and you can't stop stupid people from being dangerous to themselves and those around them. It's not a neat and perfect world, I'm afraid.
Yeah. Can you think of a reason free speech for corporations or Christians should be restricted?
Christians? That's easy. No. As an Atheist quite comfortable in my own beliefs I quite enjoy people such as Christians speaking their mind, as it is different from mine (and thus, you know, one of those ways I can expand it). If they use it to be mean, petty, or unenlightening, so be it; opportunity wasted. It is unfortunate that some people of faith believe people not of theistic faith shouldn't enjoy that same basic right to be able to speak our mind (thanks, George Bush. Ass.)
Corporations on the other hand, you bet your ass. This artificial person thing has gone waaaaaaaay too far. The innovation of creating a shell 'person' as a shield for limiting the liability of investors is important for the health of capitalism, to be sure, but we have totally forgotten that it really is a 'shell person'. Hollow. No conscience to be panged, no body to lock away if they hurt people, no soul, consciousness, or other characteristic that are the traditional reasons given for why we give actual humans the rights and responsibilities we generally in western society do.
To hell with the idea that corporations have a legitimate right to speech. Any particular member of any particular board of directors should feel free with their own mouth (and their own checkbook) to say whatever they wish. Being human, they have that intrinsic right. A corporation itself, not being human, should not.
He was exaggerating, but not by much. And then there are three-strike laws in some of the stupider states; if it's your third time getting caught smoking a joint, we may well be talking about decades.
You need to change your nick.
It's like if you walked into someone's house and started criticizing their furniture...(etc.)
...was a GOOD analogy.
The build up over many episodes to the simultaneous torture and fucking of Gaius Baltar...
You missed: ...while arguing systematic theology and theodicy with a robot (who looks just a tiny bit like Xena).
...and you are right. BSG wins.
I paid very close attention to the parent post. If he was trying to make the point you assign him, he didn't do a very good job, as it came off simply as a pedantic point about the names of continents and the countries they contain. Nevertheless, if that was the intended point, you will find little disagreement from me; obviously decisions one place affect people in others, and American decisions tend to have a disproportionate impact relative to many other countries due to its relative economic and military power, and so people from other countries have the right and the responsibility to be concerned about the decisions America makes.
Please don't be obtuse. The term 'American', used the world over refers specifically to citizens and residents of the United States. People don't refer to Mexicans, Canadians, Columbians, etc. as Americans, nor do those people refer to themselves that way either.
No, and you misinterpret me. I did not say that those democracies had the correct approach, but only that they were approaching the problem seriously, whereas America has basically given up. I think it an inappropriate use of the State's coercive power to mandate the exercise of the franchise. However, I think it entirely appropriate for the State to remove as many practical barriers to voting as is practically possible, by for instance making voting a task which does not conflict with labor.
IIRC, a citation backed up with a fine. Unlike the USA, many democratic republics take the whole 'duty to vote' thing seriously. The *least* we could do is make today a nat'l holiday...
A person should be allowed to do whatever he/she wishes, but must be held accountable for any resulting damage.
I'm nominally a Libertarian, and this extremity of thought still bothers me. Sometimes, after-the-fact consequences just don't cut it. Occasionally, regulations in a tiny collection of areas can save many lives, without the attendant loss of critical freedoms. I agree generally with the idea that we have drawn the standard of what ought to be regulated far too loosely, but there are still a few areas where regulation isn't exactly the devil's work. Does a person lose a critical freedom if they are prevented from owning or constructing nuclear/biological/chemical weapons? I'd say not. Criminalizing the taking of significant steps towards building such a device is a difficult line to walk, but you surely can't recoup any value of justice after-the-fact. I have very little problem deregulating medicine, but that thinking can't be applied to everything. Just most things. Reflexive ideology without reference to reality can be very destructive.