Ironically, it is the countries which have the least to be patriotic about, that are the most patriotic. Take North Koreans for example. They're starving, have a medical system right out of the dark ages, and are oppressed worse than any other people in the world. Yet they're downright fanatical about their patriotism, and treat Kim Jong Il like a God. THAT sort of patriotism gets your world wars. The American kind tends to stop them.
Hate speech has never been banned in the US. It may be banned in the REST of the world, but Americans still have that particular right. As to the rest....does being a melodramatic paranoid-delusional headcase give you a woody or something?
What an idiotic response. I listed a bunch of things that harm no one, that are clearly just the government restricting your behavior to make everyone the same.
You write a strawman left-field list of harmful activities that the government restricts as a rebuttal.
One of the AC's responded to you REALLY well, so I'll simply quote him:
They're only "straw men" in your mind, and because you don't like them. Had you bothered to look closely, you'd realize that his points are quite valid, albeit intentionally absurd. But they most certainly relate to your points, which are also valid, and only slightly less absurd.
Do I agree that banning pot is silly? Sure. Is it evidence that the US is a fascist dictatorship? Fuck no. You are arguing from absurdity - taken to it's logical conclusion, the only way that your complaints could be satisfied is by lifting ALL restrictions in our society. Otherwise there will always be some minority group somewhere, claiming to be oppressed because THEIR pet cause is currently illegal.
For instance, I'm sure that the members of NAMBLA would agree with your assessment, that the US "has never been a free country". Despite that, I somehow doubt that you'd be willing to go to bat for THEM.
Yeah, because things have gotten SO much worse since the 1940's, when all Japanese Americans were locked up for no real reason.
Or since the 1800's, when the sheriff was whoever had the biggest gun, and the law was whatever he said it was.
Or in the early 1700's, when the Brits owned and controlled everything, slavery was status quo, and a whole race of people was considered to be sub-human, and treated accordingly.
Yep, things have really gone downhill in the US. With this sort of track-record, who knows what could happen next!
Yeah, and why can the government tell me how old the people I marry have to be? And why can they tell me what animals I can own? What's wrong with having a tiger on a leash right beside a schoolyard? And I totally hear you on the substances thing. Storing highly radioactive material in your garage should SO be legal. And why should the government stop two consenting adults from murdering someone? What's wrong with a bit of mindless homicide every now and then?
Your point would be valid, except for the fact that status and economy are two very different things. During the cold war, the USSR had a high standing because they posed a serious threat to the only other superpower, and because they regularity exerted their influence on other nations. Meanwhile their economy was going down the tubes, but nobody was aware of this. "Status" is more about peoples perceptions, and the appearance of power, than it is about anything tangible like money or resources.
Also, keep in mind that Russia has the world's fastest declining population. If they continue at this rate, in a couple decades they'll be pretty irrelevant.
What if an IT department didn't have women's bathrooms, because it was designed back when only men held IT jobs. So the job "requires" women to go to a different building to use the bathroom. If a women quits because she finds that annoying, it is literally correct to say that she isn't willing to accept the conditions of the job. But obviously no one would defend that situation.
"no one", eh? Well, I'll give it a shot. Right now I'm living in a dormitory. This building is entirely male, and no females are allowed by regulations. The adjacent building has a floor where the females are housed, and no males are allowed. Yet there are constantly women showering in my building (after certain..."acrobatic" activities), and no males complaining, while if I were to take a shower in the female building, I'd shortly be housed in a holding cell. Not because ALL of the females would be offended, but because one or two would.
So...if all men are more than happy to share a bathroom, while some women are not, then those women are imposing an unnecessary burden on the employers. Why should they have a "right to employment"? They're inconveniencing everyone else by demanding separate facilities. How is this any different than, say, Muslim women demanding separate swimming pools and gyms? Maybe I should start my own religion that demands I have a washroom separate from anyone else. Then I could sue all future employers for offending my delicate sensibilities.
That is incorrect. Like the instance in Venezuela, many US cities like Chicago and New York have set up surveillance cameras run by the police of that city.
I'm thinking you missed the word "most" in my last post. I'm quite aware that there are some cameras which belong to government agencies, however, as long as I'm aware, they're few and far between. Feel free to provide the actual numbers if I'm wrong.
The feds have implemented widespread, automated, warrant-less snooping of domestic communications targeting both US citizens suspected by them of some unnamed offense.
Really? I wasn't aware of this, and I can't seem to find any info on it. As far as I can tell, the most recent uproar was entirely centred on overseas calls. Could you provide me with a reference to your source please?
We've had two presidents now, in a row from the same family
Buch and Clinton are related? Wow. I deffinitely didn't know that!
There is no need for conspiracy theories.
There never is, yet they seem to keep popping up every time a major event takes place. On the other hand, there's no need for alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs either, yet people keep buying all three.
As far as I'm aware, most of the "video cameras placed in urban areas" are privately owned and in no way linked to the government. And the "automated telecom snooping" is used only for calls to or from other countries, right?
I just find it interesting that people are so eager to blow out of proportion any surveillance program in a free, progressive nation like the US, while downplaying much worse measures in Venezuela - a country which shows every sign of descending into a Cuba-like dictatorship. Ofcourse, this is, ironically enough, probably a product of the advanced nature of US surveillance. When people aren't able to clearly see the governments attempts to control and observe them, they retreat into their own little fantasy world of conspiracy theories and black helicopters. It's quite possible that if the US were more public about it's programs, it would actually receive less criticism.
And yes, the most interesting thing for me too was the combination of surveillance and crude propaganda. Definitely reminiscent of "1984".
Did you actually READ that article? The blimp was in the air for 24 hours as part of a military experiment. You're not seriously equating that to what the Venezuelan government is doing, are you?
You might be able to make that claim about Chavezes initial election. Maybe. But measures such as this one pretty much guarantee that there won't be another free election in Venezuela.
The people in Africa living with HIV/AIDS certainly aren't as important as diabetes patients in first-world nations. Sorry to be callous, but the fact of the matter is that NOT every life is equal. We have a finite amount of materials, energy, processing ability, and time. That means that we need to prioritize our research projects. If it comes down to trying to save a bunch of people who are a drain on our resources, versus rescuing people who contribute to our ability to continue further research, the decision is a no-brainer. Call me back when those poor bastards in Africa are able to contribute to HIV research instead of just sucking up foreign-aid money.
Now, since HIV is also a problem in western nations, we SHOULD be looking into ways of fighting it. However, the primary focus should be on prevention, and funding for other more easily curable diseases should take priority over HIV research. Your point about the expense is actually an argument AGAINST the viewpoint that you're trying to push. If HIV research is so expensive, we may as well throw the money into funding the battle against other diseases, and save a greater number of lives.
Hello 25B. 031 here. If you don't want your "gadetry", I'll take it off your hands any day.
No offence, but if I want an opinion on combat tactics and equipment, I don't go asking network administrators. I'd come to you if my e-mail wasn't working, but otherwise....
That's rather like arguing that cops can't stop criminals because they're weighted down with an equipment belt and body-armour. Nonsense. The insurgents maintain a mobility advantage because they're more familiar with the terrain, THEY chose where the engagements happen, and they have the "first-strike" advantage. It's like you picking the perfect spot for someone to walk by, then clobbering him with a baseball bat and running away. It doesn't really matter how fast the guy is, now does it?
Buddy, without all this "heavy, unhelpful equiment", you'd have had 30,000 casualties in Iraq instead of 3,000. Maybe the lives of US soldiers don't mean anything to you, but they do to us. And no - since I know what your excuse is going to be - your "unjust war" rhetoric doesn't prove that you care about the soldiers, it only shows that you're living in a fantasy world.
Nonsense. We DO have a reliable rifle and body armour - better than any army in history. Do you have ANY idea how much more effective a basic rifleman is when you give him a bore-aiming ability? Ask anyone pinned down in a firefight, and they'll gladly give you their right nut for the ability to aim around corners. And don't even get me started on the advantages of accurate IFF devices, encrypted communications, and easy navigation. We've been looking forward to this technology for a LONG time.
Ironic and probably surprising to some that it was the Left (generally positioned as the side most concerned with Free Speech issues) who issued this particular politi-fatwa.
Not surprising at all, since "the left" is responsible for most of the speech repression in our society, as well as for the vast majority of university speech codes. The theory goes something like this: you're free to say anything you want as long as it's supportive of overthrowing the Bush administration, or wiping Israel off the map. If you fail to support those two causes, you're a neoconbushitlernazi and must be silenced ASAP.
Just look at the controversy you're talking about. Minority groups and traditionally "liberal" organizations were asking for this guy's head on a pole, while conservatives like Michelle Malkin were defending him. And Don Imus is a liberal!! This isn't a case of partisan politics, but it should be a clear indication of which political ideology is more supportive of free speech.
Yeah, I agree. Foot pursuits too. God forbid someone slip and fall. Or imagine if the pursuing cop knocked over an old lady and her walker! The Horror! We should certainly stop all pursuits. And take away their guns - that'd stop all those accidental shootings. I say we zap-strap their feet together, cover their hands with oven-mitts, and gag-them so they can't offend anyone. That should stop all of our problems!
Slashdot Mirror
Korea. Or, if you don't like that example, WW2.
Ironically, it is the countries which have the least to be patriotic about, that are the most patriotic. Take North Koreans for example. They're starving, have a medical system right out of the dark ages, and are oppressed worse than any other people in the world. Yet they're downright fanatical about their patriotism, and treat Kim Jong Il like a God. THAT sort of patriotism gets your world wars. The American kind tends to stop them.
That's so ignorant, it's downright funny. I can't think of a single country in the world which hates itself as much as America seems to hate itself.
Hate speech has never been banned in the US. It may be banned in the REST of the world, but Americans still have that particular right. As to the rest....does being a melodramatic paranoid-delusional headcase give you a woody or something?
I can pretty much guarantee that the F-22 could splash every single plane, and then bomb the Kremlin for desert :)
Yes, he also said "in the NEXT 50 years". Your inability to read is not my fault.
They're only "straw men" in your mind, and because you don't like them. Had you bothered to look closely, you'd realize that his points are quite valid, albeit intentionally absurd. But they most certainly relate to your points, which are also valid, and only slightly less absurd.
Do I agree that banning pot is silly? Sure. Is it evidence that the US is a fascist dictatorship? Fuck no. You are arguing from absurdity - taken to it's logical conclusion, the only way that your complaints could be satisfied is by lifting ALL restrictions in our society. Otherwise there will always be some minority group somewhere, claiming to be oppressed because THEIR pet cause is currently illegal.
For instance, I'm sure that the members of NAMBLA would agree with your assessment, that the US "has never been a free country". Despite that, I somehow doubt that you'd be willing to go to bat for THEM.
Yeah, because things have gotten SO much worse since the 1940's, when all Japanese Americans were locked up for no real reason.
Or since the 1800's, when the sheriff was whoever had the biggest gun, and the law was whatever he said it was.
Or in the early 1700's, when the Brits owned and controlled everything, slavery was status quo, and a whole race of people was considered to be sub-human, and treated accordingly.
Yep, things have really gone downhill in the US. With this sort of track-record, who knows what could happen next!
Yeah, and why can the government tell me how old the people I marry have to be?
And why can they tell me what animals I can own? What's wrong with having a tiger on a leash right beside a schoolyard?
And I totally hear you on the substances thing. Storing highly radioactive material in your garage should SO be legal.
And why should the government stop two consenting adults from murdering someone? What's wrong with a bit of mindless homicide every now and then?
Sheesh. What tyrants they are.
You're thinking of Germany. In the US, Scientology texts are perfectly legal.
Your point would be valid, except for the fact that status and economy are two very different things. During the cold war, the USSR had a high standing because they posed a serious threat to the only other superpower, and because they regularity exerted their influence on other nations. Meanwhile their economy was going down the tubes, but nobody was aware of this. "Status" is more about peoples perceptions, and the appearance of power, than it is about anything tangible like money or resources.
Also, keep in mind that Russia has the world's fastest declining population. If they continue at this rate, in a couple decades they'll be pretty irrelevant.
So...if all men are more than happy to share a bathroom, while some women are not, then those women are imposing an unnecessary burden on the employers. Why should they have a "right to employment"? They're inconveniencing everyone else by demanding separate facilities. How is this any different than, say, Muslim women demanding separate swimming pools and gyms? Maybe I should start my own religion that demands I have a washroom separate from anyone else. Then I could sue all future employers for offending my delicate sensibilities.
Really? I wasn't aware of this, and I can't seem to find any info on it. As far as I can tell, the most recent uproar was entirely centred on overseas calls. Could you provide me with a reference to your source please?
Buch and Clinton are related? Wow. I deffinitely didn't know that!
There never is, yet they seem to keep popping up every time a major event takes place. On the other hand, there's no need for alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs either, yet people keep buying all three.
As far as I'm aware, most of the "video cameras placed in urban areas" are privately owned and in no way linked to the government. And the "automated telecom snooping" is used only for calls to or from other countries, right?
I just find it interesting that people are so eager to blow out of proportion any surveillance program in a free, progressive nation like the US, while downplaying much worse measures in Venezuela - a country which shows every sign of descending into a Cuba-like dictatorship. Ofcourse, this is, ironically enough, probably a product of the advanced nature of US surveillance. When people aren't able to clearly see the governments attempts to control and observe them, they retreat into their own little fantasy world of conspiracy theories and black helicopters. It's quite possible that if the US were more public about it's programs, it would actually receive less criticism.
And yes, the most interesting thing for me too was the combination of surveillance and crude propaganda. Definitely reminiscent of "1984".
Did you actually READ that article? The blimp was in the air for 24 hours as part of a military experiment. You're not seriously equating that to what the Venezuelan government is doing, are you?
You might be able to make that claim about Chavezes initial election. Maybe. But measures such as this one pretty much guarantee that there won't be another free election in Venezuela.
The people in Africa living with HIV/AIDS certainly aren't as important as diabetes patients in first-world nations. Sorry to be callous, but the fact of the matter is that NOT every life is equal. We have a finite amount of materials, energy, processing ability, and time. That means that we need to prioritize our research projects. If it comes down to trying to save a bunch of people who are a drain on our resources, versus rescuing people who contribute to our ability to continue further research, the decision is a no-brainer. Call me back when those poor bastards in Africa are able to contribute to HIV research instead of just sucking up foreign-aid money.
Now, since HIV is also a problem in western nations, we SHOULD be looking into ways of fighting it. However, the primary focus should be on prevention, and funding for other more easily curable diseases should take priority over HIV research. Your point about the expense is actually an argument AGAINST the viewpoint that you're trying to push. If HIV research is so expensive, we may as well throw the money into funding the battle against other diseases, and save a greater number of lives.
Hello 25B. 031 here. If you don't want your "gadetry", I'll take it off your hands any day.
No offence, but if I want an opinion on combat tactics and equipment, I don't go asking network administrators. I'd come to you if my e-mail wasn't working, but otherwise....
That's rather like arguing that cops can't stop criminals because they're weighted down with an equipment belt and body-armour. Nonsense. The insurgents maintain a mobility advantage because they're more familiar with the terrain, THEY chose where the engagements happen, and they have the "first-strike" advantage. It's like you picking the perfect spot for someone to walk by, then clobbering him with a baseball bat and running away. It doesn't really matter how fast the guy is, now does it?
Buddy, without all this "heavy, unhelpful equiment", you'd have had 30,000 casualties in Iraq instead of 3,000. Maybe the lives of US soldiers don't mean anything to you, but they do to us. And no - since I know what your excuse is going to be - your "unjust war" rhetoric doesn't prove that you care about the soldiers, it only shows that you're living in a fantasy world.
It might be a problem in a total-war battle against a competent enemy, but it's not really an issue under current combat conditions.
You're an asshole, but I couldn't help laughing :)
Nonsense. We DO have a reliable rifle and body armour - better than any army in history. Do you have ANY idea how much more effective a basic rifleman is when you give him a bore-aiming ability? Ask anyone pinned down in a firefight, and they'll gladly give you their right nut for the ability to aim around corners. And don't even get me started on the advantages of accurate IFF devices, encrypted communications, and easy navigation. We've been looking forward to this technology for a LONG time.
Just look at the controversy you're talking about. Minority groups and traditionally "liberal" organizations were asking for this guy's head on a pole, while conservatives like Michelle Malkin were defending him. And Don Imus is a liberal!! This isn't a case of partisan politics, but it should be a clear indication of which political ideology is more supportive of free speech.
Yeah, I agree. Foot pursuits too. God forbid someone slip and fall. Or imagine if the pursuing cop knocked over an old lady and her walker! The Horror! We should certainly stop all pursuits. And take away their guns - that'd stop all those accidental shootings. I say we zap-strap their feet together, cover their hands with oven-mitts, and gag-them so they can't offend anyone. That should stop all of our problems!