I suspect the counterargument to that would be something like:
"The criteria used to determine whether or not someone is a threat to our national security are sensitive information, because if those criteria were publicly known, the people who are classified as threats would realize it, and would be able to avoid placing themselves at risk of capture."
There are counters to that argument as well, of course - I can think of at least three possible angles to take, just off the top of my head. But it is sufficiently plausible to at least make as an argument against releasing the information.
One one hand, if you resist, you give the officers cause to use force. But if you DON'T resist when they take it too far, you end up dead.
This is why, as I said here a while ago, I think there's room to argue for the right of anyone to resist any arrest - whether lawful or otherwise.
I understand why the law classifies "resisting arrest" and the like as crimes. That classification has negative (and hopefully unintended) consequences, however, and I'm not sure those costs don't outweigh the benefits.
Re: Re: seems like a stupid argument to start from
You weren't around on the pre-mass-commercialization Internet, were you?
There was plenty of stuff then, albeit of rather different type from what there is now; if all the mass-commercialization sites went away, that could and likely would return, and there have been enough developments in user-generated content that there would likely be quite a bit beyond just "the old stuff" as well.
What I'm worried about is the possibility that they will vote down fast-track authority, garnering good publicity in the process, and then turn around and approve the TPP unchanged anyway when it's put before them...
I think it's entirely plausible that Mr. Sanders would extend this same definition of spying to cover the general public as well. It's simply that he's presently asking a very specific question (and using that question to provide the definition), chosen for its level of potential to outrage Congress into a response, and that specific question is not about the general public.
Of course they're running neck and neck with the EU and Swiss on quantum computers - and on everything else the EU and Swiss research labs are working on.
After all, the US is getting all their research data by tapping the computers of those EU and Swiss labs. As soon as either one gets a breakthrough, the US will own it five minutes later.
The first thing this reminds me of is the Great Library from the Civilization games...
The reason I "pirate" things (or more like used to - I rarely care enough to bother anymore) is entirely, 100%, about convenience.
The original Napster was more convenient than buying CDs, and being free was only part of that.
Having to pay for something is inherently inconvenient; there's no way around that. Having to watch (or, for banner-type ads, load) ads is also inherently inconvenient. But one inconvenience can be offset by another convenience, or by a sufficient value-add in another form (though the definition of "sufficient" is a bit of a sticky question).
I would be glad to pay for something rather than get it for free, if the for-pay option provides the best convenience - or, at bare minimum, is not worse than the free options. But that is rarely, if ever, the case.
(I'm at a bit of a disadvantage there in that I strongly dislike streaming video, to the point where I will accept considerable inconvenience to avoid it - and I even more strongly dislike DRM, or other attempts to seize control over what I can do, and will accept even more inconvenience in order to avoid that. But there are many people who do not feel the same way, but for whom convenience is still the key factor.)
The problem with that is in many cases there are no alternatives. If you do that, you end up making sure more patients don't get access to the drug (you suddenly restrict brand) and more people suffer. It's no longer hurting just the people who can't afford/get brand medication - you're hurting the people who were on brand prior to this mess.
If the generic version is exactly equivalent (which I believe is the idea), then how is that a problem? The people who were on the more expensive form can just switch to the cheaper generic, and proceed without issues.
Actually, no. It's something they *can* change, but that is exactly the sort of scenario I had in mind for something the group could not be *expected to* change.
"Personally, I think that photographer Elaine Huguenin is on the wrong side of history with her views on gay marriage."
What, was practically every society that's ever existed likewise been on "the wrong side of history" for not having gay marriage? Again, you make it sound as though we've always lived in a world where same-sex marriages were standard practice. C'mon now.
No; it's more like, in the future same-sex marriage will be near-universally accepted, and all those societies which did not accept it will be in the past - and those who still do not accept it will also be in the past.
I.e., the "right side of history" is the place where things will be in the future, and the "wrong side of history" is the place things were in the past.
"The government absolutely should be required to treat everyone equally and not discriminate on the basis of who they're attracted to."
There's the emotional ploy again. What if someone's attracted to their relative (incest), more than one person (polygamy), an animal (bestiality), children (pedophilia), an object of some sort, or a corpse (necrophilia)? Anything goes, just so long as it's love?
This ties in to the question of what marriage really is, conceptually. I've got a discussion on that ready to fire off at any point, which I think could be quite enlightening, but not all of that discussion is required here.
The first critical component here is that marriage is required to be between *people*.
The second critical component is that marriage is required to be *mutual*, i.e., entered into by all of the parties getting married.
Under those criteria, taking your suggestions one by one:
* Assuming no coercion (or, possibly, other inappropriate power dynamics), and assuming that appropriate precautions to prevent problems with offspring from such a close relationship (whether by simply ensuring no offspring at all, or applying advanced techniques to guarantee genetic viability, or something else), there would indeed be nothing wrong with incestuous marriage as long as both parties enter into it knowingly and willingly.
* As long as all parties enter into it knowingly and willingly, there would likewise be nothing wrong with polygamous marriage - although defining the legal-contracts side of it would be significantly more complicated than the two-persons default we already have. (This ties in, again, to the question of what marriage actually is.)
* An animal is unlikely to be considered a "person" under the law, and so would not be qualified to enter into a marriage. If one were, however - perhaps in some hypothetical sci-fi future where we have talking dogs or some such - then assuming no coercion, et al., there would be nothing wrong with that either.
* The question of coercion and power dynamics is far more touchy in the case of children, and it is far less likely that a child would actually know what he or she is getting into. As such, the law would not recognize the authority of a child to commit to such an arrangement. (It's not really entirely clear whether a child is a legal "person", per se. The law isn't entirely consistent, as a practical matter.) However, if the law did so recognize some child, and coercion et al. were resolved as not a problem in that particular case, and both sides (including the child) did enter knowingly and willingly into the arrangement, then there would be nothing wrong with that either. This is, however, an extremely unlikely scenario.
* "An object of some sort" would not be "a person", and so would not be qualified to enter into a marriage. This would therefore not be allowed. (Unless the object is, e.g., a fully sentient AI and whatever chassis houses it, which is not likely any time in the directly foreseeable future.)
* A corpse would probably not be considered a "person" either, and it would almost certainly not be possible to confirm that the corpse was choosing to enter into the marriage; as such, the marriage would not be allowed. It's possible to conceive of a scenario where those objections could be addressed (e.g. a Last Will and Testament expressing the intent and desire to marry, and a willingness to go through with it on the part of the other person), and in that case, I don't see why it should be disallowed there either - although in practice it would probably only be for legal reasons (inheritances and custody rights and so forth), not for sexual ones.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
Someone speaks out in favor of same-sex marriage: applauded by the mainstream media, politicians, gay activists, called brave and heroic (how, I don't know), etc.
Someone speaks out in favor of traditional marriage: demonized by the mainstream media as hate-filled bigots, homophobes, someone inevitably demands a public apology, calls for him/her to lose their job.
Yeah, that's real nice. And these are the same people who have the nerve to preach tolerance?
I think there's something missing here.
You describe two scenarios, and reactions to them. Those scenarios are:
1. Someone speaks out in favor of same-sex marriage. 2. Someone speaks out in favor of traditional marriage.
I think there are at least two other scenarios which need to be considered:
3. Someone speaks out against same-sex marriage. 4. Someone speaks out against traditional marriage.
There are terms here which have not been defined: "same-sex marriage", "traditional marriage", "in favor of", "against". In an attempt to reduce ambiguity far enough to understand this, I will attempt to define them, as follows:
A. "Same-sex marriage" means "men marrying men, and/or women marrying women".
B. "Traditional marriage" means "men marrying women, and/or women marrying men".
C. Speaking "in favor of" a thing means saying that that thing should be allowed.
D. Speaking "against" a thing means saying that that thing should not be allowed.
Given those definitions, the scenarios become:
I. Someone speaks out saying that men should be allowed to marry men, and women should be allowed to marry women.
II. Someone speaks out saying that men should be allowed to marry women, and women should be allowed to marry men.
III. Someone speaks out saying that men should not be allowed to marry men, and women should not be allowed to marry women.
IV. Someone speaks out saying that men should not be allowed to marry women, and women should not be allowed to marry men.
You assert that scenarios 1 and 2 happen, and get certain reactions.
I have seen scenario I, and have seen it get something like the reaction you described.
I have also seen scenario III, and I have seen it get something like the reaction you described for scenario 2.
I do not think that I have ever seen either scenario II or scenario IV.
Do you even know what a homophobe is? Have you ever seen even one person who had an unreasonable fear or any fear of a gay person?
This is one of a constellation of similar terms; one of the others is "xenophobia".
The underlying idea is that all hatred, anger, et cetera, is inherently rooted in fear.
Whether or not that's accurate, the word has come to refer to an attitude of active antipathy towards homosexuals and/or homosexuality, and - at least in common discourse - no longer has anything directly to do with fear, regardless of what its roots may mean.
The counter to that argument is that if offering the service involves (what would be constitutionally protected) speech, then any law forbidding discrimination in the offering of that service would be a law "restricting the freedom of speech", and would therefore be in violation of the First Amendment - meaning it would be unconstitutional, and should be struck down. (And probably disobeyed in the meantime.)
In that sense, this isn't a challenge to the inclusion of gays in the "may not discriminate against" category, but to the application of that category to services which involve acts classified as speech.
I'm not sure there's any clean, no-compromises solution to this; at least one side is going to end up being dissatisfied, no matter how you analyze it. The best we can really hope for is that whatever no-one-is-satisfied compromise solution we end up with is not worse, overall, than what we started out with.
I would expect "played in public" to cover songs played in concert but never released as recordings, and "communicated to the public" to cover things aired over the radio but never performed in concert or released as recordings.
It might, but I'd think it would also probably be a good way to guarantee that either he'd get kicked off the case, or his decision would be overturned on appeal, for the appearance of bias.
Once the Supreme Court has spoken, that might be another story, but it's far from certain he'd agree even then - and we might not be as interested in him, specifically, by that point.
A modem is a "modulator/demodulator" device, for converting between analog and digital signals, yes. But the analog side doesn't have to be "audio tones".
The coaxial cable used by cable TV, and by a cable modem, carries analog signals. The cable modem serves to mediate between that and digital equipment.
A cable modem often also does other things, including act as a network bridge, and very often a router; the one in our house, like many, includes a built-in minor Web server to provide an admin interface. But a cable modem doesn't have to do any of those other things (except possibly the network-bridge part), and it certainly does serve as a modem as well.
I've never heard of James Holmes,but assuming he did what you say, that would be an example of - as I cited - one of the potential problems with the idea.
Note also that I said "there's room to argue for the right of anyone to resist any arrest". That does not mean my mind is settled on the question.
On the post: Copyright Week: If We Want To Get Copyright Right, It's Time To Go Back To Basics
Re: Re: Re: BUT we already have a working copyright system!
Which, if accepted, would mean that copyright as it is presently constituted is not a manifestation of that inherent right...
On the post: Court Rules That Woman Wrongfully Placed On No Fly List Should Be Taken Off The List... We Think
Re:
"The criteria used to determine whether or not someone is a threat to our national security are sensitive information, because if those criteria were publicly known, the people who are classified as threats would realize it, and would be able to avoid placing themselves at risk of capture."
There are counters to that argument as well, of course - I can think of at least three possible angles to take, just off the top of my head. But it is sufficiently plausible to at least make as an argument against releasing the information.
On the post: Jury Finds Two Officers Charged In Beating Death Of Homeless Man Not Guilty
Re: Re: Thats why
This is why, as I said here a while ago, I think there's room to argue for the right of anyone to resist any arrest - whether lawful or otherwise.
I understand why the law classifies "resisting arrest" and the like as crimes. That classification has negative (and hopefully unintended) consequences, however, and I'm not sure those costs don't outweigh the benefits.
On the post: Hollywood Needs The Internet More Than The Internet Needs Hollywood... So Why Is The W3C Pretending Otherwise?
Re: Re: seems like a stupid argument to start from
There was plenty of stuff then, albeit of rather different type from what there is now; if all the mass-commercialization sites went away, that could and likely would return, and there have been enough developments in user-generated content that there would likely be quite a bit beyond just "the old stuff" as well.
On the post: Many In Congress Opposed To Fast Track Authority: An Obsolete Concept For An Obsolete Trade Negotiation
Re: A good first step but...
On the post: Senator Bernie Sanders Asks The NSA If It's Spying On Congress
Re:
On the post: NSA Trying To Build A Quantum Computer To Crack Lots Of Encryption, But Not Having Much Luck Yet
Re: Neck and neck.....
The first thing this reminds me of is the Great Library from the Civilization games...
On the post: Oh Look, Hollywood Had Yet Another Record Year At The Box Office
Re: Re: Compete With Free
The reason I "pirate" things (or more like used to - I rarely care enough to bother anymore) is entirely, 100%, about convenience.
The original Napster was more convenient than buying CDs, and being free was only part of that.
Having to pay for something is inherently inconvenient; there's no way around that. Having to watch (or, for banner-type ads, load) ads is also inherently inconvenient. But one inconvenience can be offset by another convenience, or by a sufficient value-add in another form (though the definition of "sufficient" is a bit of a sticky question).
I would be glad to pay for something rather than get it for free, if the for-pay option provides the best convenience - or, at bare minimum, is not worse than the free options. But that is rarely, if ever, the case.
(I'm at a bit of a disadvantage there in that I strongly dislike streaming video, to the point where I will accept considerable inconvenience to avoid it - and I even more strongly dislike DRM, or other attempts to seize control over what I can do, and will accept even more inconvenience in order to avoid that. But there are many people who do not feel the same way, but for whom convenience is still the key factor.)
On the post: Two Pharma Companies Fined Over 'Pay For Delay'; Novartis Unrepentant About Suffering Caused
Re: Re: Re:
If the generic version is exactly equivalent (which I believe is the idea), then how is that a problem? The people who were on the more expensive form can just switch to the cheaper generic, and proceed without issues.
On the post: European Commissioner Claims 'Nothing Secret' About TAFTA/TTIP, Tries To Defend Corporate Sovereignty
Re: Re: sometimes...
That's worth playing through for its political/economic commentary, by the way, even at this fairly distant remove.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is complicated...
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: In response to Mike Masnick
No; it's more like, in the future same-sex marriage will be near-universally accepted, and all those societies which did not accept it will be in the past - and those who still do not accept it will also be in the past.
I.e., the "right side of history" is the place where things will be in the future, and the "wrong side of history" is the place things were in the past.
This ties in to the question of what marriage really is, conceptually. I've got a discussion on that ready to fire off at any point, which I think could be quite enlightening, but not all of that discussion is required here.
The first critical component here is that marriage is required to be between *people*.
The second critical component is that marriage is required to be *mutual*, i.e., entered into by all of the parties getting married.
Under those criteria, taking your suggestions one by one:
* Assuming no coercion (or, possibly, other inappropriate power dynamics), and assuming that appropriate precautions to prevent problems with offspring from such a close relationship (whether by simply ensuring no offspring at all, or applying advanced techniques to guarantee genetic viability, or something else), there would indeed be nothing wrong with incestuous marriage as long as both parties enter into it knowingly and willingly.
* As long as all parties enter into it knowingly and willingly, there would likewise be nothing wrong with polygamous marriage - although defining the legal-contracts side of it would be significantly more complicated than the two-persons default we already have. (This ties in, again, to the question of what marriage actually is.)
* An animal is unlikely to be considered a "person" under the law, and so would not be qualified to enter into a marriage. If one were, however - perhaps in some hypothetical sci-fi future where we have talking dogs or some such - then assuming no coercion, et al., there would be nothing wrong with that either.
* The question of coercion and power dynamics is far more touchy in the case of children, and it is far less likely that a child would actually know what he or she is getting into. As such, the law would not recognize the authority of a child to commit to such an arrangement. (It's not really entirely clear whether a child is a legal "person", per se. The law isn't entirely consistent, as a practical matter.) However, if the law did so recognize some child, and coercion et al. were resolved as not a problem in that particular case, and both sides (including the child) did enter knowingly and willingly into the arrangement, then there would be nothing wrong with that either. This is, however, an extremely unlikely scenario.
* "An object of some sort" would not be "a person", and so would not be qualified to enter into a marriage. This would therefore not be allowed. (Unless the object is, e.g., a fully sentient AI and whatever chassis houses it, which is not likely any time in the directly foreseeable future.)
* A corpse would probably not be considered a "person" either, and it would almost certainly not be possible to confirm that the corpse was choosing to enter into the marriage; as such, the marriage would not be allowed. It's possible to conceive of a scenario where those objections could be addressed (e.g. a Last Will and Testament expressing the intent and desire to marry, and a willingness to go through with it on the part of the other person), and in that case, I don't see why it should be disallowed there either - although in practice it would probably only be for legal reasons (inheritances and custody rights and so forth), not for sexual ones.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
I think there's something missing here.
You describe two scenarios, and reactions to them. Those scenarios are:
1. Someone speaks out in favor of same-sex marriage.
2. Someone speaks out in favor of traditional marriage.
I think there are at least two other scenarios which need to be considered:
3. Someone speaks out against same-sex marriage.
4. Someone speaks out against traditional marriage.
There are terms here which have not been defined: "same-sex marriage", "traditional marriage", "in favor of", "against". In an attempt to reduce ambiguity far enough to understand this, I will attempt to define them, as follows:
A. "Same-sex marriage" means "men marrying men, and/or women marrying women".
B. "Traditional marriage" means "men marrying women, and/or women marrying men".
C. Speaking "in favor of" a thing means saying that that thing should be allowed.
D. Speaking "against" a thing means saying that that thing should not be allowed.
Given those definitions, the scenarios become:
I. Someone speaks out saying that men should be allowed to marry men, and women should be allowed to marry women.
II. Someone speaks out saying that men should be allowed to marry women, and women should be allowed to marry men.
III. Someone speaks out saying that men should not be allowed to marry men, and women should not be allowed to marry women.
IV. Someone speaks out saying that men should not be allowed to marry women, and women should not be allowed to marry men.
You assert that scenarios 1 and 2 happen, and get certain reactions.
I have seen scenario I, and have seen it get something like the reaction you described.
I have also seen scenario III, and I have seen it get something like the reaction you described for scenario 2.
I do not think that I have ever seen either scenario II or scenario IV.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re:
This is one of a constellation of similar terms; one of the others is "xenophobia".
The underlying idea is that all hatred, anger, et cetera, is inherently rooted in fear.
Whether or not that's accurate, the word has come to refer to an attitude of active antipathy towards homosexuals and/or homosexuality, and - at least in common discourse - no longer has anything directly to do with fear, regardless of what its roots may mean.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re:
In that sense, this isn't a challenge to the inclusion of gays in the "may not discriminate against" category, but to the application of that category to services which involve acts classified as speech.
I'm not sure there's any clean, no-compromises solution to this; at least one side is going to end up being dissatisfied, no matter how you analyze it. The best we can really hope for is that whatever no-one-is-satisfied compromise solution we end up with is not worse, overall, than what we started out with.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: It is complicated...
On the post: 59 Bootleg Beatles Tracks Released Officially -- For All The Wrong Reasons
Re: Re: Not an extra 20 years...
On the post: Judge Says NSA Bulk Metadata Collection Likely Unconstitutional, Issues Injunction
Re: Re:
Once the Supreme Court has spoken, that might be another story, but it's far from certain he'd agree even then - and we might not be as interested in him, specifically, by that point.
On the post: Disappointing: Google Releases... Then Removes Great Privacy Feature From Android
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A modem is a "modulator/demodulator" device, for converting between analog and digital signals, yes. But the analog side doesn't have to be "audio tones".
The coaxial cable used by cable TV, and by a cable modem, carries analog signals. The cable modem serves to mediate between that and digital equipment.
A cable modem often also does other things, including act as a network bridge, and very often a router; the one in our house, like many, includes a built-in minor Web server to provide an admin interface. But a cable modem doesn't have to do any of those other things (except possibly the network-bridge part), and it certainly does serve as a modem as well.
On the post: Canadian Cop Puts On An Impromptu Clinic On How To Deal With Critics And Cameras
Re: Re: Re:
Note also that I said "there's room to argue for the right of anyone to resist any arrest". That does not mean my mind is settled on the question.
Next >>