Re: Re: Re: Re: A headline like that makes me wonder if you have
Good luck with that; atheism is the philosophical new kid on the block. Replacing belief in a moral system predicated on religious notions of morality with philosophies based on "rational self-interest" aren't working very well so far, are they?
Note that I'm not name-calling over this; you're entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.
Re: Re: A headline like that makes me wonder if you have any
Because if there's one thing that's going to guarantee that your kid is a maladjusted simpleton it's religion. And that's conservatives pushing for that garbage because they know they're on a decline, and convincing adults to believe in santa claus is far more complicated than indoctrinating children.
Re: A headline like that makes me wonder if you have any
Sure "we" have. But YOU loony liberals want to teach them notions that guarantee conflicts and failures, while "we" conservatives know that children are little savages who quite often need beaten into submission so that don't violate the rights of Others. That's civilizing.
Beating kids into submission makes them pretend to behave while around the beat-y people and go nuts when the beat-y people aren't around. It also teaches them to follow authority figures without question, even if these figures lead them down the wrong path.
It's better to teach kids to understand why some behaviours are harmful to themselves and to others and to impose consequences on such behaviours than to hit them "just because."
I was smacked as a child and had pocket money docked and was grounded as a teen and like to think I turned out okay.
^This. I was taught to think for myself and to question everything from an early age. I was also taught the moral principles that underline my thinking process. As a result, when I left my native Ireland to live in the UK, I came with my own convictions and a set of values that has kept me out of trouble for nigh on 50 years.
I believe in liberal democracy and traditional Judeo-Christian values. I don't like cruelty and am communitarian at heart. Basically, all the values I grew up with in our small farming community.
There are some people on the Right in the States who would agree with you, Rick Wilson and David French being two of them. While I often disagree with French (whose views on healthcare and abortion are horrible, to say the least), both are vocal about it being wrong to mistreat the migrants and refugees who come over the border and would have them treated more humanely.
Because it's easier to cause trouble than to solve problems. Antifa is not a serious organisation (mostly because they're not organised and unified due to their being anarchists). So basically all they ever do is march and occasionally hit people (sometimes the "wrong" people) and all to be seen to be opposing fascism as opposed to actually effectively opposing fascism. It's just an excuse to be violent.
Having engaged with them on Twitter I can confirm this is correct and true and that they're basically violent idiots who couldn't organise a booze-up in a brewery. Violence is not okay.
I await with bated breath the appearance of even one link to justify your assertion, Zof.
The real threat is on the right and while I don't approve of Antifa violence, to paint them as some kind of monolithic entity is misleading at best, fear-mongering and whataboutery at worst.
Re: Re: ...right of the people peaceably to assemble...
Heather Hayer, may she rest in peace, would have had me ask you (were she still alive to do so) whether not not these "non-rights" you enumerated include ploughing a car into a crowd in order to hurt or kill people.
One of your heroes did that, AC, and he couldn't possibly be considered left wing or Antifa.
I think some kind of Privacy Bill of Rights is the next step forward. This needs to be compiled by experts in the field leaning heavily towards the public interest.
We need to decide upon and agree as to what data can be held about us by private enterprise and what can be done with it. As it is, giving up expectation of privacy is the price you pay to be online. Should that always be the case? Perhaps this should be crowd-sourced and people should be able to put their points towards it. Is this something Copia could do?
She'd have to have proved actual harm. People making mean speech about you isn't actual harm till you're directly materially affected by it, e.g. you lose your job.
Okay, but this could only be reported by overseas media outlets, not in US ones. So, unless the US population was into reading overseas-based media, few Americans would know what the CIA was up to.
thank you for responding to Mike's post. I've got some questions for you, sir.
**The BRIP platform is merely a central repository for national authorities such as HADOPI in France, AGCOM in Italy, or Roskomnadzor in Russia.
These authorities are governmental and they declare websites as infringing, as they legally have the power to do so.**
The entities you've listed are notorious for wrongly claiming infringement, even to the point of declaring that items not under their jurisdiction actually are. To trust them just because they're government agencies is the point at which the error begins. If there's no way to check whether they're right or not you're going to end up depriving legitimate sites of revenue with no due process.
**Now answers to your "not answered" points :
Every national authority have their own process and it depends entirely on their own judgement.
Not true, per years and years' worth of evidence to the contrary. See the example provided above.
If they have been flagged by their national supreme internet authority, it will be difficult to contest, but here again, this is a process we have not[h]ing to do with. Displeased websites will have to try and contact their national authority directly, as they alone can remove a website/domain from their list in the BRIP database. Technically, we could of course remove a website from an official list, but legally we absolutely can't.
This is the problem we're having with BRIP. Zero due process on the word of a government entity riddled with flaws and not answerable to anyone.
Authorized contributors are exclusively national/governmental internet supreme authorities.
Which, as I've pointed out, aren't necessarily reliable.
It is not our role to judge wether a flagged website is actually infringing or not. If it is in the BRIP database, it means a governmental authority placed it there, and we don't have to contest their decision.
That's the problem. You're enabling censorship and tyranny.
On the BRIP database itself, no. They would have to contact governmental authorities directly and request a list of the websites they declared as infringing.
I hope this clarifies the situation, let me know if you have any more questions, hopefully I can answer.
It's basically ::poker face:: "That's the law." Not helpful, and does sod all to encourage belief that respect for IPR does any good for anyone except the most powerful people, and they're powerful enough.
I'm against restrictive patents too, but the logic is unassailable - some things won't be developed or researched if there's no profit to be made.
Unless the development is done on a non-profit basis. The fly in the ointment is the expectation of making a profit when it ought to be of making a useful product. If you were right, generics makers would fail.
The question is, what's a reasonable price to pay back that research? That's what needs to be legislated, if necessary.
Much of the research is publicly funded and carried out in universities. Given the savings the government would make if it funded all of the R&D as a public good V paying out huge sums to companies owned by party donors...ah, there's the problem.
Re: Re: Re: Yeah and you only joined the klan for the ice cream
Oh, that one! The trouble is it's so endemic it's often considered to be "common sense," with no clue as to where the initial ideas come from.
I come from an imperialist, hard-right family. Think "American Dad" with an Irish accent. I've spent most of my life having to re-think everything I ever believed to be true. Yes, I've got black friends but if I say something out of turn (it's a lot less frequent now I've had the necessary life experience), they call me on it. That I've not been called out for making statements I never considered to be racist for years doesn't warrant a medal, more like a sigh of relief that I'm finally out of the mire.
On the post: Section 230 Works: Russian Trolls Don't Get To Sue Facebook For Being Kicked Off Facebook
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is a lie started and spread by the totally reliable non-liar Jacob Wohl. /s
On the post: Instead Of Parents Spying On Their Kids Online, Why Not Teach Them How To Be Good Digital Citizens
Re: Re: Parents should parent!
That's why I gave him an Insightful vote.
On the post: Instead Of Parents Spying On Their Kids Online, Why Not Teach Them How To Be Good Digital Citizens
Re: Re: Re: Re: A headline like that makes me wonder if you have
Good luck with that; atheism is the philosophical new kid on the block. Replacing belief in a moral system predicated on religious notions of morality with philosophies based on "rational self-interest" aren't working very well so far, are they?
Note that I'm not name-calling over this; you're entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.
On the post: Instead Of Parents Spying On Their Kids Online, Why Not Teach Them How To Be Good Digital Citizens
Re: Re: A headline like that makes me wonder if you have any
Because if there's one thing that's going to guarantee that your kid is a maladjusted simpleton it's religion. And that's conservatives pushing for that garbage because they know they're on a decline, and convincing adults to believe in santa claus is far more complicated than indoctrinating children.
Am I a maladjusted simpleton, AC?
On the post: Instead Of Parents Spying On Their Kids Online, Why Not Teach Them How To Be Good Digital Citizens
Re: A headline like that makes me wonder if you have any
Sure "we" have. But YOU loony liberals want to teach them notions that guarantee conflicts and failures, while "we" conservatives know that children are little savages who quite often need beaten into submission so that don't violate the rights of Others. That's civilizing.
Beating kids into submission makes them pretend to behave while around the beat-y people and go nuts when the beat-y people aren't around. It also teaches them to follow authority figures without question, even if these figures lead them down the wrong path.
It's better to teach kids to understand why some behaviours are harmful to themselves and to others and to impose consequences on such behaviours than to hit them "just because."
I was smacked as a child and had pocket money docked and was grounded as a teen and like to think I turned out okay.
On the post: Instead Of Parents Spying On Their Kids Online, Why Not Teach Them How To Be Good Digital Citizens
Re: Re: Re: Fixing infinity
^This. I was taught to think for myself and to question everything from an early age. I was also taught the moral principles that underline my thinking process. As a result, when I left my native Ireland to live in the UK, I came with my own convictions and a set of values that has kept me out of trouble for nigh on 50 years.
On the post: LAPD Infiltrated An Anti-Fascist Protest Group Because The First Amendment Is Apparently Just A Suggestion
Re: I may not have been careful enough.
Thank you, Uriel.
I believe in liberal democracy and traditional Judeo-Christian values. I don't like cruelty and am communitarian at heart. Basically, all the values I grew up with in our small farming community.
There are some people on the Right in the States who would agree with you, Rick Wilson and David French being two of them. While I often disagree with French (whose views on healthcare and abortion are horrible, to say the least), both are vocal about it being wrong to mistreat the migrants and refugees who come over the border and would have them treated more humanely.
On the post: LAPD Infiltrated An Anti-Fascist Protest Group Because The First Amendment Is Apparently Just A Suggestion
Re: Antifa
Because it's easier to cause trouble than to solve problems. Antifa is not a serious organisation (mostly because they're not organised and unified due to their being anarchists). So basically all they ever do is march and occasionally hit people (sometimes the "wrong" people) and all to be seen to be opposing fascism as opposed to actually effectively opposing fascism. It's just an excuse to be violent.
Having engaged with them on Twitter I can confirm this is correct and true and that they're basically violent idiots who couldn't organise a booze-up in a brewery. Violence is not okay.
On the post: LAPD Infiltrated An Anti-Fascist Protest Group Because The First Amendment Is Apparently Just A Suggestion
Re: So, Let's Do This Math
I await with bated breath the appearance of even one link to justify your assertion, Zof.
The real threat is on the right and while I don't approve of Antifa violence, to paint them as some kind of monolithic entity is misleading at best, fear-mongering and whataboutery at worst.
On the post: LAPD Infiltrated An Anti-Fascist Protest Group Because The First Amendment Is Apparently Just A Suggestion
Re: Re: Bad Press
If that's true you should have at least one link to back up that assertion.
On the post: LAPD Infiltrated An Anti-Fascist Protest Group Because The First Amendment Is Apparently Just A Suggestion
Re: Re: ...right of the people peaceably to assemble...
Heather Hayer, may she rest in peace, would have had me ask you (were she still alive to do so) whether not not these "non-rights" you enumerated include ploughing a car into a crowd in order to hurt or kill people.
One of your heroes did that, AC, and he couldn't possibly be considered left wing or Antifa.
On the post: LAPD Infiltrated An Anti-Fascist Protest Group Because The First Amendment Is Apparently Just A Suggestion
Re: Conservatives and libertarians who are not fascists.
Ohai, Uriel.
Conservative here.
http://on-t-internet.blogspot.com/2018/06/will-trumpism-destroy-america.html
http://on-t-internet.b logspot.com/2018/06/kids-in-cages-what-has-happened-to.html
All opinions are my own, I'm not interested in talking points.
http://on-t-internet.blogspot.com/search/label/Conservatism
On the post: For All Of Trump's Complaints About Social Media 'Censorship', The White House Itself Moderates Content Similarly To Social Media Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Reminder:
Confirmed correct. It's almost as if wearing sheep's clothing makes you look less wolf-y, or something.
On the post: FTC's YouTube Privacy Settlement Pisses Everyone Off; Perhaps We're Doing Privacy Wrong
We Need A Privacy Bill Of Rights
I think some kind of Privacy Bill of Rights is the next step forward. This needs to be compiled by experts in the field leaning heavily towards the public interest.
We need to decide upon and agree as to what data can be held about us by private enterprise and what can be done with it. As it is, giving up expectation of privacy is the price you pay to be online. Should that always be the case? Perhaps this should be crowd-sourced and people should be able to put their points towards it. Is this something Copia could do?
On the post: Appeals Court Shoots Down The Unconstitutional 'Non-Disparagement' Clauses Baltimore Attaches To Lawsuit Settlements
Re: Re: Re:
She'd have to have proved actual harm. People making mean speech about you isn't actual harm till you're directly materially affected by it, e.g. you lose your job.
On the post: The CIA Wants To Make It Easier To Jail Journalists And No One In Congress Is Stopping It From Happening
Re:
I would like to believe that but remember there are two GOP appointees in there now.
On the post: The CIA Wants To Make It Easier To Jail Journalists And No One In Congress Is Stopping It From Happening
Re: Ways Around It
Okay, but this could only be reported by overseas media outlets, not in US ones. So, unless the US population was into reading overseas-based media, few Americans would know what the CIA was up to.
On the post: WIPO Now Gets Into The Extrajudicial, Zero Due Process, Censorship Act Over Sites It Declares 'Infringing'
Re: WIPO's reply
Hi Mr. Thille,
thank you for responding to Mike's post. I've got some questions for you, sir.
**The BRIP platform is merely a central repository for national authorities such as HADOPI in France, AGCOM in Italy, or Roskomnadzor in Russia.
These authorities are governmental and they declare websites as infringing, as they legally have the power to do so.**
The entities you've listed are notorious for wrongly claiming infringement, even to the point of declaring that items not under their jurisdiction actually are. To trust them just because they're government agencies is the point at which the error begins. If there's no way to check whether they're right or not you're going to end up depriving legitimate sites of revenue with no due process.
**Now answers to your "not answered" points :
Every national authority have their own process and it depends entirely on their own judgement.
Which is often badly flawed. *
No. They know what they're doing.
Not true, per years and years' worth of evidence to the contrary. See the example provided above.
If they have been flagged by their national supreme internet authority, it will be difficult to contest, but here again, this is a process we have not[h]ing to do with. Displeased websites will have to try and contact their national authority directly, as they alone can remove a website/domain from their list in the BRIP database. Technically, we could of course remove a website from an official list, but legally we absolutely can't.
This is the problem we're having with BRIP. Zero due process on the word of a government entity riddled with flaws and not answerable to anyone.
Authorized contributors are exclusively national/governmental internet supreme authorities.
Which, as I've pointed out, aren't necessarily reliable.
It is not our role to judge wether a flagged website is actually infringing or not. If it is in the BRIP database, it means a governmental authority placed it there, and we don't have to contest their decision.
That's the problem. You're enabling censorship and tyranny.
On the BRIP database itself, no. They would have to contact governmental authorities directly and request a list of the websites they declared as infringing.
See Techdirt articles on the trouble with getting any kind of response to FOIA requests. You could have written, "Ha ha, good luck with that, buddy!" It would have been more accurate.
I hope this clarifies the situation, let me know if you have any more questions, hopefully I can answer.
It's basically ::poker face:: "That's the law." Not helpful, and does sod all to encourage belief that respect for IPR does any good for anyone except the most powerful people, and they're powerful enough.
On the post: Another Way In Which Patents Contributed To The Opioid Crisis: Hospitals Ordered Not To Use Better, Less Problematic Medicines
Re: Why Are You Surprised?
I'm against restrictive patents too, but the logic is unassailable - some things won't be developed or researched if there's no profit to be made.
Unless the development is done on a non-profit basis. The fly in the ointment is the expectation of making a profit when it ought to be of making a useful product. If you were right, generics makers would fail.
The question is, what's a reasonable price to pay back that research? That's what needs to be legislated, if necessary.
Much of the research is publicly funded and carried out in universities. Given the savings the government would make if it funded all of the R&D as a public good V paying out huge sums to companies owned by party donors...ah, there's the problem.
On the post: Section 230 Is Not Exceptional, It Is Not Unique, It Is Not A Gift: It's The Codification Of Common Law Liability Principles
Re: Re: Re: Yeah and you only joined the klan for the ice cream
Oh, that one! The trouble is it's so endemic it's often considered to be "common sense," with no clue as to where the initial ideas come from.
I come from an imperialist, hard-right family. Think "American Dad" with an Irish accent. I've spent most of my life having to re-think everything I ever believed to be true. Yes, I've got black friends but if I say something out of turn (it's a lot less frequent now I've had the necessary life experience), they call me on it. That I've not been called out for making statements I never considered to be racist for years doesn't warrant a medal, more like a sigh of relief that I'm finally out of the mire.
Next >>