Not true at all. If I witness Bob murder Tom, I know Bob murdered Tom. If, however, Bob manages to destroy all physical evidence of murdering Tom, convicting him can't be done on my word alone.
There are many cases where it is well-known that someone is a criminal, and yet they are not prosecuted for lack of admissible evidence.
Anyone with enough money to build a private, self-contained floating city has enough money to not worry about the cost of securing it against most any attack short of that launched by a national military force.
It seems the largest part of the communication problem when talking about libertarian ideas is the misconception that "libertarian" means "no government." There are those who attach themselves to libertarian causes who would like to see "no government," but a libertarian government would exist with the mandate to protect people from exactly the sorts of things you just questioned.
Being against the initiation of force is not, in any way, the same as being against all uses of force at all times.
That's also the description of every other system of government once put into practice.
Well THAT is fucking offensive, the way you said "codifying" it sounded like "codpiece".
Yes? Well then...
Baldric... Bring me... The Black Russian!
Needless to say, by disagreeing, I mark myself as an un-person.
Needless, pointless, and untrue. Someone else may so choose to regard you; you, however, are not that at all, and anyone who takes the attitude that you are, as you put it, an "unperson", is solely responsible for that attitude. You're still you, just as worthy as ever.
Consider the source, soldier on. Defy invalid social norms.
Some things are just not done, and are socially unacceptable this is one of them.
Socially unacceptable is one thing. And the appropriate response from you when faced with something you identify as such is also social: adjust your respect, relationship(s) and commentary according to the social cues you are given.
Relying on coercion and/or violence exerted by your government so you can assure that the general social environment is only populated by speech you approve of is something else entirely. It reeks of abject failure on your part, and on the part of your legislators. Such government-based active repression is one of the very few things that is more despicable than intentionally offensive speech presented without even a suggestion of humor.
> But as an athiest, my very existence is 'offensive' to muslims.
I'm an atheist as well. And I am aware that some Muslims proactively take offense because of my lack of belief.
However, you should be aware that of the five pillars of Islam, none say or imply one word about "hating atheists." That's just crap out of the Koran, which is a mish-mosh of uncorrelated and unordered quotes. Only fanatics take the violent sections of the Koran seriously. Not that there aren't enough fanatics to go around, of course.
> Are you suggesting that I should commit suicide to appease the Muslims?
Not in the least. I wasn't suggesting anyone should commit suicide, or in any way alter who or what they are. These are not things that give offense. You have not chosen to be atheist in order to give offense, have you? I presume you're atheist because you find that to be a comfortable state of mind, one that correlates well with what you observe of the world around you. Nothing to do with giving offense at all. I'm not wrong, am I? If I am, please let me know... that's a whole 'nuther bag of wolverines.
Simply being (existing as) atheist is not giving offense. That is the same as the case where someone is simply "being atheist" or "being Christian" or "being Muslim" or "being a rock collector."
When such provokes an "offended" response, we are merely seeing examples of the common practice by muddy thinkers of taking offense for any, or no, sane reason...
> Go Fuck Yourself
...you're going to have a bad time.
FWIW, I use Slack for work, and I find it really useful. It's a pretty good way to connect normal email, github emails, and chat.
My only real beef with Slack is that its markdown language is a bit different than, and inferior to, Github's. Which is an annoyance when, for example, github markdown messages are rendered by Slack.
Long live clever marketing campaigns.
The world's top security professionals are highly doubtful that NK had anything to do with the Sony hack. Where does that leave the claims that NK threatened Sony? How verifiable are these claims?
What is the possibility that this is all part of a clever marketing campaign to get all of us to see the film.
One can't help but notice that Sony has been the recipient of some amazing free publicity. Sony said it was far too dangerous to release the film... And then announced that they'd be releasing the film anyway. How many more of us are going to see the film after this debacle? How many more of us are even aware of the film?
If it wasn't an intentional marketing campaign, should it have been? Will we see more impossible to prove allegations involving rogue states in the future?
No. Offense can surely be given. But trying to magically legislate it away is a horrific, cowardly, hubris-ridden mistake. Offense arises because of difference in opinion and grasp of fact, intentional or not.
Because of this, it can and will always arise, no matter how narrow you choke down the channel of discourse, unless or until all have the same opinions and grasp of facts, which, one hopes, will never, ever come about.
The most productive course is to try not to give offense, and if received, to assess it and take value (warning, insight, stance, new information) from it if possible — otherwise, let it go.
Restricting opinion by legal means is one of the worst ideas ever. Offense is not a legitimate mitigating factor for censorship and repression. When enacted into law as justification for anything, what it tells us is that we need new legislators, because the ones we have demonstrated fundamental incompetence.
No one has the "right to not be offended." Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual, or as part of a collective, or a group, or a society, or a community; it varies due to your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs, your upbringing, your education; what offends one person or group (collective, society, community) may not offend another; and in the final analysis, it requires one person to attempt to read the mind of other persons they do not know in order to anticipate whether a specific action will cause offense in the mind of another. And no, codifying an action in law is not in any way sufficient... it is well established that not even lawyers can know the law well enough to anticipate what is legal, and what is not. Sane law relies on the basic idea that we try not to risk or cause harm to the bodies, finances and reputations of others without them consenting and being aware of the risks. Law that bans something based upon the idea that some group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.
Conversely, when people are truly harmed (not just offended) without their informed consent (and legitimate defense is not the cause), then the matter is one that should arguably be considered for law. Otherwise, no.
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne
