Maybe they just don't want to be associated with distributing gun plans? I would bet $10,000 that if this was about sex toys, or homoerotic art, that most of those decrying this as "censorship" or "idiotic because you can find those anywhere else on the internet" would be supporting them, because it's their right.
False Premise #3> That a private site choosing not to distribute something they don't want to be associated with is somehow a "prohibition" on that item.
I like how libertarians are all in favor of liberty, until you do something they don't like. Especially because, if this wasn't about guns, but rather, say, sex toys, the libertarians would be supporting their right to decide what content they host unquestionably.
If a libertarian group would dis-invite someone for exercising their rights and liberty, then that group is clearly NOT a libertarian group.
Why do the libertarians on Slashdot always talk about how it's a private business's "right" to decide what they do regarding hiring, selling, discrimination, buying elections, etc, for everything else, but when it comes to something they disagree with, suddenly it's "censorship".
Maybe they just don't want to be associated with printable guns? I would imagine they know full well that you can get 3D model files from places other than their site. They just don't want to be associated with the distribution of those files.
These comparisons to countries still subject to the English crown, with no speech rights, and barely any other personal rights are patently absurd.
The idea that those countries are any less free than you is what's patently absurd.
I'd rather lose that additional 3 people per 100,000 than lose the ability to kill anyone who breaks into my home.
I'm sorry, but that stance makes you a complete pile of shit.
I don't care what you have in your home, how valuable it is. It is NOT worth a human life to stop someone from taking it.
Health issues. Completely different.
So if I told a Loan Officer "Don't worry, the money I use to murder my wife will not come from this loan," he would have to lend it to me? He couldn't decide that it would be bad PR to lend me money, and show me the door?
Nope. Nobody ever forced those people to get into the banking business.
Nope. They get special powers and privileges by being global financial institutions. If they were willing to give up that power, and take responsibility for EVERY transaction they process, then perhaps it would be ok.
No, it doesn't. The difference between the American and the North Korean is that they won't face consequences *from the government*. If you start reciting some of the monologues about niggers that are found on here, you will likely be beaten up, depending on where you are. That doesn't detract from your freedom of speech.
Here's a question: Let's say that we get a bunch of large linebacker types to surround the area where the funeral is, and keep the WBC fuckheads out. And the WBC tried to force their way in. The linebackers want to keep them out. At what point does the thing turn violent, and who has committed the violence?
I cannot support this line of thinking. Just because you "don't have to attend a funeral" does NOT mean that you should have to be subjected to this bullshit.
If I can contribute to the community in some way, and get free and libre software in return, that seems like a much better deal for everybody.
Not really. While I'm sure those developers would appreciate your work, they can't really eat your contributions. And your contributions can't really shelter them.
In fact, for several things, it simply performs the apt commands to download it from there.
If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.
