I, for one, welcome our new E-Mag spectrum overlords.
Your idea of freedom is incredibly remedial, and I would appreciate if you don't attempt to impose that definition of freedom on anyone else.
Btw, the problem with outlawing shouting "fire" in a movie theatre is that is bases a law on actions rather than intent. That is always a mistake. Always. But it is a very insidious way to create "exceptions" to constitutional rights. And quite effective, because I am stuck in a world where no one can reason that far.
The fact remains that you're free to say whatever you want, but it might have consequences.
That has got to be one of the stupidest recurring phrase n use. It's ambiguous enough that any attempt to point out the idiocy of the phrase would be met with "well that's not what I really meant"; however, all interpretations are stupid. Just because you seem to be having trouble, I'll suggest some phrases to help you understand:
You are free to kill whoever you want, but it might have consequences.
You are free to steal whatever you want, but it might have consequences.
You are free to be as stupid as you want, but it might have consequences.
+5 interesting for this crap. What world am I living in?
You can say that again. I think the monopoly that is television is the biggest obstacle to 3rd party candidates.
You are not "a republican". You are not "a democrat". Those are abbreviations for political parties. Unless you actually see yourself as strongly advocating for republican or democratic forms of government, you are not what you say.
You might say you support the XXX party. But don't delude yourself, they don't support you, and you are not them.
Republican party is not a philosophy. Democrat party is not a philosophy. You can't even agree or disagree with them. They are corporations (literally) that buy and sell elections. And you know the saying, if you aren't the customer, then you are the product. You aren't buying an election from them? Then you are the product.
He could have just joined the government. People always assume that government workers are angels and that the rest of the citizens are not to be trusted.
Really, if it is too dangerous for the general population to know, then it is too dangerous for a government worker to know. If it scares you that a random journalist got a list of every single firearms license holder, then it should scare you just as much that random government workers have access to that same information.
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
In principle, unless everyone is safe to know it, then then government cannot be allowed to know either. Do you really trust that bonehead bully that became a cop? Do you really trust your senators with inside legislative information (think insider trading) who won't publicize their private policy meetings? Everyone or no one.
You mean the libertarian bias against the "War on Drugs"?
You mean the libertarian bias against constantly invading other countries, usually multiple at the same time?
You mean the libertarian bias against the Patriot Act?
You mean the libertarian bias against trusting the NSA?
You mean the libertarian bias for allowing congress to audit the Federal Reserve?
You mean the libertarian bias against sexual orientation laws?
You mean the libertarian bias against bailouts, and other programs giving citizens legal privilege over others?
You mean the libertarian bias against government programs designed to raise consumer prices?
You mean the libertarian bias for strictly enforcing constitutional rights and constitutional restrictions on powers?
Damn. Those libertarians. So biased.
Really, I don't think that line of reasoning is one that survives generalization.
Why is it libertarians never understand the issue they talk about?
Why is it statists believe that because they memorized all the popular bumper stickers that they somehow have obtained "understanding" ?
Wikipedia has positioned itself as a reliable source of information.
It was my understanding that wikipedia was attempting to position itself as a reliable source of references.
Did you get beat up in high school for being 5'10"?
I guarantee you that height is more correlated to fights than gayness. No one can look at you and see that you are gay, but any drunk meat-head in a bar looking to impress some airhead girl can look at someone and see that they are short.
Height is, in my opinion, the greatest discriminatory stereotype of all of them. There is a reason presidents are usually the taller candidate, and that midgets are used as comic relief. Humanity will probably never overcome height discrimination, gayness doesn't even come close.
If you were exactly 5'10'' that would be pretty cool. You could become the new SI unit for length. An international standard. All that careful dieting and your dreams are realized. Pride, women, fame...
Stop asking for "acceptance" from the public and just live YOUR life.
Ah, I see GP's subtlety was lost on someone. I'll give you a hint. By "discrimination", he meant the kind of problem that occurs when meat-heads with something to prove need an easy target. See if you can guess the rest.
Why would you say:
1) He shouldn't be proud because being gay is not a choice
2) He should be unproud if he was a paedophile?
Do you consider paedophilia to not be a choice? How do you get +4 insightful for saying something so blatantly illogical?
Privacy is not defined as a right. "No true Scotsman" arguments are arguments which arbitrarily redefine terms. Thus you have also need to work on your understanding of logic.
"this isn't a rights violation because privacy isn't a right"
Assuming you mean "should be a right" rather than "is a right" as is the common misusage, it is still not a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. It's not even a wrong style of argument. For example, change the "privacy" to "running around naked" to make an isomorphic argument. "This isn't a rights violation because running around naked isn't a right". See how that isn't problematic?
The issue you seem to be having with logic is "confirmation bias". Since you are upset by what occurred, you are agreeing with every argument which argues your feelings and disagreeing with every argument which disagrees. It's a common mistake as well. I call it "you aren't right because you don't care to be right".