Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech (Score 1) 316

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.

Comment: Re:The UK doesn't have freedom of speech (Score 3, Insightful) 316

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?

Comment: No you aren't (Score 2) 307

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.

Comment: Re:Gov't still doesn't get privacy (Score 1) 461

by EuclideanSilence (#48346873) Attached to: Washington Dancers Sue To Prevent Identity Disclosure

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.
 
--Thomas Jefferson

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.

Comment: Re:Lies, damned lies, statistics (Score 1) 551

by EuclideanSilence (#48325237) Attached to: In this year's US mid-term elections ...

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.

Comment: Re:Missing Option (Score 1) 551

by EuclideanSilence (#48325059) Attached to: In this year's US mid-term elections ...

...biased against the honest because liars will say whatever they want.
 
...biased against the hard working because thieves will steal whatever they want.
 
...biased against the peaceful because the aggressive will injure to obtain what they want.

Really, I don't think that line of reasoning is one that survives generalization.

Comment: Re:Silly (Score 1) 764

by EuclideanSilence (#48272741) Attached to: Tim Cook: "I'm Proud To Be Gay"

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.

Comment: Re:The ACLU is busy with real rights violations (Score 1) 275

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".

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..." -- Hunter S. Thompson

Working...