Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Gridlock (Score 1) 170

"Only democrats spend tons of money" says area man with no grip on reality.

No, his point was that on things like this, Democrats only spend money (as opposed to actually getting things done right). The money gets spent, but the supposed purpose for which money is being taxed or borrowed and then spread around on the chartering and running of panels, focus groups, advisory boards, and programs as being mentioned in the OP ... that amounts to nothing constructive. But it does add new bureaucrats and unfireable new federal employees to the picture, and grows the size and pointless intrusiveness of the government, so it's definitely just what Democrats seek to do.

Comment Re: Ok. (Score 0, Flamebait) 579

How is using *my* electricity, risking *my* computer's integrity, distracting *my* attention for *your* profit not abusing *my* resources?

Because YOU are the one choosing to go consume the content that someone else risks time and money to create. Nobody is forcing you to go to Wired for your amusement. But you're looking to use a technical method to separate the content you want to see from the content that the person who's creating and hosting that content wants to include in what you're not paying them for in order to do pesky things like not go bankrupt as they meet payroll and keep producing the thing to which you feel entitled at no cost.

What are you, 12? Yeah, I thought so.

Comment Re:Going to become more common. (Score 1) 129

Just because they're prey to our special operators doesn't make them any less predators from the point of view of the thousands and thousands of people they are slaughtering in the name of rewinding to the dark ages. They're definitely predators, as their world view requires that sort of predation in order to exist.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 293

If you need examples, ask every victim of every revolution or warzone who suddenly had saw their rights disappear when the men with guns showed up.

Their rights didn't disappear, their rights were denied. Infringed. Interfered with.

Governments don't give rights. Governments impose limits on them, or protect against that happening. But they don't create them. Hopefully you're not confusing rights with entitlements like so many people do.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 293

You don't have any natural rights to be free from tigers or from gravity. But you DO have the natural expectation that another rational being will understand that if they attack you, they are waiving their own claim on living peacefully. That you don't grasp this is pretty amazing, really.

You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down.

My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point. Irrational people do indeed look to take advantage circumstances in which they feel willing to take the chance that their use of violence will go unchallenged because of unpleasant or unexpected circumstances. Which doesn't change the fact that they lose their claim to life when they deny you yours. That's the right you naturally have: to use (or have used on your behalf) the violence necessary to defend your life. Why? Because rational people don't kill other people except in self defense. Those who initiate the violence waive their rights to live in peace.

You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 293

Exactly, because in the jungle there are no rights

Oh, I get it now. You think that human beings aren't any different in their cognitive abilities, capacity for reason, and ability to think abstractly and communicate than are, say, tigers or lemurs.

I don't need it, but I need a government to tell others that.

No, you can tell them yourself, and if they are too irrational to digest the concept, and you're too weak to defend against violent, irrational people, then you need a government to help you protect your rights.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 293

So you think that just because you decided to kill them, they didn't have the right to live? That's really your take on things?

If you initiate violence, you are giving up your OWN claim on your right to live. You have the right up until you infringe on someone else's. That's simple, rational stuff. If you can't use reason in your world view, then you are by definition looking at things irrationally. If you act irrationally, and it results in you doing something like killing those 9 people, then you have waived your own right to your life. Do you get that? You don't need a government to tell you that. But if you can't figure it out without a government telling you that, please do the rest of us a favor and don't do anything dangerous like voting.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 293

In a modern society arms are useless.

Really? Then why does every single political leader - across the spectrum, including flaming lefty tyrants, eastern European strongmen, laid-back Scandinavian royalty and elected officials, mayors of cities, etc. - have armed protection at their disposal?

Why do police departments train in the use of arms? Why do militaries, even strictly defensive ones, understand the need to be able to use arms?

It's nice for you that you live in a fantasy world where there is no need for a 90-pound woman to ever defend herself against a man three times her size. Where is it, exactly, that you live that there are absolutely no violent people, no robberies, no rapes, no crimes that endanger lives? Please be specific, and if you would, please link to some reports that show your zero crime rate. Not that you will, of course, because you're full of it, and you know it.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 293

What a load of shit. Without a government, you have no rights. Go live in a jungle sometime...

Wow, you really haven't thought this through, have you? You should.

So, you and another 100 people are in the jungle. 10 of you decide to get together in a group (you know, assembling) and chant something they think is important (you know ... speaking). Who is giving them the perfectly natural behavioral elbow room to assemble and express themselves? The other 90 people who aren't even paying attention to them? The trees? No. These are perfect examples of "natural rights." If some of the other 90 people decide to get together and force those 10 people to no longer gather, or no longer speak their minds, they are infringing on their freedom to assemble and speak.

The US constitution recognizes this, and its first amendment explicitly says that the government can't infringe on that right. There's no place in the constitution that defines the right to assemble or speak ... those are a given. They are self-evident, natural freedoms that can only be limited by other people or groups. Those 10 people don't need the other 90 to do anything in order for their group of 10 to be able to gather and speak. They can do that without any action or permission from anybody. If someone decides to take action shut them up, that's infringement of that right.

Without a government, a society, a rule of law, etc there is no such thing as 'rights'.

Nonsense. Without rule of law, there is no protection of rights. You really think that your right to speak comes from the government? You truly don't understand that it's the government's job to prevent other people (and those same government institutions) from forcibly shutting you up?

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...