Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:in other words (Score 1) 194

by Sabriel (#47682607) Attached to: The Billion-Dollar Website

But if I am to support that system with my tax dollars, the people who use it have to do their part to try to live healthy lives. Drug addicts and alcoholics get treatment then go into rehab, overweight people are put on a healthy diet and exercise regimen, and so on. But since that would violate people's rights, and I can't force my beliefs onto others, even when they are using my tax dollars, I don't support a public health system.

I don't get it. How would that violate rights? When society assumes an obligation to offer help to its members, members who seek out that help to correct their personal failings assume the reciprocal obligation of not "crying wolf" (not quite the phrase I want to use, but I hope it's close enough that you get what I'm trying to convey). "Society, I'm addicted / obese, please treat me." "Our obligation is that we will treat you, but your obligation is that you'll accept our help in avoiding this situation in the future." "Okay." The whole basis of society is the social contract - we help you, you help us!

The technicalities of deciding when any given person is not meeting that reciprocal obligation should only impinge on the general availability of a public health system to the extent that the statistical occurrence of recalcitrant individuals would make the system a net burden or benefit to society. And even then, that is not necessarily an argument to completely reject a public health system instead of the less drastic response of narrowing its scope.

Comment: Re:I don't get it. (Score 1) 541

by Sabriel (#47652461) Attached to: Geneticists Decry Book On Race and Evolution

Geneticists admit that physical appearance varies thanks to mutations and variations in the expression of the genome, so why is intellectual variability so verboten? Because it's politically incorrect?

That and just as more people believe they are far better at driving a car than they actually are, more racists believe they are better than {insert other race} than they actually are.

Hypothetical: let's say geneticists somehow manage to quantify that race X averages 5% "smarter" in some way than race Y once you remove all the other factors. Despite the fact that this still means the vast majority of race X _aren't_ smarter than race Y? Despite the fact that the geneticists acknowledge race is only one of multiple factors involved in determining the intellectual capability of a random individual? A lot of X - led by the already racist contingent - are going to falsely believe that science has "proven" they are superior and a lot of Y - led by their own racist contingent - are suddenly going to feel the need to "prove" they aren't "inferior". That's not going to end well.

Basically, you don't give an arrogant idiot ammo for their gun when you're trapped in the room with them. Not even if you're the same race, because you're still trapped in the same room as an arrogant idiot with a loaded gun.

Comment: Re:Mostly harmless (Score 1) 182

by Sabriel (#47612123) Attached to: The FBI Is Infecting Tor Users With Malware With Drive-By Downloads

"What's the point?" Ironically, your question holds the answer - in pedophilia, the brain's sex drive is missing the point. An error in the genetic code, a bad evolutionary adaptation to population overpressure, excess or deficiency of required chemicals, damage due to stressful environment... whatever the actual cause, the end result is a human being placed in the nightmarish position of having a sex drive that finds children attractive.

The trouble with biology is that it doesn't care, not about us having self-awareness nor our desire for a just world. After all, ask yourself: why do we find that "normal legal smut" so appealing? What's the point? Our "normal" sex drive is no more capable of recognizing that a photo can't reproduce any more than a pedophile's sex drive can.

Comment: Re:Am I the only one around here ... (Score 5, Insightful) 204

by Sabriel (#47611735) Attached to: Edward Snowden Is Not Alone: US Gov't Seeks Another Leaker

The catch with your #2 is that the ultimate boss and owner of any data held by the US government is the US public. The constitutional foundation of their entire system of government is not "We the Government", but "We the People of the United States", no matter how much winking, nudging and outright fraud goes on in the corridors of power.

So if you found your company (government) was up to no good, and upon going up the chain got told to stick your head in the sand if you know what's good for you, I'd hope you'd strongly consider going to the police (public). And as a human being, I'd be less than impressed if someone chose their own very comfortable life over the endangered liberty of the people they'd sworn to protect.

Comment: Re:Well at least they saved the children! (Score 1) 790

... are you seriously suggesting that companies should adopt the moral outlook of cowards?

Let's RTFA, here: Google scans its mail servers against hashes provided to it of CP known to law enforcement, an account got flagged, the police were called, they found the account holder had a felony record for sexually assaulting an 8-year-old child, a warrant was obtained, and additional incriminating evidence was found amongst the account owner's possessions; the owner was arrested and will be tried in a court of law. Due process, so far as two press articles can tell us, appears to have been followed.

And the case itself aside, quite frankly companies are too sociopathic already without people encouraging them to ignore the evils of the world because of the possibility that somebody, somewhere, might be a Scary Pedophile-Terrorist Bent On Revenge (TM).

It is surely a great calamity for a human being to have no obsessions. - Robert Bly