I flatly disagree with the assertion that it is "punishment" to require that the marketplace be fully informed, and assert that it's a genuine privilege to block the flow of information that would otherwise be used to fully inform consumer decision making.
I'll point to the medical industry where "informed consent" is often a false security. What you are doing is saying that we must place a warning label on something that requires no warning. You seem to imply that "I should have the right to know" means "company should be forced to label everything with a 'scarey' gmo label". Should you be able to find a list of GMO foods on a company website? Sure. If you really want to know the information is already available. Most people aren't looking for information, they are crusading to brand GMO's with a "Scarlet Letter" designed to punish Monsanto and scare people away from buying their products.
So people think that industrial food might give them headaches? Tough shit. The fuckers with all the money and all of the control are welcome to show the safety and effectiveness of their product just like everyone else.
Monsanto gets ZERO special privileges. They have spent fuckloads of money on manipulating public discourse without showing any proper evidence of the long-term effects of the genetic manipulation and much worse, this society has allowed them near monopoly power over important parts of our food supply.
Damn hippies? Who the FUCK do you think controls the discussion? Sure as hell not the greenies or hippies or anyone else not in the club.
FYI, I would not have a problem with GMO food as long as it was not managed as some shithead's private "intellectual property" being used to push around too many farmers.
How does Monsanto get privileges? Because we don't ask them to label food as GMO? Yeah Monsanto is a bunch of dickheads but we don't arbitrarily punish anyone for being dickheads. No studies on the effects of these crops? Sorry, but we have a group whose purpose is to monitor food safety, They are the FDA, they have approved the crops. Environmental effect? EPA hasn't found cause for concern. What good does placing restriction on something that is in no way a hazard? Its like placing a hazard on a basket ball that says "This ball may be a choking hazard if deflated". This is really a non issue.
Link to Original Source
Waiting for someone to license and start production on a good star wars mmo.
There have already been two of those, and I don't think either of them did as well as was planned. I wouldn't expect another one to pop up for at least 5 years.
No I said GOOD star wars mmo, the first one was an empty parking lot and the second one was the best single player mmo ever created.
Don't go looking for trouble. If you couldn't handle Ubuntu, Arch will drive you insane.
1000 times this.
Slippery Slope is a LOGICAL Fallacy not because it doesn't work, but rather that it doesn't work all the time. In this case, I used Slippery Slope to point out how silly it is to "ban" something because it might be used to do something "bad". Do we ban 3D printers because they can make a lower receiver to a gun? If so, then why wouldn't we do the same thing with all those other things I mentioned (slippery slope). At what point does making something that has a million legal uses illegal simply because someone might make something bad with it?
When you define that property, then you'll have broken the slippery slope. BUT it is up to those that say "ban 3D printers because they make guns" to define that point, because otherwise their logic extends all the way down the manufacturing chain. "Might make a gun" is not reason enough. "Too Easy" is not reason enough.
I see no one saying "ban 3d printers". I see many people saying "ban 3D printing of guns". If people were suggesting we ban 3d printers your argument would be valid. They are not, and as such your chain of events is the very definition of slippery slope.
Obviously, we need to regulate machining tools because those might make a gun. And we must regulate robotic Metal Presses, because those might make machining tools, which might make guns. We need to regulate mining iron ore, because iron ore is used to make gun parts, machining tools and Robotics. And we must regulate Big Trucks, because they might carry dirt used in mining iron ore
At some point, laws don't stop people. And making more laws doesn't help.
Slippery Slope fallacy much? We make laws to define legality, not to ensure that nothing illegal ever happens. If making something a law was an immediate solution we would have not crime ever. If it is illegal to print weapons then most people will not do it because they do not wish to break the law. In fact the people who would wish to break the law to get a gun will just go get a actual gun not a 3d printed one. No point in getting arrested over a temporary weapon.