Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:On the grounds that they might 'offend' people. (Score 1) 316

As I've said before, if you think murder for hire is acceptable, you're free to speak out in it's defense, form groups of like-minded people, and even lobby for its legality.

However, until such time as it is legal, acting on that belief will remain illegal. You can't legally offer or otherwise engage in those services. That is obviously not a free speech issue.

You know this already, yet despite my admonitions, you persist. Why? What could possibly motivate you here? Embarrassment?

Now, are you going to answer my question? I suspect not, as you know that you wouldn't have objected to my post at all. I bet you would have even nodded your head in agreement. The reason is obvious -- your post was not motivated by reason, as you imply, but by ideology.

Reason needs to be applied uniformly. It's useless otherwise.

Comment Re:On the grounds that they might 'offend' people. (Score 1) 316

Nope, I'm not seeing it

I think you do.

In particular, people must be free to speak in support of illegal activities because otherwise bad laws can't be opposed.

As I've already said, there is no issue with speaking in support of illegal activities. I took great pains to explain this to you, in anticipation of the nonsense in your previous post.

Is the reason because your post would have been different and therefore a different reply would have been appropriate?

My response would have been identical. Now, are you going to answer or not?

Comment Re:On the grounds that they might 'offend' people. (Score 1) 316

"I'll pay $1000 to anyone who would murder narcc" and wouldn't want me arrested if I did that?

That is, as you are already well aware, a completely different issue. An issue, I might add, that is completely unrelated to the one under discussion.

I'm not surprised, as you hinted at this earlier. I even took the time to preemptively address this in hopes that you wouldn't bother wasting everyone's time with pointless sophomoric nonsense. As I believe you already know this, I'm now very interested in seeing you respond to my earlier challenge, repeated below.

Getting back on topic: What would your response be if there was opposition from CoE members to an atheist ad being shown at the same theater? Would you still agree that they're justified in suppressing that speech? Replace "atheism" in my post with "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", or whatever. Would your response to my post have been different? Why do you think that's the case?

We can safely assume your response would have been different. I can tell you why, if you're interested. First, however, I'd like to see your honest response.

Comment Re:On the grounds that they might 'offend' people. (Score 1) 316

When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're [...]

Abandoning the same principles upon which you yourself depend. Acting directly against your own best interests. All because of ...

the negative effects of that speech

I see. Fear. Pure and simple fear. Fear of ideas is very dangerous, which is why protected speech is so important. You depend on it greatly, yet you'd deny others the same liberty -- because all the what-if's have you terrified.

Not some nonsense about losing in the marketplace of ideas

Don't be foolish. If you thought ideas with which you disagree couldn't out-compete your own, you wouldn't be so damn terrified of other peoples thoughts, opinions, and ideas. Certainly not so afraid that you'd act against your own best interest, abandon important principles, and actively suppress the rights of others.

You don't worry about the content of the mad ravings of a crazy man on a street corner, nor something more wide-spread like a serial killers manifesto published in the newspaper, because you know that no one will take their ideas seriously. Their ideas simply can't compete. You do, however, care a great deal about the mad ravings of public figures as they are seriously considered by a large number of people.

Incidentally, there is no country where you can speak freely without your speech being forcefully suppressed.

That's dishonest at best. There are limitations on speech here. None of which, you'll note, have anything to do with ideology. Competing ideologies, after all, are what are under discussion. I'm free to write and publish all sorts of vile nonsense promoting the legalization of murder-for-hire services, pro-terrorism propaganda, and, yes, even pro teen promiscuity pamphlets.

Presumably, you'd actively suppress those ideas as well. You certainly seem to think I would. The difference between you and I, obviously, is that I'm not terrified by the ideas and viewpoints of others. So, no, I would not act to suppress those ideas.

I'm also aware of the dangers that comes from suppressing speech. How much have you, and this modern atheist resurgence in general, benefited from that liberty? What do you think the consequences would have been had the politically powerful majority been able to take forceful action to suppress those ideas? Don't you think they strongly believe that "the negative effects of that speech outweigh the negative effects of suppressing that speech" and would thus be justified by your own reasoning?

You're afraid of competing ideas, by your own admission. Assuming that you don't also fear ideas that have no chance of success, you clearly don't believe your ideas can compete favorably in the marketplace of ideas as evidenced by that same fear.

Comment Re:On the grounds that they might 'offend' people. (Score 1) 316

Where to begin ...



It's entirely obvious that
1) Ads convince people of things.
2) People are opposed to things with sufficient conviction that they would not want to see ads supporting that thing.
3) The "marketplace of ideas" is not a winner-takes-all, which is why for example there is more than one religion.

Yes, perfectly obvious to everyone. How this relates to my post is a mystery.

How would you feel about an ad supporting [...]

How I feel doesn't matter. That cannot be considered sufficient justification for denying others their rights. You're still free to personally oppose it, speak in opposition, produce your own ads offering a counterpoint -- just like they are. That's the nice thing about the freedom of speech. It protects everyone, not just those with which some authority happens to agree.

When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're tacitly admitting that your own ideas aren't capable of competing adequately on equal footing. This is no different than the opposition to atheists ads you've seen before. One group is terrified that they'll end up marginalized if a competing viewpoint gains wide acceptance. It's cowardly, among other things.

A far more courageous, and reasonable, response to ads promoting ideas you dislike is to counter with your own ads. It's simply foolish to say "I'm justified in suppressing your speech because I disagree with your ideas" as the other side can offer the exact same justification. When you're the minority, doubly so!

Let's try this: What would your response be if there was opposition from CoE members to an atheist ad being shown at the same theater? Would you still agree that they're justified in suppressing that speech? Replace "atheism" in my post with "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", or whatever. Would your response to my post have been different? Why do you think that's the case?

Comment Re:On the grounds that they might 'offend' people. (Score 5, Insightful) 316

How about the on the grounds that the ads might persuade more people to become theist? As an atheist, that is all the reason I need to suppress the ads.

So ... you don't believe that atheism can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?

It must be difficult for you...

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 514

If you only buy from companies with a level 2 rating then that would give you a level 3 rating, etc... Again, this shouldn't be something done by the government but something done by the manufacturer based on consumer demand.

There is a serious problem relying on some private entity or consortium. That is, there is nothing preventing another private entity from offering those same ratings.

  You're bound to end up with a few in competition. Kellogg might want an equal or higher rating than Post, so they abandon the Food Producers Consortium and join (or start) the Fair Food Group. Smaller companies might have trouble with the dues and fees or with meeting certain standards (likely tailored to benefit the bigger players) and fall prey to less scrupulous agencies like the Fair Food Bureau.

Consumers, naturally, aren't very likely to understand the differences between the various accreditors, making the ratings useless.

You'd need something like the threat of regulation or a very small industry before you can maintain a functional, single, regulating entity. We have a few examples, of course, like the MPAA and ESRB though you'll note that despite the size in terms of dollars, those industries are rather small in terms of people and major or influential players. They're both also under the threat of regulation, which seems to have incentivized regulation to a large degree.

The much more massive food industry, in contrast, has little chance of self-regulating. We've tried, it turns out that they can't be trusted.

Comment Re:I have to say it's pretty sad.... (Score 1) 518

And no, the first amendment is completely silent on whether or not your professed belief in magic should grant you more power of self expression

What a waste of my time... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This issue isn't about self-expression. (Apparently, you haven't managed to puzzle that out.) It's about specific religious prohibitions or requirements. It's yet another thing the colander wearing morons got wrong. One sensible civil servant denied one of these yahoos their silly hat when they couldn't show that their "religion" prohibited it from being removed. At least in that particular jurisdiction, if your beliefs allow the hat to be removed, there was no exemption. This is the most sensible response I've seen yet.

You don't think that government-issued identification, which is key to everything from boarding an airplane to cashing a check [...] is insignificant?

These pastafarians don't seem to take it very seriously. They treat the whole thing like a joke. You can't have it both ways. To answer your question, yes, it's not that important. As long as the persons face is visible, there isn't any reason to deny them their constitutionally protected rights. Face covering is a more complex issue, though it's been ruled to not be a violation so your fears are groundless for the time being. The face of all those scary Muslims (the one's you're afraid will jump out and get you) will be visible in their passport and ID photos.

Which is why when they are applied unevenly and capriciously, it flies in the face of the constitution.

The only people treating it like it's some kind of a joke are the one's donning colanders at the DMV. By not making exemptions, they'd be violation those individuals constitutionally protected rights. Your solution to this alleged affront to the constitution is to directly violate it!

By picking and choosing which lifestyle clothing (religious or otherwise) is more important than another, and thus deserving or not of government sanction and support, the government IS in the business of religion. How are you not getting that?

You're the one who's confused here. By not making exemptions, they'd be violation those individuals constitutionally protected rights. There's bound to be conflict, which is why exemptions exist. It's not the government getting in to the business of religion, it's the government trying its best to stay out of it!

Your solution seems to be to abandon those exemptions, which would then violate the constitutionally protected rights of others. You either care about the constitution or you don't. You clearly don't. If you don't like it, lobby for an amendment. Don't waste our tax dollars and limited public resources on nonsense like this.

The more we dig at this, the more fundamental problems with this absurd movement we seems to find. As I've said before: it actively works against the interests of those involved. It's completely irrational.

Comment Re:I have to say it's pretty sad.... (Score 1) 518

The issue of photo IDs is a very significant one,

I should have stopped reading there. If you think this issue is significant, you're crazier than the average suicide bomber.

But they've already BEEN making the decision to let nuts where things on their heads in official ID photos. Just not all nuts. That's a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution.

No, it's not. Religion, as you know, is specifically protected by the first amendment. Your desire to wear a silly hat is not afforded the same protection as a hat worn for religious purposes. The exceptions to the no-hat in your photo ID rules exist specifically to keep the government out of the religion business. This is a first amendment issue, with the relevant part being "or prevent the free exercise thereof". Exemptions must necessarily be made to accommodate religious beliefs.

If you don't like it, lobby for an amendment to remove the protections afforded to religion. Wearing a colander on your head isn't going to get you anywhere. It's not even going to make anyone think that "religion is silly" or even that "religious protections are silly." The only message it sends is "atheists are silly".

You're obsessing about one rhetorical device and deliberately covering your ears whenever anyone talks about what's actually at stake.

What, exactly, is at stake? These protections have existed since the nation was founded. Whatever imaginary harm you think this has caused is minimal compared to the damage should those protections be removed, and the government was free to involve itself in the business of religion.

Comment Re:All right! (Score 1) 196

No, I do not imply such. I imply that is what the SJW's, such as feminists, want.

You're deeply confused. Try reading that section again.

No, they don't face artificial barriers not faced by men.


They once did, but they haven't for well over a decade

At least you acknowledge those barriers exist! Now, what do you think changed? How were those barriers universally lifted in the last decade? As far as anyone else can tell, things are the same as they were in 2005.

You are just incapable of seeing through the veil that has been pulled over your eyes

Lol! It's a conspiracy, man! They've been, like, lying to you about everything. The truth is out there!

Do you hear yourself?

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce