That explains the odd behavior of my llama for all these years.
That explains the odd behavior of my llama for all these years.
Does that mean morals are derived from nature? Yay nihilism.
Commit hate speech? You mean say stupid shit?
The more you try to "stifle" them the more you legitimize them because they have something to say that the government won't let them say. You galvanize support and you create martyrs.
Innocent until proven guilty. Yes, you have to wait until actions that are illegal besides "saying stupid shit". How far are you going to outlaw "saying stupid shit"? How many innocent individuals are you willing to oppress to feel safer from mean words?
Restraint in the face of necessity is as bad as reckless action in a crisis.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Yes, and what it took to get that right and others was dangerous.
But what was it? You characterize, but do not identify.
War. I didn't think it was necessary to state the obvious.
Living in a society that do not value those rights are even more dangerous than living in a society with protections for the freedoms of individuals.
One would think so, after all, a society exists to protect individuals, so one with any other conditions is more dangerous by default.
Are you sure you said what you meant?
Individual freedoms and protections by the state are a fairly recent thing. It is more common that states organize and protect a small ruling class. For example a crown or religion via monarchy or theocracy respectively. Individuals have historically been oppressed "for the good of society". Society that favors individualism tend to have more freedom and liberty than those that feel justified in limiting the rights of individuals "for the good of society". A society that can justify any tyranny is inherently a dangerous place because oppression can come without warning or cause and the individual can have little or no recourse of action to protect against state aggression. Just because you have a benevolent dictator now does not mean that they will always be benevolent.
Rights are one of the few absolutes that society should always defend in whole all the time.
Rights are not absolutes, but instead, like all things, subject to moderation and consideration.
Yes, they are absolute and inalienable. They do not come from the state and they are not to be compromised in any irrational way. For example; It is rational to outlaw death threats because any rational person would feel justified in defending themselves from such a threat and that kind of threat can lead to physical violence.
If society forgets anything, it is doomed to repeat it. People will likely suffer and die because of it. And forgetting includes being mistaken about lessons learned, like the limits of rights.
Is there a limit to a fair trial? I don't think you have thought through the "limits of rights" if you can honestly answer that question and come to the conclusion that there is a limit to the "fairness" a trial may have during criminal prosecutions. Do you think the right of fair trial is worth dying for? Is it worth killing for? Rights are the extreme. Any limit will be extreme.
Better to consider what you are willing to live with instead.
Sounds like you are a coward even if you weren't an anonymous coward. Throughout history people considered tyranny livable. Sounds like you don't mind a boot on your face because you can live with it.
IOW, the mainstream positions of the German government (and others) are so weak and vapid they have to censor anything they disregard as hate speech? Very telling.
Maybe their position wouldn't be so weak and vapid if they didn't ignore reality. Maybe there is something wrong with your position if the only reasonable response is government intervention via censorship and a Ministry of Truth.
Speech can be dangerous.
Yes, and what it took to get that right and others was dangerous. Living in a society that do not value those rights are even more dangerous than living in a society with protections for the freedoms of individuals.
Rights are one of the few absolutes that society should always defend in whole all the time. Many people have died to get those rights and many more will die if society forgets sacrifices were necessary for freedoms we take advantage of.
If you aren't willing to die for your rights then anyone strong enough or popular enough will take them away.
Big shocker. You sound upset that the losing side isn't filling it with their own people. That is what happens when the other side wins.
When Obama appointed Tom Wheeler, a lobbyist for telecommunications, to the FCC there was concern about regulatory capture and his possible favoring of companies he lobbied for. In the end, he did ok by most standards and ruled against those companies a few times. It is better to judge the actions of people than by any superficial metric that changes faster than a fart in the wind.
I like a number of his people. Mattis and Gorsuch are such examples.
That is because the congress gave so much power to the POTUS. If you are scared about what the president can do, the president is too powerful.
A reason to vote for Trump was because he was hated by both sides of the political elite that the congress may actually do its job by counter-balancing the power of the president so that this doesn't happen.
Democracy can lead to tyranny from the majority. The will of the people isn't some great and boundless thing that is the end all be all of civics. Like any human endeavor it can be corrupted and abused in a tyrannical way. "All the people" will never agree unanimously and if there is disagreement hostilities can follow through resentment. That is why representative government is the better alternative because it has what is good about democracy while guarding against what is bad. It isn't perfect but nothing is.
You mention compromise but yet are unwilling to let the 'other side' have their day when you say "That's why Brexit and Trump are such disasters". Trump has barely had time in office and brexit is still in the planning phase. The only thing that is "disastrous" is the reaction from the losing side. I have seen how the remain camp has acted since the referendum and it isn't something to be proud of. Just like how the democrats acted after the election.
So far, I have seen anti-democratic sentiment from remainers and democrats in the form of "revote until I win", "Trump not my president", "ignore the law" and advocating for coup d'etat so that they don't have to accept the results. It isn't a democracy if you always get your way by ignoring the other side. Accepting defeat is part of democracy.
I tried to switching to Linux but went back to windows on my main machine because gaming. If I spend money on the latest graphics card I want to be able to use all the new features. With Linux, I always had to fiddle to get things to work, which is fun and dandy sometimes but after work I just want to play a game that runs/looks well with minimal fiddling.
Many of the Linux drivers were a generation or two behind so they couldn't take advantage of a lot of new feature. I like Linux, still use it on my secondary machine but there is still one dominate OS for gaming and it isn't Linux. I am no more a hostage to windows than a victim of Linux being perpetually behind the times.
OpenGL had a hiatus of development and support until recently (few years). The new stuff is good and look forward to more support but too many games I play would be unplayable. Especially when I want the most performance out of my hardware (looking at you wine).
Categorizing GMO and "organic", improving the metrics, and characterizing related potential risks are long and involved subjects.
I have had my fair share of time dedicated to this topic. And as I have said it is primarily based on pseudo-science that as a voting demographic tend toward the D.
I think the phrase, 'don't throw rocks in a glass house' comes to mind. Each party denies science they just disagree which science they dislike. Except vaccines. Some reason that has bipartisan denial.
If GMO's don't bother you, then go ahead and buy the product.
Would love to but the problem with hipster main stream commercialism is that the market that shares that pseudo-science is growing because there is a lot of money to be made selling organic or non-gmo. FUD is used to push that crap that does have a human cost (an example is higher risk for salmonella for certain organic produce, see Chipotle).
You started this thread commenting about a party. I responded about a party. I was ok with using the broad term like "side", as you put it, but saying "not all progressives" so that you can hide behind a name that you can keep shifting like moving goal posts is disingenuous.
just a label. Freedom.
No it is more than just a label because it is purely motivated by FUD and pseudo-science. If you want science to inform government policy then you would be against "just a label" salesmen and positions like Food Babe and non-gmo project.
Want to talk about what labels may need or not need? You don't start from a position of ignorance and fear to inform your solution.
Bad joke is bad.
If 1950's Republicans saw what was happening now in their party they'd have another heart attack.
You're right in that that applies to any party from the 50's compared to the modern party. Not sure the point of that statement when it applies to everyone.
Didn't you know? Oppressing communists is an American tradition.
Good luck with that.
lol, what is vague about Food Babe or the gmo project?
Good grief, you take the fun out of it. It's like kicking a baby on the floor, eventually my leg gets tired.
I would rather be a vague fool than a disingenuous partisan fool because at least I am not blind to the world (or part) even though I don't understand it.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil. -- D.E. Knuth