651–660 of 671 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The left wing constantly says “we started letting women work”. Women have worked for thousands of years. The phenomenon of manipulating women into believing working for a corporation is some kind of “higher calling” is relatively new, and it’s been a disaster for the family unit.
I mean women recognize that they've worked for thousands of years and wanted to start getting paid for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the government saying "you must put fluoride in tap water" and a few people making a big fuss about selling unfluoridated water
If we insist on stretching this absurd metaphor, the government would be issuing civil penalties to "water distributors" who provide water without the requisite floridation, where "water distributors" includes not just Aquafina for selling bottled water, but also the lemonade stand the kids set up in front of the house and you, in your home kitchen, serving your house guests water from your reverse-osmosis private re…
Is it? It's consumer product law, so it only applies to commercially available stuff, if not only commercially sold stuff
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "the government legislating APIs" mean? The ADA means every OS has to support screen readers.
BS. Does TempleOS support it? What about Plan9? MenuetOS? Are these illegal operating systems? Either you or someone else mentioned this talking point the other day, I asked for even a single example of an OS maker being sued over this successfully, and I got nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These laws don't violate the privacy of every computer user. They say that a parent shall be able to mark a child's account as being under 18, and apps shall respect that.
Assuming apps for which this is relevant respect users and specifically children in this day and age sounds naive. It's another free datapoint to collect, in the best case for targeted ads. Meta seems to be behind a lot of lobbying for this and they're the kind of company who does nonconsensual psychological experiments on their users: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm completely baffled why anyone still engages with the "official" framing around this. Obviously, it's not for protecting children. Obviously, it's a technocratic trojan horse for increasing surveillance capabilities on digital systems. This is so cynically anti-democratic that they obfuscate the real purpose, don't even bother to make it plausible, and everyone is left talking about how "awful it is" that it's alr…
That doesn't really with with the voting. AB 1043 passed 58-0 in the Cali state assembly which is mostly normal democrats. Those people aren't thinking ha ha ha our evil plans are working. They are thinking let protect kids. I'm skeptical of your obviouslys.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, the process of removing unjust laws generally involves violating them, so that courts have the opportunity to legislate from the bench.
Laws can be removed in the same exact way they are passed. It's just in the commit instead of adding lines, you remove them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does. Read it again: > Either you believe the system is just and you follow all the rules (and work through the system to changes the individual rules you believe are unjust) [...] I believe the system is just. That does not change in the presence of those unjust rules that you listed above, because those laws can be changed and are changed regularly, and because they're not egregious enough to constitute a failur…
I understood you perfectly, but you didn't understand me. You're trying to create a false binary between "follow every law as written, until it gets changed" and "drastic action." Nobody wants to take drastic action, so (you say) we should follow the laws. You seem to agree that there are unjust laws, but you don't realize the scope of the problem. There are many unenforceable laws, with drastic consequences if they…
Irrelevant.
> A just system would not perpetuate unjust laws indefinitely
Can you point to laws that the majority of the population agrees are unjust that have existed since the beginning of the United States? If not, then there's zero unjust laws being perpetuated indefinitely, and so your conclusion is invalid by your own argument.
But, your own argument is wrong to begin with - the vast majority of humans will acknowledge a system as being essentially just even if it perpetuates some unjust/irrelevant/silly laws.
> In fact, there's no such binary.
That's true, you can "just ignore those laws" - and you'll be a hypocrite. The binary that I'm describing is clearly moral. I'm not saying that you physically must take one position or the other (as you're implying) - just that if you pick a value in the middle, you're a hypocrite, and your opinions are worthless, because you don't really believe them - you're just saying whatever is most convenient/advantageous for you at the moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Civil disobedience is wrong. Society has established ways to change the rules. Breaking rules instead of changing them is disrespectful to the society that has been built. Just because you quote someone, that does not mean what they are advocating for is just.
Society is wrong. It allows trillion dollar corporations to simply buy the laws that they want to impose on you while conveniently leaving loophopes for themselves. Why the hell would you want to "change" this rigged system through the system? That's mind boggling. There is absolutely no reason at all to even so much as recognize these laws as legitimate. Society can go to hell if it thinks otherwise. They were suppo…
So much for "Resolving inconsistencies between my ideas is the entire reason why I come here to discuss them."[1] - you're just here to engage in propaganda.
(propaganda that, for the future record, isn't even true - corporations do not get votes and do not get to "buy the laws they want")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understood you perfectly, but you didn't understand me. You're trying to create a false binary between "follow every law as written, until it gets changed" and "drastic action." Nobody wants to take drastic action, so (you say) we should follow the laws. You seem to agree that there are unjust laws, but you don't realize the scope of the problem. There are many unenforceable laws, with drastic consequences if they…
> There are many unenforceable laws, with drastic consequences if they were enforced, which are not being fixed Irrelevant. > A just system would not perpetuate unjust laws indefinitely Can you point to laws that the majority of the population agrees are unjust that have existed since the beginning of the United States? If not, then there's zero unjust laws being perpetuated indefinitely, and so your conclusion is in…
While I don't see why "unenforceable laws" is being mentioned so many times, given the plethora of other laws, I possit that since one of the prior comments was that enforcing them would be damageous, perhaps the intended wording is "unenforced laws" (as distinct from laws which cannot be enforced). If so, then I suggest their relevance.
>> A just system would not perpetuate unjust laws indefinitely > > Can you point to laws that the majority of the population agrees are unjust that have existed since the beginning of the United States? If not, then there's zero unjust laws being perpetuated indefinitely, and so your conclusion is invalid by your own argument.
This the flaw that a law being perpetuated "indefinitely" (that is, without defined end) need not have existed since the beginning of the United States. Such law could have begun at any after, or indeed prior.
>> In fact, there's no such binary. > > That's true, you can "just ignore those laws" - and you'll be a hypocrite. The binary that I'm describing is clearly moral. I'm not saying that you physically must take one position or the other (as you're implying) - just that if you pick a value in the middle, you're a hypocrite, and your opinions are worthless, because you don't really believe them - you're just saying whatever is most convenient/advantageous for you at the moment.
This formulation is not constructive of enlightened debate. Kindly sheath your daggers and reply without invectives. As written, that might easily be read both as personal attack and casual dismisal of entire person. For what is a person who has no opinions?
Now, if I understand your position correctly, you believe that all laws must be obeyed, and that disobeying any law is immoral. Do we each believe that some laws are, whether past or present, immoral? In the case that a law can be immoral, I must hold that the resultant moral obligations are to disobey that law to the fullest and to endeavour to best ability for its most expedient and most moral removal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please review how laws are created. Meta can't write a check to the US Treasury and add a new law. That's not how it works at all.
Of course. That would be too obvious. They write checks to lobbyists instead.