Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 266 posts

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#201

Post by kiba »

bane wrote: post #181
tiredofcareer wrote: post #130

I've noticed this tack a lot recently (three arguments like this in 24 hours), and I'm concerned by it. There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in the same ballpark as passive intent to harm human beings. They're not even playing the same sport. A fertilizer plant has a chance of harming someone in an ac…

Thank you. RMS, like any intelligent sentient being is capable of thinking complex thoughts and making good points. But I rail against his thoughtlessness. His constant... sociopathy ...it's why he's ineffective in getting his views across, why he treats people like automatons (well documented) and why he's plain and simply put, "not a good person". I never put it in these terms before, I just always felt "skeeved ou…

This is inexcusable, this is madness.

So, you're worried more about a few dead people rather than all those people you never heard of dying in hospitals, in motor accidents, and other cause of death? They are someone's aunts, uncles, sons, daughters, friends, lovers, etc.

Maybe we should connect our emotion to the logic rather than the other way around.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#202

Post by mindcrime »

iamjustin wrote: post #168
mindcrime wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plant safety cuts into profits, left to itself management will not encourage safe working practice - there must be meaningful oversight by an outside agency. Yes, because it's obviously good for business to have your plant blow sky high, destroying the entire surrounding neighborhood and killing most of your employees. If I were a plant manager, I'd make sure to put doing all that right at the top of my TODO list. Or…

Nobody ever said that we will regulate our way to a perfect society. Nobody said that every business owner is a greedy, evil, soul-sucking bastard. But maybe, just maybe, added regulation doesn't need to hurt the honest business owners, and can be used to keep those whose ethics may be a little more sketchy in check.

But maybe, just maybe, added regulation doesn't need to hurt the honest business owners

Nobody ever said that we will regulate our way to a perfect society. Nobody said that every business owner is a greedy, evil, soul-sucking bastard

Not overtly, but it seems implied by a lot of the verbiage you hear from people arguing for more regulation and blaming business owners for pretty much everything. (Note: I don't mean just here, now, in this very discussion. I'm generalizing based on other experiences)

But maybe, just maybe, added regulation doesn't need to hurt the honest business owners, and can be used to keep those whose ethics may be a little more sketchy in check.

I would argue that that is an awfully big maybe. Government regulation, however well-meaning, is notorious for having unintended consequences... sometimes even to the point of having an effect totally counter to the original intent.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#203

Post by waps »

potatolicious wrote: post #149
pekk wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you know that people will die, but are simply indifferent to it, the difference between that and actively wishing to murder is at least arguably academic. You are killing people with your choices in either case.

This is the precise attitude GP is railing against. Are you seriously tabling the notion that "gee, hundreds of Americans will die in car accidents today, oh well" is even in the same universe as "gee, I think I should drop a bomb in the middle of a crowd"? The difference here is as wide as the ocean, it is anything but academic. And this is why some arguments cannot be taken seriously. No one is saying that car acci…

Plus there's the obvious angle. Accidents are part of life and are random. With any crime there's always the possibility of repeat, or worse, escalation (this was an act of islamic terror, so chance of escalation if this goes unpunished is probably very real).

A society must ensure that crime doesn't pay (because the reason crime is committed in the first place is obviously because it does pay, not necessarily in money, but it does pay). Arrest and punishment is essential for that purpose.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#204

Post by bane »

kiba wrote: post #201
bane wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. RMS, like any intelligent sentient being is capable of thinking complex thoughts and making good points. But I rail against his thoughtlessness. His constant... sociopathy ...it's why he's ineffective in getting his views across, why he treats people like automatons (well documented) and why he's plain and simply put, "not a good person". I never put it in these terms before, I just always felt "skeeved ou…

This is inexcusable, this is madness. So, you're worried more about a few dead people rather than all those people you never heard of dying in hospitals, in motor accidents, and other cause of death? They are someone's aunts, uncles, sons, daughters, friends, lovers, etc. Maybe we should connect our emotion to the logic rather than the other way around.

Note:I know I promised to swear this thread off, but I'm unbelievably pissed off

rather than being insulting and getting personal, I'll direct you to this part of the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5579814

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#205

Post by noonespecial »

tiredofcareer wrote: post #130

I've noticed this tack a lot recently (three arguments like this in 24 hours), and I'm concerned by it. There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in the same ballpark as passive intent to harm human beings. They're not even playing the same sport. A fertilizer plant has a chance of harming someone in an ac…

Just remember, there are some people who literally cannot see the emotional difference that's obvious to most. Call it sociopathy or being "on the spectrum" or what have you, for them its like watching a black and white TV picture of a world in color.

They may care very much about life, see two events one with many deaths, one with few, and a everyone inexplicably spending all of their money fixing the few and seemingly ignoring the obvious cheap fixes for the many.

So because they care (and not because they don't) they reach for their superhero capes and go try to help.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#206

Post by tkahn6 »

marknutter wrote: post #189
tkahn6 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a true statement, but what is your point?

The OP said "It's not every day that people have their legs blown off while enjoying a public social event." It's an obvious appeal to emotion that doesn't refute the point that terrorist attacks are so infrequent that the average person ought to worry more about, say, slipping and falling in their bath tubs than getting killed by a terrorist.

I still don't see how that speaks to my point, which has to do with an expectation of danger in different contexts.

So I suppose this would be a red herring on your part, if we're accusing each other of logical fallacies.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#207

Post by tiredofcareer »

rictic wrote: post #170
tiredofcareer wrote: post #130

I've noticed this tack a lot recently (three arguments like this in 24 hours), and I'm concerned by it. There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in the same ballpark as passive intent to harm human beings. They're not even playing the same sport. A fertilizer plant has a chance of harming someone in an ac…

Yet here's rms doing his thing, making the case that the chemical plant owners willfully ignored employee safety in the name of profit. That is an argument that's not supported by the text. The point that Stallman is making, as I see it, is to be concerned about overspending (and sacrificing freedoms) on rare salient threats, while neglecting more commonplace but more dangerous sources of danger like chemical plants…

Richard Stallman made several points in the linked e-mail. The point that I'm concerned with, and made clear that I'm concerned with, is that the Texas plant is the, quote, "bigger danger" than the Boston incidents. He wrote that nearly verbatim; his evidence for that was backed up in the paragraph prior by citing numbers -- specifically, numbers of people dead. That's what I'm attacking, specifically not reaction to, preparation for, or money spent on these heinous events, as I said quite clearly and will continue to say.

My edit specifically applies to the head of your comment.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#208

Post by indrax »

tiredofcareer wrote: post #130

I've noticed this tack a lot recently (three arguments like this in 24 hours), and I'm concerned by it. There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in the same ballpark as passive intent to harm human beings. They're not even playing the same sport. A fertilizer plant has a chance of harming someone in an ac…

I am not a sociopath. I ask myself if I want to save lives or if I want to feel better.

I get that a motivated attacker is a more alarming threat, but that is because we didn't evolve with chemical plants and car accidents.

If you just want to reduce your alarm and comfort you friends. Then focus on dealing with whatever alarms you. But by my standards that's not caring.

'Be appalled by' is cheap and easy. 'react accordingly' is, I'm sorry but that's probably not what you're doing. There are so many people in the world who have demonstrated full intent to kill that if you reacted accordingly you'd become Batman.

If this is just about what we say upsets us as we go about our daily lives, then we can agree to disagree and there's no reason to think worse of each other.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#209

Post by GHFigs »

27182818284 wrote: post #75

It less of a "manhunt" and more what I can only describe as dress up. Most of the cops I saw on TV weren't doing anything. I watched a group stand around in the middle of the street. I watched another different group stand around. I watched a group dressed in full Batman-looking-black body armor hang onto the side of the civilian version of an APC and ride it around town. It honestly looked like dress up. They could…

I would hesitate to generalize from what you saw on TV. What you see on TV has a lot to do with where the TV crews are set up and where they're allowed to go, which has to be somewhere safe and not in the way of the people with work to do.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#210

Post by woah »

tiredofcareer wrote: post #130

I've noticed this tack a lot recently (three arguments like this in 24 hours), and I'm concerned by it. There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in the same ballpark as passive intent to harm human beings. They're not even playing the same sport. A fertilizer plant has a chance of harming someone in an ac…

He's just not scared enough! This is terror, damnit! Get with the program, stallman.
Post reply on HN