100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
Far too many subjective appeals to reasonableness and appeals to fear for my liking. Laws like these are exactly the problem with the current state of the US. This is EXACTLY what I mean when I say no personal responsibility. Fear is personal. Fearing for your life in an encounter in which you have no control is the ultimate fear. Personal responsibility enter into the equation when you take charge to gain control over both the situation, and subsequently the fear. Laws try to facilitate this control via the government, ie you are not personally responsibly for taking control, you are asking the government to take responsibility to take control. The burden of proof is high for stalking laws becuase of the possibility of injustice and abuse. This creates a situation were in many cases unless an explicit threat has been issued and can be proven the government has no ability to affect control over the cause of the fear. Depending on someone else (no less the government) to take control of your fear has to be the most desperate, and most ineffective means to that end ever devised. but not consistent in how much weight what 'could happen' should be given You will have to explain this better my dear, I want to call it nonsense.
certainly, when I say how much weight, Im referring to how significant a factor it is considered to be in the case of SOPA law, what COULD happen if the law is passed (Even if not explicitly in the law) seems to be significant enough to not support the law in the case of Stalking law, what COULD happen (in terms of potential for stalking to progress into more serious or harmful offense) doesnt seem to be significant enough to support the law IN case one,, POSSIBLE scenarios carry alot of WEIGHT towards your position in case two....POSSIBLE scenarios dont carry much WEIGHT towards your position |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone get that link to work? its actually odd that in the case of stalking what 'could happen' shouldnt matter, but in cases of copyright infringement what 'could happen' should be a significant deterrent against passing infringement laws,,,, Lol, in both cases I am against adding laws, I see no inconsistency in my position. Both are about the injustice that can occur and for little to no deterrent value.
It is easy to understand my perspective. Liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government. thats true, in the case of stalking your position to not add seems to be based in the idea that its silly to create a law based on what 'could happen' and in the case of SOPA your position to not add seems to be based in the idea that what 'could happen' is reason enough to not add a law so, consistent in aversion to laws, but not consistent in how much weight what 'could happen' should be given |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
it's supposed to be the big dinosaurs eat the little ones but God sent a rock down from heaven to kill the big and little ones. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A felony puts people behind bars, keeping the risk of their taking such a citizens life much less likely.... But is it JUST to jail someone who would have never trespassed, or assaulted, or murdered, just becuase they cant get over a relationship in the time span you want? Or if you guys broke up on bad terms and they just want to try to smooth things over, your done, but they are not? Stalking is far too amorphous of a claim, with few tangible characteristics that are not protected by basic rights.
It seems to me there is a wide range of behaviors which are NOT criminal that would be made criminal, or COULD be made criminal by extending such laws and for arguably no deterrent value. Cost benefit indeed. The cost to society, and justice is too high for the minuscule potential benefit. The deterrent to murder can be no greater than life in prison, or death row, for premeditated murder. ie it makes no logical sense to support laws with lesser penalties that would make criminal citizens with normal social interactions and run of the mill domestic issues where no one is harmed. Personal responsibility comes into play when a person wants the government to protect them vs they themselves being responsible for there own protection. people need to read their perspective states stalker laws to see if there is a difference between stalking and just wanting to 'smooth things over'. here is the law for nevada http://www.baddteddy.com/stalkers/stalker_laws.htm#nevada its actually odd that in the case of stalking what 'could happen' shouldnt matter, but in cases of copyright infringement what 'could happen' should be a significant deterrent against passing infringement laws,,,, as stated before, Im all for preventive measure as opposed to reactionary as long as it falls within reason and common sense... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
confusion
|
|
the screen name is awesome Champagne....welcome
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reminds me of a silly saying my elders have
'negative aint nothing',,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you asked
Laws have more negative impacts than just killing, so does the misuse of firearms.
"What study are you referring to that illustrates that there are greater risks associated with innocents being harmed by the lawful usage of a defensive firearm? " my statement was in response to this statement "But a loaded weapon will always be a better deterent than a new law or harsher penalties.' the comparison is between a loaded weapon and 'laws' my conclusion is a common sense one,, unless you know of some study that shows 'laws' have killed more people than bullets,,,, However that is really not the important question. The important question is how effective is a firearm at deterring crime vs no firearm for protection. Cost benefit. Law however is a very different sort of deterrent, it is abstract. Nothing abstract about seeing a firearm and knowing it can be used against you if you attack the person. There is no greater penalty than death. Murder is the ultimate crime with the ultimate punishment. Felony Stalking is a lesser crime than murder, with a lesser punishment. If you are contemplating murder and willing to accept the possibility of being caught, then why would felony stalking deter you? It wouldn't, so in actuality it has 0 deterrent factor. Compare that to the possibility of being shot and killed by a defensive firearm. Not even close. Now your position makes perfect sense once you realize that under no circumstances would you arm yourself. Since that is true, no matter how ineffective the deterrent of a law would actually be, it is better than nothing which is what you are left with given your unyielding decision to go unarmed. This is true of all Anti2A, anti gun, anti personal responsibility liberals. Where are our moderate liberals who understand personal responsibility and do not want to create feel good laws. Im not anti gun, I just dont choose to have a gun or allow anyone who can pay for one to have one. Im not anti personal responsibility,,,not even sure where that fits in here actually, BUT being in jail is a GREAT DETERRENT to causing the death of law abiding citizens. A felony puts people behind bars, keeping the risk of their taking such a citizens life much less likely.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Just wondering......about
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 03/15/12 01:28 PM
|
|
What you really mean is that you choose to ignore real world examples and logical conclusions in favor of your own pet legislation
NO. IM REALLY NOT IGNORING THE EXAMPLES AT ALL. I JUST DONT GIVE THEM THE WEIGHT THAT YOU MIGHT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS ISSUE. You love to make these obvious statements as if they counter the clear, concise arguments against your positions. NOPE. I ENJOY POSTING MY OWN OPINIONS AND 'ARGUMENTS' JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE ON THE FORUM AND ITS ALL THE MORE INTERESTING IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE OPINION ON ANY FORUM THREAD,..SO YAY MSH!! I wonder at times why you post if you cannot explain your position from the actual facts without just agreeing to disagree, getting side tracked, or making obvious statements that do not support your conclusions. WOW. THATS A COMPLEX ONE. I HAVE MANY REASONS THAT I POST DEPENDING UPON THE THREAD, WHAT IM DOING AT THE TIME, AND HOW I FEEL. I POST BECAUSE I FIND THE DISCUSSION ENGAGING. I POST SOMETIMES BECAUSE MANY MORE PEOPLE READ THESE THREADS THAN POST IN THEM AND I SOMETIMES WANT TO COUNTER WHAT I FEEL IS FALSE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION AND GIVE MORE FOR THOSE READERS TO CONSIDER. WHEN I AGREE TO DISAGREE ITS BECAUSE NOONE IS BUDGING FROM THEIR OPINIONS OR THE INFORMATION THEY HAVE DUG UP TO SUPPORT THEM AND I NO LONGER WISH TO BANG MY HEAD ON A WALL BUT STILL WANT TO AKNOWLEDGE THAT PERSONS POSITION. I SOMETIMES STOP POSTING ALTOGETHER BECAUSE IM STILL LIVING LIFE ON THIS END OF THE COMPUTER AND I AM NO LONGER WITHIN REACH OF THE SCREEN OR THE KEYBOARD. IF ANYONE FEELS MY STATEMENTS DONT SUPPORT MY CONCLUSIONS THEY ARE FREE TO POST THE INCONSISTENCY JUST LIKE I DO WHEN I FEEL THAT WAY ABOUT THEIR POSTS. (although, inevitably, peoples posts make perfect logical sense to THEM) If you want to protect your IP rights you need to put forth the effort to find, and sue the perpetrators, shuffling off this burden to the content hosts is not a viable solution. SOPA IS DIRECTED AT THE PERPETRATORS (BEING A HOST DOESNT EXCUSE ANYONE), THERE ARE ALREADY PROCESSES FOR THE HOSTS TO ADDRESS VIOLATIONS ON THEIR CITES AND REPORT THEM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I she had been trained to use a gun properly,none of your exceptions apply and he would have been shot and killed. knowing how to use a gun properly still doesnt erase the human ability to be caught off gaurd since there is no way of knowing HOW the shooting happened or what preperation or warning she had preceeding her death, there is no way to know if she would have had the 'opportunity' to use those skills or not... You are right, having a gun doesn't mean you will never be a victim. But a loaded weapon will always be a better deterent than a new law or harsher penalties. and a better risk of 'innocent' people being harmed or dying than a new law too,,,, What study are you referring to that illustrates that there are greater risks associated with innocents being harmed by the lawful usage of a defensive firearm? Cost benefit is the proper analysis so make sure you subtract all of the people who successfully defend themselves from attack without any "innocents being harmed" from the total of accidental injury. If you come up with a huge negative number then you have your answer. Or are you just assuming? I think you are just assuming. you asked "What study are you referring to that illustrates that there are greater risks associated with innocents being harmed by the lawful usage of a defensive firearm? " my statement was in response to this statement "But a loaded weapon will always be a better deterent than a new law or harsher penalties.' the comparison is between a loaded weapon and 'laws' my conclusion is a common sense one,, unless you know of some study that shows 'laws' have killed more people than bullets,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Just wondering......about
|
|
Its funny to me you guys are arguing copyright when SOPA was not really about copyright laws, it is about the power to censor based on the POSSIBILITY of a copy right violation. No changes to copy right law itself was posed, only the power of IP holders to request sites be taken down that had POSSIBLE copyright violations, and the ability to take action against any sites which hosted links or material which could possibly have such violations. This preemptive enforcement policy would make it very risky to host ANY links to ANY material which could be used under fair use. Which would have "a chilling effect" on user generated content, fair use criticisms, and just about all of the various LEGAL ways to make use of copy righted materials. THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE. I didnt see 'possible' anywhere in the SOPA text,,, have you read the bill? ie it requires to avoid POSSIBLE legal actions against your business to remove all such links/content OR monitor all such links/content. Which means for just about EVERY such site that to monitor would be cost prohibitive, which means that they would just remove that content. This is why POSSIBLE is exactly what gets censored, becuase these businesses would have to monitor the potential for copyrights violations at there own expense to avoid legal action being taken against them for a user, or even another sites upload. msharmony, if you have not read up on the ramifications of this, then I understand, but I know better. I know you have been told this before. When your threaten the bottom line of a company, by requiring them to police all links and all user generated content, and there entire business is user uploaded content, such as youtube. What you are really doing is putting them out of business. These are heavy handed, and place the burden of proof on the content site, not on the content owner, which is where the burden of proof for a IP copy rights currently reside. Currently if you own content, it is up to you to determine if its a rights violation when you find your content on a site, you can file a DMCA and have it ruled on and if its not under fair use protection you can have it taken down. When you place the burden on the content site, becuase they CANNOT afford to monitor the POSSIBLE rights violations they then will just get out of that business entirely which PREEMPTIVELY silences all of the uses, both fair use, and the actual violations all in one sweep. This is why SOPA was terrible legislation it shifted the burden from the content owner to the site which links content. Yes, I have been told many times about these 'ramifications' , about as often as I was told about 'death panels' in the healthcare bill I just keep asking for the text that backs up the claim, and have yet to be shown it as I understand it, part of the definitions (at the beginning of the bill) which explain 'foreign infringing cites' which the bill is aimed at explains for a cite to fit the criteria it has to have a 'PRIMARY' purpose of engaging in, enabling, or facilitating infringement that is different than requiring ALL cites to monitor ALL their content,,,,,that is a PREPONDERANCE of activity that facilitates crime,,, There are already examples of laws having such unintended consequences. It amuses me that you think it has to be written specifically into the bill for the causal effect to create exactly the situations described. Moving the burden of proof from the content owner to the content host is the problem, and it naturally follows that when content hosts such as youtube can be sued they then need to either remove all possible examples, or monitor those examples. This follows NATURALLY from the shift in burden, which is explicitly stated in the dead bill and is exactly why the bill is dead. Ill agree to disagree. There is no law that doesnt have a potential negative 'causal' effect. There are alot of 'could bes' out there, but I dont choose to let them kill the effort to curb offenses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
What is the worst thing
|
|
What is the worst thing that can happen to any relationship? for me, betrayal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I she had been trained to use a gun properly,none of your exceptions apply and he would have been shot and killed. knowing how to use a gun properly still doesnt erase the human ability to be caught off gaurd since there is no way of knowing HOW the shooting happened or what preperation or warning she had preceeding her death, there is no way to know if she would have had the 'opportunity' to use those skills or not... You are right, having a gun doesn't mean you will never be a victim. But a loaded weapon will always be a better deterent than a new law or harsher penalties. and a better risk of 'innocent' people being harmed or dying than a new law too,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
You want us to recreate reality in order to convince you it didn't need to be created?
NO. I Want a 'system' (not simply 'reality) to 'accidentally' occur again (not be 'created') Do your realize that nothing else in life that you accept requires that standard of evidence? Yes, do you realize nothing else in life that you accept requires whatever 'standard of evidence' you require to believe in 'intelligent' design? The reality is that you have made up your mind independent of any evidence for a designer, and thus no level of evidence will ever be enough to convince you otherwise. the feeling is mutual You cannot reason someone out of a belief they did not arrive at through reason. my reason is as valid as anyone elses. I dont believe I magically appeared, I can see my mom and dad and realize (along with biology) where I physically came from, but the atoms did not magically produce me through an accident. I can apply that same logic to conclude that the universe was most likely not just a random 'accident' either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Inter racial dating
|
|
We ALL bleed red. Made that decision in about 1967. We should all be over the "RACE" thing. RACE is a difference that should not define others for us but it is a significant marker for individuals to appreciate their own unique circumstances and their own unique ancestral history |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Just wondering......about
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 03/15/12 12:34 PM
|
|
Its funny to me you guys are arguing copyright when SOPA was not really about copyright laws, it is about the power to censor based on the POSSIBILITY of a copy right violation. No changes to copy right law itself was posed, only the power of IP holders to request sites be taken down that had POSSIBLE copyright violations, and the ability to take action against any sites which hosted links or material which could possibly have such violations. This preemptive enforcement policy would make it very risky to host ANY links to ANY material which could be used under fair use. Which would have "a chilling effect" on user generated content, fair use criticisms, and just about all of the various LEGAL ways to make use of copy righted materials. THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE. I didnt see 'possible' anywhere in the SOPA text,,, have you read the bill? ie it requires to avoid POSSIBLE legal actions against your business to remove all such links/content OR monitor all such links/content. Which means for just about EVERY such site that to monitor would be cost prohibitive, which means that they would just remove that content. This is why POSSIBLE is exactly what gets censored, becuase these businesses would have to monitor the potential for copyrights violations at there own expense to avoid legal action being taken against them for a user, or even another sites upload. msharmony, if you have not read up on the ramifications of this, then I understand, but I know better. I know you have been told this before. When your threaten the bottom line of a company, by requiring them to police all links and all user generated content, and there entire business is user uploaded content, such as youtube. What you are really doing is putting them out of business. These are heavy handed, and place the burden of proof on the content site, not on the content owner, which is where the burden of proof for a IP copy rights currently reside. Currently if you own content, it is up to you to determine if its a rights violation when you find your content on a site, you can file a DMCA and have it ruled on and if its not under fair use protection you can have it taken down. When you place the burden on the content site, becuase they CANNOT afford to monitor the POSSIBLE rights violations they then will just get out of that business entirely which PREEMPTIVELY silences all of the uses, both fair use, and the actual violations all in one sweep. This is why SOPA was terrible legislation it shifted the burden from the content owner to the site which links content. Yes, I have been told many times about these 'ramifications' , about as often as I was told about 'death panels' in the healthcare bill I just keep asking for the text that backs up the claim, and have yet to be shown it as I understand it, part of the definitions (at the beginning of the bill) which explain 'foreign infringing cites' which the bill is aimed at explains for a cite to fit the criteria it has to have a 'PRIMARY' purpose of engaging in, enabling, or facilitating infringement that is different than requiring ALL cites to monitor ALL their content,,,,,that is a PREPONDERANCE of activity that facilitates crime,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where is it illegal to sell raw food?
are you talking about the REQUIREMENTS involved in order to sell it? or are you implying its illegal period....? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Inter racial dating
|
|
Absolutely no difference. Men come in all shapes and sizes and some are good, some are not so good. The trick is finding someone you love full stop regardless of what colour they are. Sometimes there can be problems dating interracially but a strong enough couple will get through it and not be affected by outside influences. thats true, some regions are more tolerant than others, but thats a great thing about America, so many places and cultures within it to choose from ITs not as easy as in the Netherlands, but you can get in where you fit in and find places that fit the environment and style you wish to live in,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 03/15/12 12:20 PM
|
|
You can't put the ugly monster of fear on this. Should I not be concerned that my vote won't count because someone has fraudulently voted? if you have 'always' been concerned, that seems reasonable if you suddenly have 'elevated' concern in THIS election cycle, its unreasonable as the situation has not elevated in any way,,,, of all the things to be concerned with though, its probably low on the list when you consider that voter fruad is a crime that is prosecutable by law already and voter fraud happens just as easily with or without the id because fake ids are simple to come by too,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
"But we have explanations for the tides, and now we have explanations of the orbits of planets all of which do not require a decision maker at any part of the process. " says who? so you have explanations for the tides and orbits, what does that have to do with whether there was a 'decision maker'? our understanding is not adequate period,, in my opinion the day someone 'accidentally' creates a system the 'works' together with the complexity and detail of the universe and all its creatures Ill be convinced that belief in an intelligent designer is not reasonable or possible or probable until then,, nah, Man cant explain and wont explain how the machine all works together so well,, no matter how well they explain the 'details' of its parts |
|
|
|
|
Previous
