And the pub owner has to waste his time and energy on the lawsuit. And money on lawyers. He could go bankrupt before it’s settled. Even if the ruling is in his favor, he may not recoup his loses.
I think that you missed my point, which was that simply by putting a webcam into the pub, the owner seems to lose control over the establishment which he previously had. He now has bunch of obligations placed on him. At the same time, those who appear on the webcam, seem to have no obligations. They have a lot of new rights.
Sounds odd to me. Why should it be that way?
“nefarious activity”? You’re arguing that the owner can’t even unplug the webcam.
There is state sanctioned discrimination. “Affirmative action” is state racism and sexism. There is state endorsed hypocrisy.
The law will force a bakery to make a cake for a gay wedding but it will not force a bakery to make a cake for a Nazi wedding.
I understood. He can make other videos which convey his message and which do not use copyrighted content.
No, that’s not the same situation. If Carleas had a conversation with me and claimed that his part was covered by copyright, then I would not be able to distribute his part of the conversation. I could still do whatever I want with what I said.
So you’re implying that meaning of implication is too hard to discern and so isn’t that an implication that moderators are stupid? Anyway, if in doubt, a mod could inquire for clarification. But all that’s beside the point since I’m arguing that the community should be capable of policing itself and then we wouldn’t need to worry about lettering the law perfectly. Because the alternative is “Well, some crimes must be allowed because we can’t construct a law properly.”
I agree but why is it not entertaining to read “There are no gods, retards”? Do you seriously think he thinks theists are retarded? No, of course not. It’s an unconsciously clever synopsis of an ideology. Insult is insult and we’re just arguing over the form it should take, which is completely arbitrary. Reminds me of Captain Sparrow’s argument “So you agree my proposal is sound in principle; now we’re just haggling over price.” youtube.com/watch?v=Qs8lTUW9uFY
Yeah I agree with that, but the point was Dan’s action worked… or it appeared to. Anyway, it was the right response. To that you said “only because someone reported it” which was beside the point, which is: anyone else could have taken the same action. The fact that mods exist leaves people thinking, “Well, policing the community isn’t my job, so… :-” "
So what would you have said?
That furthers my point that the police cannot enforce morality. “We can’t protect you because we can’t spell out to the letter every crime that can exist and the presumption that we can would make us monsters.”
So they don’t observe their own rules?
I can’t do it alone.
Prohibition doesn’t work. Public shaming does.
That’s why more people need to agree in order to make it a serious consequence to the ego, which is why James was here.
Yeah, my theory is that evolution of communities favors the most immoral and underhanded since the nice people leave. The mods are supposed to protect against that, but they can’t. They can’t be everywhere and they can’t discern implication and they can’t force people to admit when they are wrong, among many other things, including the fact that power itself corrupts.
I read some, but I have so much to read and have to prioritize. And it occurred to me that he had been a member here for 3 years, so we don’t have to leave ILP to make discovery. What changed in Autsider? How did he survive for 3 years here if he’s such an inherent monster incapable of change?
That’s the way it is now. A precedent would change that and make it less expensive.
We could say that because he decided to charge money for drinks, that he now has a bunch of obligations put on him. Because he opened his doors to the public in effort to make money, he now has a lot of obligations. So putting up a webcam introduces new obligations.
No they have the same rights as before, the freedom of speech. The only time you forfeit the freedom of speech is when you are not considered public.
If you come to my house and I don’t like the way you talk, I can ask you to leave. You don’t have freedom of speech at my house. But if I invite the public to my house by putting up a sign “all are welcome”, then I’ve made myself public and cannot ask you to leave on the basis of your speech. Also if you come to my house and use my equipment to address the public, then I cannot ask you to leave on the basis on your speech. I cannot do those things ethically, anyway, but maybe legally because the law has been perverted, but not ethically for sure.
I can’t let friends ride motorcycles on my land because, even if I compel them to sign documents, they can still sue me for injuries that I had nothing to do with. Even if they don’t sue me, their insurance companies can. There is no way for me to protect myself and share my land with friends. And yet Google and ILP can get away with censoring of speech with complete immunity? Google can take away people’s rights, but I cannot?
An insurance agent told me a story: A guy left a bar drunk with the bar owner’s knowledge, drove past the flashing crossing gates on railroad tracks and killed a guy inside a phone booth. Who got sued? The phone company because they had the most money.
Unplug? If it’s unplugged, then what are we discussing?
I agree that’s bullshit. This is where Autsider would argue that it’s not just the state, but the jews who are pushing for homosexuality in order to eliminate the white race since they’re in charge of the government and media. Google fired Damore for arguing facts that offend the diversity narrative.
Something like 1% of the population is homosexual, but it’s plastered all over everything and continually rammed down our throats.
For years those videos played just fine, then after Trump was elected, suddenly they were copyrighted. Schiff isn’t even a fan of Trump, so I don’t know what the deal is. There are videos from 2006 when Schiff called the housing bust and consequently ridiculed that are now blocked. He can’t reproduce that. How can he reproduce 2006-people laughing at him?
Probably have to ask Carleas for an authoritative answer, but I think he owns our conversation and you couldn’t do whatever you wanted with your conversation on ILP.
CNBC would invite people on the show who would argue with each other and now CNBC is claiming ownership of those debates even though CNBC had nothing to do with the debates except to air them.
Carleas is being careful because nowadays companies can turn off websites or web hosting on a whim just because the owners of them emotionally feel like doing so where his occupation as a lawyer he’s trying to I think make sure no laws are broken concerning online interactions to make sure no threat against the forum manifests itself hence his extreme paranoia.
It’s understandable given the last year and a half how many websites have been shut down ironically in a nation that prides itself on free speech. Right now there are many trying to identify the difference between free speech and hate speech where under the newly defined definition of hate speech are trying to silence others. This is problematic for ILP because many of us are definitely not politically correct in the conventional sense where I am sure there are some that would like to see this forum gone. Thankfully our administrator is a representative of the law, let us hope the government doesn’t change the laws regarding online interaction or communication.
[Well, eventually they’ll try to anyways as it is inevitable…]
This place is unique for a philosophy forum in that, where else can you see different ideologies debate each other in a single place under a singular forum platform? I’ll tell you now not anywhere else as all other forums tend to be echo chambers where only one ideology is allowed or represented where yet still others are persecuted. Here multiple ideologies are allowed to compete, debate, and argue against each other. Here at ILP we have democrats, republicans, marxists, nationalists, autocrats, libertarians, liberals, anarchists, multiculuturalists, ethnic identitarians, cynics, pessimists, nihilists, materialists, idealists, religious, irreligious, and one world government enthusiasts in one single spot debating each other. This doesn’t exist much elsewhere [It use to be more widespread in years past but not any more as the internet has aged.]as there are fewer places left to have this kind of exchanging dialogue. This is probably the reason why I keep coming back as all of that makes ILP unique.
If we’re still around, a decade or two from now, will look back on the early 21st century as the long lost golden age of internet freedom, thanks in part to venues like ILP.
Really? I wasn’t aware of that. Some are dying from lack of participation. I get a lot of email from admins just-about begging for someone to come participate in their garden, motorbike, whatever forums. I’m not sure if Twitter or mobile devices killed them.
I know of a couple small places and probably it’s only because they are small that it is so. As soon as the herd thunders in, they trample on everyone’s rights.
What’s to talk about in an echochamber? I need someone to disagree with me or I wouldn’t know what I think. How would I know I advocated for free speech unless someone else didn’t? We need enemies.
Where are the Nazis?
If Hillary had been elected, none of this would be happening. Not that Trump has done anything, but people are reacting to fear itself.
If Hilary had been elected we would have ground troops in Syria and God knows what tensions with Russia. I have little doubt she would have continued the harshest treatment of whistleblowers - he was worse than Bush - since we are talking about free speech.
I don’t know about wars and I can’t base anything on evidence, but it sure feels like if Hillary would have won it would have been status quo and no one would have thought twice about a jew-hating youtube video. The sentiment at the time was “Oh that’s just stupid; who cares” and now it’s “OMG hate speech!”
Is there anyone here who supports to restriction of speech? If not, is there anyone who can play devil’s advocate to argue their position? I’m curious if there is any merit and why anyone would hold such a view.
In Europe it’s against the law to challenge the holocaust and one can serve years in prison over it. I think the reason is that it disrespects the victims by making them liars, like telling Buzz Aldrin he didn’t walk on the moon and getting punched for it:
(Now that I watched the video, the fact that he didn’t pacify the guy by swearing on his bible is a bit suspicious. Is he afraid to swear on it? Would he have to swear on it in court? If he would swear on it in court, then wouldn’t it be easier to swear on it to make the guy leave rather than making such protest followed by slugging the guy? Opinions on that would be cool.)
So should we make a law that prohibits folks from making conspiracies about the moonwalking? Why not? Why allow disrespect of the astronauts who risked life and limb?
Heck, why stop there. It’s a slippery slope, right? We can slide on down to the crime of hurting people’s feelings. “You called me a name so you can go to jail!”
Why not outlaw climate denial? After all, our earth is at stake, right? “Life in prison for advocating the destruction of earth!”
Where does it end and who gets to decide?
Why must truth be guarded so rabidly?
Freedom of speech is the only mechanism for establishing truth, so censoring speech for the sake of truth is therefore the undermining of its very own underpinning and it the philosophical equivalent of sawing off the limb you’re sitting on. It’s madness!
“Beware when fighting monsters that you don’t become a monster.” As soon as we embark on a crusade of righteousness we’ve become monsters: armed clergy.
I am saying that it’s hard to discern. I didn’t think that Mr. R’s suggestion to “fall off a ladder” was insulting. And after rereading it I still don’t. I’m surprised that you take it as an insult.
My opinion is probably the result of having fallen off a ladder and permanently damaging my body. Any more similar falls off ladders could leave me paralyzed. So although gravity doesn’t increase consequences, damage does accumulate as he suggested.
He should not have said that you were being tacky.
So the pub owner gets added obligations but the patrons have no added obligations even if the owner has a clearly expressed policy on use of the webcam and the patrons have agreed to the policy. Is that your position?
So if I’m a Jew and I invite the public to my house for some roasted lamb and then someone starts yelling anti-Semitic, anti-meat, or just personal insults, then I can’t tell him to stop and I can’t tell him to leave??
( Maybe “throw the filthy Jews in the oven” stuff )
That’s the correct ethics?
The owner can unplug the webcam if a patron is saying something that goes against the owners policy? Now I’m really confused because in the last example you seemed to be saying that the homeowner has to allow his “equipment” to be used. And you also seem to be arguing that with respect to media companies in general.
I don’t know the details of what the policy was or why it changed. But if it was copyrighted material, then they can ask that it not be broadcast.
Well, he has made threads in the past where he said that theists are mentally ill and delusional. But at least he wrote some arguments in those threads.
The Religion and Spirituality forum is described as "For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict. "
In fact, the moderation is not strict. It has become a forum for bashing theists.
I have tried to keep the discussions at least a bit philosophical. But I’m tired of it.
That he presents no new information, no argument and that his post is one insult. And he has a choice of either posting relevant content or getting banned.
I can’t picture a forum situation where shaming would be a positive.
I don’t think that’s true. As long as there are enough “nice” people around then they “crowd out” the “nasty” people. The “nice” people go quiet or leave when a certain threshold of “nastiness” is exceeded.
Policing helps keep the “nastiness” in check by presenting real consequences to the “nasty” people for their behavior and giving them motivation to change. It reduces the rate of growth of the “nasty” population.
Look at all the white nationalist websites they simply turned off last year, they won’t just stop with that however as what will come next is any website promoting rebellion against the government or power structure. Mark my words for future reference please. White nationalism was a target of convenience for public outcry to move onto other venues in banning or censorship.
I also like differing opinions and beliefs as my beliefs wouldn’t become stronger if I didn’t have any opponent to debate. I take great pride in debating others striking them down in bouts of words.
Where are the nazis? If you don’t know by now I am the resident autocrat here and I make no apologies for being such. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump serve the same masters, choice within democracy is always a false dichotomy.
I support the restriction of speech under my chosen political ideology however under the dictatorship I promote I would have no problem with holocaust revisionism or skepticism publicly in that my beliefs are definitely not kosher. I would publicly state my beliefs on the holocaust or World War II here on the forum but I won’t for such politically incorrect beliefs of mine pertaining the subject would get me permanently banned here very quickly. I’ll just leave it at that.
It’s in the context. If I had asked what it feels like to fall off a ladder, then the suggestion wouldn’t be insulting. But I simply said that nature doesn’t increase punishment and he recommended I fall off the ladder more often in order to discover that nature does increase the punishment and that my expression of ignorance was tacky. But what was tacky is what he metaphorically stepped in by calling me tacky because the punishment does not increase and nature doesn’t seek to punish.
People who throw insults at one another are, for the lack of a better word, kind of lowly and pitiful.
So he’s insulting people who insult and has consequently defined himself by his own conclusion. I suppose I have to tread lightly lest I insult him, but then again, I’m human and subject to mistakes and won’t contaminate myself with purity.
Umm… I guess so. I thought I stated my position verbosely. The pub owner doesn’t have the right to take away the right to freedom of speech of the public. That is independent of any obligations the pub owner may or may not realize. That is my position.
Depends what you mean by “invite the public to my house”. Is the invitation open to everyone on earth? Or do you mean just some friends? If it’s open to everyone, then no. If the invitation is limited, then yes. You make the decision to make your house public and once you do that, you can’t control what information the public has access to. If someone starts yelling comments, then all you can do is say “Well, I invited everyone and this is what I get: everyone.”
No the owner doesn’t HAVE to allow usage of his equipment; it was just to state that “even if they use his equipment”. Who owns the equipment doesn’t matter. What matters is who is invited and who is the audience.
So Schiff has no rights to his own material simply because it was on a medium owned my someone else? If you discover the cure for cancer on my pc, then I can seize your work and claim credit? It should be the other way around… it was Schiff’s intellectual property that was stolen by CNBC.
