talmand

78 ms·

811.
by talmand 10y ago
I didn't mention military and I think that's a bit overblown on your part. Think a bit lower on the hierarchy, such as police and federal agents. But you are damn right the government should actively defend free speech, especially
812.
by talmand 10y ago
Thank you, exactly what I wanted.
813.
by talmand 10y ago
I'm not saying they need or will go back there. I'm saying that the act of banning one type of speech always leads to a group with power and not so honorable intentions the ability to ban speech they don't like. The law is al
814.
by talmand 10y ago
Ok, no definition then. That's fine. The point I'm making is that once you've opened the door to banning speech on completely subjective topics that a subset of the group gets to decide, then things will go bad. But murder is
815.
by talmand 10y ago
If one is too afraid to use First Amendment rights because of non-state actors that the state does not stop, do we really have First Amendment rights? What if the laws are being ignored and violence permitted by the state? If a group can th
816.
by talmand 10y ago
>> I think the idea of non-state actors using force... Especially the groups seeking to have the state's legal power of force to be used on their behalf under the guise of fairness. >> ...but multiple groups willing and abl
817.
by talmand 10y ago
The problem as I see it; define "hate speech".
818.
by talmand 10y ago
Yes, it is an intriguing thing to witness. Bullies claiming they need the power to restrict the speech of their bullies. Sometimes they are correct when they point out the alleged bullies, but too many times the "bully" is someone
819.
by talmand 10y ago
Which is a bad law, it simply opens the door for banning other "harmful" speech that somebody gets to decide for everybody else. It's the old shameful joke that no one reads history so they keep repeating it.
820.
by talmand 10y ago
I require an example of this claim.
821.
by talmand 10y ago
Depends on intent. Your example of manslaughter would imply no initial intent to cause harm, therefore you are held responsible for the outcome and not what caused it. If you were to shout fire with the intent to cause death, then that woul
822.
by talmand 10y ago
I believe somewhere in there the judges have the ability to ask questions and determine things on their own despite what either party wants or desires. It's the whole point in having a judge. If everything could be decided solely on ev
823.
by talmand 10y ago
But in that case you do not profit from the frivolous lawsuit; which, I think, was the idea behind suggesting loser pays to help prevent such lawsuits. Of course your lawyer may profit nicely. Now, if you were representing yourself...
824.
by talmand 10y ago
Well, if I were the judge on that case, I would simply ask if you had any evidence to show that the bill presented was not printed on your computer that morning and actually was presented to the other party. Just presenting something in cou
825.
by talmand 10y ago
I guess I had a too simplistic viewpoint on the matter, how a contract is ended between two private parties shouldn't involve the government unless some form of criminal activity has been done. As for the compensation idea, I'm as
826.
by talmand 10y ago
At this point I'm more surprised when I hear about a major company with a large user base being secure.
827.
by talmand 10y ago
How exactly is forgiven debt considered income?
828.
by talmand 10y ago
But sometimes it's funnier when it's not true, which some "trusted as news" comedy shows are well known for.
829.
by talmand 10y ago
That's not actually a response to my statement, even though it may be true. You're just providing an excuse to downvote without bothering to engage in discussion as to why to downvote. I want to hear the reasons for the downvote.
830.
by talmand 10y ago
As a third party I would be interested in hearing why others feel the arguments don't hold up. Just simply clicking the downvote button doesn't make for an interesting discussion.
831.
by talmand 10y ago
>> Would a whole-day power outage constitute "one more nail in the coffin of centralized power distribution"? Yes.
832.
by talmand 10y ago
I have no idea what this means in relation to the scenario. Can you explain?
833.
by talmand 10y ago
So, when someone with knowledge of the fast food industry directly states that robots will be implemented if the minimum wage goes up is somehow misinformed?
834.
by talmand 10y ago
Sorry to be the one to point this out, but we're already there.
835.
by talmand 10y ago
Especially when sometimes this is being forced by a group of people who seem to be professional complainers. First they cut out 10% of the users for this violation, then another 10% of the smaller group for that violation, then another 10%
836.
by talmand 10y ago
>> They seem like a ripe target for political abuse. What? It is already is in several places around the world.
837.
by talmand 10y ago
I find it interesting that, in this thread, most of the reasons to support this type of thing resort to the lowest common denominator as the reason to support it. "This could be used to silence opposing viewpoints!" "You mean
838.
by talmand 10y ago
I don't need to link a source, you summed up my meaning of the problem they admitted to quite well on your own.
839.
by talmand 10y ago
>> American spectrum is so perverted As compared to what?
840.
by talmand 10y ago
Well then, if you know dozens then I stand corrected.

More ›