Prince Harry, and banning Nazi Symbols-

[Sander]

So you're saying that you're in favour of the abolishment of copyright laws, confidentiality laws, court neutrality laws?

Confidentiality laws: yes.
Copyright laws are a lot more doubtful, largely because they don't stop people from expressing their opinion or sharing valuable information, really, they only help to protect everyone's ability to make a profit from their products.
Court neutrality laws: straw man. Courts should be neutral, of course, but I have no problems with judges talking with others. Neutrality isn't guaranteed by that either, but neutrality laws can easily exist seperately from those laws.

It comes from the mistaken view that you can battle extremism with moderate views. Ha. Poor lefties.

Jebus is referring to the recent rise of right-wing extremism, although that is again on a sharp decline. Dutchies appear to be extremely sensitive to short-term effects.

 

[Brother None]

Confidentiality laws: yes.

How exactly could proper lawgiving exist without the confidentiality law?

Copyright laws are a lot more doubtful, largely because they don't stop people from expressing their opinion or sharing valuable information, really, they only help to protect everyone's ability to make a profit from their products.

I call double-bullshit. They limit your freedom of expression simply by limiting the amount of things you can say. This is limiting freedom of speech. It does not limit freedom of opinion, no, but it *does* limit freedom of speech. You can't argue any way around that. And if you think it's a technicality, remember that the whole concept of freedom of speech is a technicality

Court neutrality laws: straw man. Courts should be neutral, of course, but I have no problems with judges talking with others. Neutrality isn't guaranteed by that either, but neutrality laws can easily exist seperately from those laws.

Really, how would you accomplish that? Make a law that says "courts should be neutral"? That law is already there, but doesn't guarantee anything. Neutrality is never guaranteed, however the court neutrality limit on freedom of speech is made to limit direct manipulation from the outside of judges, witnesses and juries (not just judges), a lot of these people can be very susceptible to manipulation and manipulation in word is very easy to achieve.

Ok, so how about death-threats without the intent of actually killing. They don't fall under intent to kill, they fall under threats, which are word, which is free in your utopia.

Jebus is referring to the recent rise of right-wing extremism, although that is again on a sharp decline. Dutchies appear to be extremely sensitive to short-term effects.

Not always. The Dutchies hung on to a stable CDA-based government for some 50 years running. Very boring.

But hey, with the education gone down the shitter, healthcare in decline, social integrity (a bit of an abstract concept, but still) all but gone, murders and violence for no clear reason, etc. etc. With all that, I long since stopped viewing my home country as a great nation to live in, it's barely a good nation to live in, in fact (depends on what you compare it too, though)

 

[Jebus]

I was wrong, though, it was concentration camps with the boers.

Yep. I had a wonderfull guest lecture on them this year, actually.

Also - as far as I know, there were no concentration camps in the Crimean war. Makes sense, as the Boer war is aknowledged to be the first 'concentration camp war', and the Crimean war was a decade or so earlier.

What the Crimean war DID have, though, was stupidity.

Stupidity that lead to exellent poetry.

 

[Brother None]

What the Crimean war DID have, though, was stupididy.

Really? Stupididy? You don't say.

(first you mess up the BBcode, then you typo, tssk tsssk Jebus)

 

[Jebus]

What the Crimean war DID have, though, was stupididy.

Really? Stupididy? You don't say.

(first you mess up the BBcode, then you typo, tssk tsssk Jebus)

Damned, you beat my correction by two seconds

The irony...

 

[Nocturne]

Just as Hitler was the worlds biggest socialist prick and a madman Stalin murdered more than Hitler ever did......

Stalin also had a lot more time and space and people (Hitler didn't have *that* much land for a very long time) to do so. I never give that argument much credit.

Well, many of those Stalin killed were his countrymen.....
IMHO thats much worse....

 

[Brother None]

Well, many of those Stalin killed were his countrymen.....
IMHO thats much worse....

A life is a life, I fail to see the difference.

Also Stalin wasn't Russian.

 

[Nocturne]

Well, many of those Stalin killed were his countrymen.....
IMHO thats much worse....

A life is a life, I fail to see the difference.

Also Stalin wasn't Russian.

A good point, but I belive that killing your own people ads dislojalty, cruelty and overall psycotic feeling to it......
In a much worse way than a war, since in a war everybody is defending themselves against the other side..... While beeing slaughtered by the one's that are supposed to protect & help you are more evil than getting killed by an outside enemy....

 

[Sander]

How exactly could proper lawgiving exist without the confidentiality law?

How, exactly, not? Really, why not?

I call double-bullshit. They limit your freedom of expression simply by limiting the amount of things you can say. This is limiting freedom of speech. It does not limit freedom of opinion, no, but it *does* limit freedom of speech. You can't argue any way around that. And if you think it's a technicality, remember that the whole concept of freedom of speech is a technicality

Copyright laws in a proper form limit what you can publish and make a profit off of, and what you can redistribute. They barely limit what you can say.
But I didn't deny that they limit freedom of speech, though. So yes, I'd rather that they weren't there, and I'd also rather that the government would give more money to artists as compensation. (This is going to hit them, although not by huge amouts of money)

Really, how would you accomplish that? Make a law that says "courts should be neutral"? That law is already there, but doesn't guarantee anything. Neutrality is never guaranteed, however the court neutrality limit on freedom of speech is made to limit direct manipulation from the outside of judges, witnesses and juries (not just judges), a lot of these people can be very susceptible to manipulation and manipulation in word is very easy to achieve.

Yes, too bad it is. But, for one, I have a problem with juries. Secondly, judges are a profession that are trained and payed enough money to be as non-susceptible to influence as possible. You can never eliminate it, not even with those laws.

Ok, so how about death-threats without the intent of actually killing. They don't fall under intent to kill, they fall under threats, which are word, which is free in your utopia.

Go look up Theo Maassens' Death Threat Rap (doodsbedreiging is what it's called, was written after a group of teenage rappers got persecuted for writing a threatening rap aimed at, if I recall correctly, Hirsi Ali), that's something I agree with. I have no problems whatsoever with death threats, I do have problems with people who utter serious death threats being left unwatched by the authorities.

Not always. The Dutchies hung on to a stable CDA-based government for some 50 years running. Very boring.

yeah, but we also hung on to the fragmentation of society for a substantial period of that time.

But hey, with the education gone down the shitter, healthcare in decline, social integrity (a bit of an abstract concept, but still) all but gone, murders and violence for no clear reason, etc. etc. With all that, I long since stopped viewing my home country as a great nation to live in, it's barely a good nation to live in, in fact (depends on what you compare it too, though)

I didn't say it was all that great, though it's easily a lot better than practically any other nation on this planet, really.

 

[Jebus]

I didn't say it was all that great, though it's easily a lot better than practically any other nation on this planet, really.

What about Belgium?

 

[Brother None]

How, exactly, not? Really, why not?

Because a lot of lawyers could be bought to spill confidential evidence. Hell, the lawyer could even tape the confession his client makes to him in private and play it in the court if he's bribed enough. It would be bad for his reputation, but it wouldn't be illegal. Right now, it is, and it's got some heavy penalties too.

Copyright laws in a proper form limit what you can publish and make a profit off of, and what you can redistribute. They barely limit what you can say.
But I didn't deny that they limit freedom of speech, though. So yes, I'd rather that they weren't there, and I'd also rather that the government would give more money to artists as compensation. (This is going to hit them, although not by huge amouts of money)

Dude listen to yourself, you're groping in the dark here. You actually want perfectly viable laws to be abolished costing artists and the government huge amounts of money just for the sake of some abstract concept?

Yes, too bad it is. But, for one, I have a problem with juries. Secondly, judges are a profession that are trained and payed enough money to be as non-susceptible to influence as possible. You can never eliminate it, not even with those laws.

No, you can't, but those laws are there to put some limits in it. You can also say "you can never keep some water from coming into Holland, even with those dykes" but that doesn't mean I'll demolish all the dykes, now does it?

Go look up Theo Maassens' Death Threat Rap (doodsbedreiging is what it's called, was written after a group of teenage rappers got persecuted for writing a threatening rap aimed at, if I recall correctly, Hirsi Ali), that's something I agree with. I have no problems whatsoever with death threats, I do have problems with people who utter serious death threats being left unwatched by the authorities.

So now you're saying *you* want to limit freedom of speech? Heck, I haven't seen such a little twist-abouter since JF Kerry!

(yes, having someone "watched" by authorities means you limit his privacy, which means you're punishing his freedom of speech if that's what it's a consequence of, which means you're indirectly making laws to pressure people to talk less, AKA limits on freedom of speech)

yeah, but we also hung on to the fragmentation of society for a substantial period of that time.

The whatnow?

I didn't say it was all that great, though it's easily a lot better than practically any other nation on this planet, really.

Yeah!

Oh, wait, no. It's glory lost by this point, and if the same government policy continues for the coming few years it will only deteriorate further. Lost cause, Holland.

What about Belgium?

Belgium is a toughy because of its fragmentation and VB, but I'd at least count Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Germany, maybe Austria and France etc. as "better" countries than Holland.

Probably Belgium too

'cept that there are too many Belgiums there

 

[Sander]

Because a lot of lawyers could be bought to spill confidential evidence. Hell, the lawyer could even tape the confession his client makes to him in private and play it in the court if he's bribed enough. It would be bad for his reputation, but it wouldn't be illegal. Right now, it is, and it's got some heavy penalties too.

Again: I have no problems with that. If you do the crime, you're going to pay the price.

Because a lot of lawyers could be bought to spill confidential evidence. Hell, the lawyer could even tape the confession his client makes to him in private and play it in the court if he's bribed enough. It would be bad for his reputation, but it wouldn't be illegal. Right now, it is, and it's got some heavy penalties too.

Like actively searching for the abolishment of those laws? No. Not in the current system, but I would support any action searching the abolishment of those laws.
Just to throw a number at you, a recent US study (if you want, I'll dig up the sourc) showed that downloaders of software only spend $25 dollars less than the non-downloaders on CDs per years, the non-downloaders spent $130.

No, you can't, but those laws are there to put some limits in it. You can also say "you can never keep some water from coming into Holland, even with those dykes" but that doesn't mean I'll demolish all the dykes, now does it?

No, it doesn't. But that is, for one, a vastly different situation, a completely different principle, and also has little to do with laws. I stand by my point: those laws are not necessary.

No, you can't, but those laws are there to put some limits in it. You can also say "you can never keep some water from coming into Holland, even with those dykes" but that doesn't mean I'll demolish all the dykes, now does it?

Muahaha. Most elaborate strawman ever.
Seriously, though, Kharn, no, you're wrong. I'm not saying that privacy laws should be broken in that process, I AM saying that it's just silly to let someone who's uttered serious death treats walk around without serious investigations going against him.

The whatnow?

Well, I could have said something along the lines of 'pillarization', but that sounds like horrible English.

Yeah!

Oh, wait, no. It's glory lost by this point, and if the same government policy continues for the coming few years it will only deteriorate further. Lost cause, Holland.

Meh, true enough.

Belgium is a toughy because of its fragmentation and VB, but I'd at least count Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Germany, maybe Austria and France etc. as "better" countries than Holland.

Probably Belgium too

'cept that there are too many Belgiums there

Nah, Belgium sucks. Go live there and you'll notice.
Germany is too angsty for me, Switzerland I wouldn't know, Austria I wouldn't know either, France just plain old sucks, the Scandinavian countries suck because of the high liquor prices but that's about their only downside.
Oh, and Jebus said that, ne pas moi.

 

[Bradylama]

"Sovjet" hammer-and-sickle? The Hammer and Sickle logo is not just an emblem of the Sovjet Union, it represents an ideology that is not inherently evil or repressive at all.

Oh heavens, where to start?

Yes, TECHNICALLY the Hammer and Sickle represent the worker and farmer, those whose plight Communism most appeals to. However, the Swastika is also a symbol of good fortune in many cultures. Sure, it was changed to represent German might, but if it looks like a duck, people are still going to think Duck.

That said, what reaction does the Hammer and Sickle ellicit having been associated with the Soviet Union? Famine in the Ukraine, gulags in Siberia, oppressive police state, selective genocide.

And what do people associate the Swastika with? Selective genocide, oppressive police state, danger to global peace, the ravaging of Europe.

Obviously the specific associations are different, but the reactions are both the same: Negative.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

[Brother None]

I had a lot of trouble figure out what you were saying in your post, Sander. Next time, use proper quotes.

Again: I have no problems with that. If you do the crime, you're going to pay the price.

Oh, yes, a rather simplified look. The innocent never say anything incriminating and the guilty always do. Ok, how about this picture: famous actor didn't do the murder. What was he doing? Masturbating. Hey, presto! Not a crime, but extortion material.

The example could use polishing, but are you beginning to see the picture? A client needs to be able to tell his lawyer everything he can without fear of repercussions for the system to work.

Like actively searching for the abolishment of those laws? No. Not in the current system, but I would support any action searching the abolishment of those laws.

What? So what, we need a cultural revolution to make everyone to good to do the system any harm? You're not giving any viable alternatives here.

Just to throw a number at you, a recent US study (if you want, I'll dig up the sourc) showed that downloaders of software only spend $25 dollars on CDs per years, the non-downloaders spent $130.

That...seems to be backing up my "what is the copyright law good for" point.

No, it doesn't. But that is, for one, a vastly different situation, a completely different principle, and also has little to do with laws. I stand by my point: those laws are not necessary.

Alright, so you foresee a future in which judges can have dinners with the family of the defendant, can hold long talks directly with the defendant without a lawyer present. And witnesses can do the same? Heck, the prosecuter's lawyer could talk to the defendant himself, freely without any constraints! You see no problem here whatsoever?

Muahaha. Most elaborate strawman ever.
Seriously, though, Kharn, no, you're wrong. I'm not saying that privacy laws should be broken in that process, I AM saying that it's just silly to let someone who's uttered serious death treats walk around without serious investigations going against him.

Not sure what you were replying here to, but let's see...

You seem to have learned to argue a lot like CC in the past half year, by the way.

In either case, government action in reply to someone saying something, including watching him more which gives him less moving space than other people, is restraining freedom of speech.

But I forget here that you cleverly sideskipped the entire point: if you do not limit death threats as a form of freedom of speech, how exactly do you think people are supposed to feel secure? This means I could stalk any woman I want and whisper in her ear "I will kill you" at random moments and all the police could do is watch me. Heck, they couldn't arrest me for stalking, that falls within my right of free speech.

Which brings in the biggest limit of free speech: it can not be used to impede on the freedom of others. How do you think you're going to solve that?

Well, I could have said something along the lines of 'pillarization', but that sounds like horrible English.

Right. That had nothing to do with the point.

 

[Nocturne]

Free speech is about being able to express ones personal beliefs, while a judge represents something, and cannot express his personal beliefs in the line of his work.....
When he is off, he can say whatever he wants.....

 

[Sander]

I had a lot of trouble figure out what you were saying in your post, Sander. Next time, use proper quotes.

My apologies. I'm not on my usual laptop, technical problems, and the control-c behaviour here is extremely erratic.

Oh, yes, a rather simplified look. The innocent never say anything incriminating and the guilty always do. Ok, how about this picture: famous actor didn't do the murder. What was he doing? Masturbating. Hey, presto! Not a crime, but extortion material.

Poor example. The extortion possiblity is just as valid if the lawyer has to keep quiet about it. Extortion is illegal, remember, having the exact same net effect in this case as having confidentiality laws.

The example could use polishing, but are you beginning to see the picture? A client needs to be able to tell his lawyer everything he can without fear of repercussions for the system to work.

Oh, I can see the uses of it. But I don't think the uses are substantial enough to start making exceptions. (And contradictory laws. It's illegal not to mention incriminating evidence, but you can't tell anyone the incriminating evidence if your client told you. Pft)

What? So what, we need a cultural revolution to make everyone to good to do the system any harm? You're not giving any viable alternatives here.

No, the current capitalist system is a poor system for an artist to live in, really. Even now the writers with really popular books that are quickly forgotten make huge amounts of money, but the great writers of cultural value who will have cultural value make a lot less money.
Copyright laws are necessary in a system where you need a lot of profit to survive. One way to battle this is with goverrnment subsidies, but somehow people don't like spending money on culture, another is a complete cultural revolution, yes.
Copyright laws are one of the few examples that I would be reluctant to abolish right now, though.

That...seems to be backing up my "what is the copyright law good for" point.

I apologize, you took the quote without my edit. It was supposed to say '$25 less than non-downloaders' instead.

Alright, so you foresee a future in which judges can have dinners with the family of the defendant, can hold long talks directly with the defendant without a lawyer present. And witnesses can do the same? Heck, the prosecuter's lawyer could talk to the defendant himself, freely without any constraints! You see no problem here whatsoever?

No, not with laws that actually prevent intimidation (the actual physical actions), bribes and such.

Not sure what you were replying here to, but let's see...

You seem to have learned to argue a lot like CC in the past half year, by the way.

Meh, I haven't gotten into a proper argument in months. I seemed to talk on a semi-offensive tone for a while, and start debates about things no-one actually wanted to debate about that still had a lot of potential. I can see that my debating skills have deteriorated a bit over the past weeks, though.
EDIT: Although my living in a student's home and consequent imbibement of substantial amounts of alcohol may have soemthing to do with it.

But I forget here that you cleverly sideskipped the entire point: if you do not limit death threats as a form of freedom of speech, how exactly do you think people are supposed to feel secure? This means I could stalk any woman I want and whisper in her ear "I will kill you" at random moments and all the police could do is watch me. Heck, they couldn't arrest me for stalking, that falls within my right of free speech.

True, which is a problem I hadn't thought about, I must admit. It deserves some added thought.
Measures could also include stalking the stalker. Or arresting him for invasion of privacy, say, but that's really just a way of implementing a limit on freedom of speech in another way.

When you said death threats I was thinking about that rap I wrote about, or letters, bullets, or somesuch, I wasn't purposefully sidestepping the point. I try not to do those kinds of things.

Which brings in the biggest limit of free speech: it can not be used to impede on the freedom of others. How do you think you're going to solve that?

Speech cannot be used to impede upon anyone's freedom, I don't really see a real problem here.

Right. That had nothing to do with the point.

No, it was an aside remark, and I didn't pretend it to have anything to do with any point either.

 

[Jebus]

@ Brady Lama: Meh, you could go the same way with the Latin Cross, or the Crescent Moon. They too have been used by opressive regimes responsible for many deaths (well, perhaps the Crescent Moon not as much as the Latin Cross - only example I can think of for Islam slaughter out of the top of my head is the Armenian Massacres); yet the sight of it does not immediately call those slaughters to mind, yet respectively 'christianity' and 'Islam'.

Why? Becuause those are more a symbol of the ideology than the regime itself. The Hammer and Sickle are in the same vein: they had been used to represent Marxism (communism) before the October (November) revolution in Russia.
The Swastica, on the other hand, is tied inherently to the German Nazi regime. And Nazism isn't as full-flegded an ideology as Christianity, Islam or communism is.

 

[Bradylama]

Yes. However, by banning symbols which have a negative connotation based on popular opinion, you only open the door for a further whitewashing of "negative" expression.

Even if a symbol doesn't have a negative connotation with the majority, a minority can still make a case stating that their rights are being violated, and that the symbol should be banned.

So now, anything being remotely offensive is grounds for disposal.

I also don't see why you're trying to defend communism. Sure, as a theory it isn't inherently oppressive (save for the capitalists), but the end result is usually the same. Yugoslavia was only a country becuase everyone was forced to cooperate at gunpoint.

 

[Brother None]

Poor example. The extortion possiblity is just as valid if the lawyer has to keep quiet about it. Extortion is illegal, remember, having the exact same net effect in this case as having confidentiality laws.

Actually, no, you'll notice that the extortion would be impossible if the lawyer is prohibited by law to speak to anyone else about it. Note that the part of extortion that is forbidden by law is not that part where you tell someone else the bad thing you know about the extortee, it's the part where you ask money. Obviously, with this law, the last part, which is very easy to prove as having happened in a court of law, is also illegal, heavily illegal, making extortion a practical impossibility.

Oh, I can see the uses of it. But I don't think the uses are substantial enough to start making exceptions. (And contradictory laws. It's illegal not to mention incriminating evidence, but you can't tell anyone the incriminating evidence if your client told you. Pft)

That's because not everything said in confidence is incriminating. This is assuming the defendant is guilty, which is the opposite of "proper' lawgiving by modernday standards (and tré Guantanamo (how 'bout those released Brits? Woohoo.))

I value practical uses in a court of law above some abstract concept, I thank you.

No, the current capitalist system is a poor system for an artist to live in, really. Even now the writers with really popular books that are quickly forgotten make huge amounts of money, but the great writers of cultural value who will have cultural value make a lot less money.

Right, so what we need is a kind of philosopher-king who decides what has cultural value and what is popular? You view the system as unjust because it uses the popular vote to judge books. What other vote is there, or has there ever been?

And this system you speak of been in place practically forever, it's not something modern, demonstrated by the large number of starving artists in history. It has also produced rich artists. Both rich and starving have been remembered more or less, depending on their long-term popularity, which often has little to do with their quality or fame at that moment.

Copyright laws are necessary in a system where you need a lot of profit to survive. One way to battle this is with goverrnment subsidies, but somehow people don't like spending money on culture, another is a complete cultural revolution, yes.
Copyright laws are one of the few examples that I would be reluctant to abolish right now, though.

If you have no viable alternative, simply accept the need for limitations on the right of free speech. A possible utopia where somehow this is not necessary does not make a valid counterargument.

I apologize, you took the quote without my edit. It was supposed to say '$25 less than non-downloaders' instead.

What kind of CDs?

If we're talking about the original copies of the CDs, this does not destroy my argument, because "original copies" of CDs only exist because of copyright laws (see the effects of practically not enforcing these laws in Russia, for instance, where it's very hard to buy original copies, impossible in large areas)

If we're talking ALL CDs, then remember that only a small compensation for burned CDs goes to the company tax-free to make up for the huge loss they make.

No, not with laws that actually prevent intimidation (the actual physical actions), bribes and such.

Bribes are hard to trace. If a judge can speak to anyone involved in a case without supervision, how would you know about bribes? This is ok in the sporting world, but lawgiving is rather to vital to leave open to chance

Heck, bribes and intimidation aren't the only problem. A clever lawyer could trick the opposing side in spilling something that wins him his case, justly or not. Our juridical system is not watertight, we need laws like these.

Speech cannot be used to impede upon anyone's freedom, I don't really see a real problem here.

If I walk one feet behind you all the time and start shouting whenever you do, I'm using speech to impede on your freedom of speech.

Death threats etc. also work in more indirect ways to psychologically impede on someone's freedom of speech.

 

[Jebus]

Yes. However, by banning symbols which have a negative connotation based on popular opinion, you only open the door for a further whitewashing of "negative" expression.

Even if a symbol doesn't have a negative connotation with the majority, a minority can still make a case stating that their rights are being violated, and that the symbol should be banned.

So now, anything being remotely offensive is grounds for disposal.

Oh. I guess I understood your motives wrong. I thought you meant that the Hammer and Sickle should be outlawed too, since you said they're just as evil. My mistake.

I also don't see why you're trying to defend communism. Sure, as a theory it isn't inherently oppressive (save for the capitalists), but the end result is usually the same. Yugoslavia was only a country becuase everyone was forced to cooperate at gunpoint.

I'm defending Marxism (communism) because it never really got a chance. Marxism in it's pure form has never been realised, and it most likely won't for a while. Perhaps Marx was right, and we'll have to wait untill the capitalist society destroys itself before the communistic utopia will manifest itself.

I'm also defending communism because it's the only truly scientific political and economical philosophy. Capitalism as written by Smith, for instance, has no concrete link to reality, and is not founded on a truly scientific analysis of the human mind or history. And it's also quite paradoxal to Smiths own ethical ideas, really.
Marx' historical materialism, on the other had, is a scientific philosophy. It can be easily verified (and proven wrong - what makes it scientific), and makes sense. I personally am a historical materialist, actually.

Note, though, that I personally am not a supporter of Marxism or communism.