Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

The governement profits, and is then capable of investing in new schooling opportunities, healthcare, and stuff mike that. It might only be a select few that get it, but it wil help.

A bunch of farmers with a smattering of general knowledge are untimately inferior to having a smaller group of university students, willing to start up new ventures in their country.

[SalmonGod]

I think there's some truth to what you're saying, Sheb, but I also think that the situation is made much worse by developed countries taking advantage of developing ones, both presently and historically.  Many undeveloped countries are ones that got the worst treatment in the colonial era.  Self-sufficient agrarian communities were destroyed by being forced into cash cropping, for example.  Plenty of other places were doing fine until they were intentionally de-stabilized, which put them in the position of being host to sweatshops.  And above all, I think the primary factor is that nobody can subsistence farm on land that they don't own.

I think the situation is pretty directly comparable to someone like me working a shitty, low-paying, dead-end job for a mega-corporation that profits obscenely from my labor while giving me as little as they can get away with in return.  Yeah, I'm better off in the immediate sense than someone who has no job.  That doesn't mean I shouldn't be aware that my situation is still a product of foul play and my participation is what allows those circumstances to continue.

[Loud Whispers]

In regards to crushing free speech with a smile on your face, I told you so just isn't as fun a phrase as it used to be.

First of all, being a subsistence farmer sucks. Sure, your sixteen hours of back-breaking labor are outside, so at least you get fresh air, but that's about it. The pay sucks, and you often don't even have enough to eat, while your factory labor at least buy you food. There is a reason most of the undernourished people globally are peasants and not workers, and why hundreds of millions of Chinese migrated to the cities.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

DEVELOPMENT

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Subsistence farming requires only as much work as you need to feed your family.

[kingfisher1112]

In regards to crushing free speech with a smile on your face, I told you so just isn't as fun a phrase as it used to be.

[scriver]

While making threats shouldn't be covered by your right to free speech and that threats made over the internet should be treated the same as threats made by phone, letter, or any other "irl" media, I really can't call that threats in any kind of way.

Also; a 20 year old facing possibly 10 years in federal prison. Just that is horrible.

[Scoops Novel]

In regards to crushing free speech with a smile on your face, I told you so just isn't as fun a phrase as it used to be.

First of all, being a subsistence farmer sucks. Sure, your sixteen hours of back-breaking labor are outside, so at least you get fresh air, but that's about it. The pay sucks, and you often don't even have enough to eat, while your factory labor at least buy you food. There is a reason most of the undernourished people globally are peasants and not workers, and why hundreds of millions of Chinese migrated to the cities.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

DEVELOPMENT

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Subsistence farming requires only as much work as you need to feed your family.

I'd appreciate statistics. Last i checked Africa isn't particularly fun in this regard regardless of what they show tourists.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

While making threats shouldn't be covered by your right to free speech and that threats made over the internet should be treated the same as threats made by phone, letter, or any other "irl" media, I really can't call that threats in any kind of way.

Also; a 20 year old facing possibly 10 years in federal prison. Just that is horrible.

That's what happens when one accepts a definition of free speech like the one you are proposing.

[kaijyuu]

He isn't proposing any definition of free speech. He's saying internet threats should be taken the same as threats made through any other medium. Which sounds reasonable to me... there's nothing magical about internet communication that makes it different than any other form of communication.



As for the content of this particular case, it seems to me like they're taking a harassed, bullied, and possibly depressed individual and throwing him in jail. That'll straighten him up for suuuuure.

[penguinofhonor]

I think MSH was referring to "making threats shouldn't be covered by your right to free speech," not the internet part.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Boasting threats not connected to any action or attempt at action are most certainly free speech, which is why these people shouldn't have been arrested, but they would be crimes under the view of free speech that scriver has proposed.

Not sure how one can condemn arresting them on one hand and call them criminals on the other.

[da_nang]

He's saying internet threats should be taken the same as threats made through any other medium. Which sounds reasonable to me... there's nothing magical about internet communication that makes it different than any other form of communication.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet?

[penguinofhonor]

Not sure how one can condemn arresting them on one hand and call them criminals on the other.

I think he was condemning him being jailed for so long, i.e. he agrees that the dude should be punished but doesn't think the punishment should be so extreme.

[Truean]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/indiana-gay-marriage-debate-state-laws/2504767/
http://americablog.com/2013/07/indiana-makes-crime-preacher-conduct-gay-marriage.html

....

I don't entirely know what that means and I am afraid to find out It appears Indiana just made it illegal and a crime for clergy who are "solemnizing" gays "marrying." The article suggests that "solemnizing" is something that is done before the actual filing of any license with the county clerk, which is also illegal and a (low level) felony for a gay person to do.... The clergy performing any ceremony could apparently be charged with a misdemeanor?

So I'm not sure, but it appears the prosecutor would be able to go after a clergy who performed a ceremony for gay people.... Would that apply to something that was not intended to be "marriage" legally? Not sure of this, but I've heard that Unitarian Universalists (UUs) and some other religions seem perfectly fine with performing ceremonies for gay people. Does this imply that the mere act of those ceremonies is now illegal and a criminal offense? I hope not. That sounds suspiciously like the government telling religion what to do by threat of jail, if your religion doesn't mind gays marrying.... Then of course there's that "making it a felony" thing if you're gay, stuff....

I really don't know what to think of this. One day I would like to find a nice man to be with. Thankfully I do not currently live in Indiana, but.... The notion of these laws catching on is a frightening one.

[kaijyuu]

Well first off, any right, not just free speech, only extends so far as it doesn't impede on other's rights. I'm pretty sure I have a solid precedent for people having a right to not be threatened with violence at least as far as the law goes (just look up what constitutes "assault"). If you feel people don't have the right to be free from threats to be killed and harmed then I don't have much to argue against that since it seems axiomatic.

He's saying internet threats should be taken the same as threats made through any other medium. Which sounds reasonable to me... there's nothing magical about internet communication that makes it different than any other form of communication.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet?

Silly mantras are not rebuttals.

[scriver]

I thought I was pretty clear about that I don't consider what he said to be a threat:

While making threats shouldn't be covered by your right to free speech and that threats made over the internet should be treated the same as threats made by phone, letter, or any other "irl" media, I really can't call that threats in any kind of way.

Also; a 20 year old facing possibly 10 years in federal prison. Just that is horrible.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/indiana-gay-marriage-debate-state-laws/2504767/
http://americablog.com/2013/07/indiana-makes-crime-preacher-conduct-gay-marriage.html

....

I don't entirely know what that means and I am afraid to find out It appears Indiana just made it illegal and a crime for clergy who are "solemnizing" gays "marrying." The article suggests that "solemnizing" is something that is done before the actual filing of any license with the county clerk, which is also illegal and a (low level) felony for a gay person to do.... The clergy performing any ceremony could apparently be charged with a misdemeanor?

So I'm not sure, but it appears the prosecutor would be able to go after a clergy who performed a ceremony for gay people.... Would that apply to something that was not intended to be "marriage" legally? Not sure of this, but I've heard that Unitarian Universalists (UUs) and some other religions seem perfectly fine with performing ceremonies for gay people. Does this imply that the mere act of those ceremonies is now illegal and a criminal offense? I hope not. That sounds suspiciously like the government telling religion what to do by threat of jail, if your religion doesn't mind gays marrying.... Then of course there's that "making it a felony" thing if you're gay, stuff....

I really don't know what to think of this. One day I would like to find a nice man to be with. Thankfully I do not currently live in Indiana, but.... The notion of these laws catching on is a frightening one.

That... So much for protecting churches from the government, I guess? But seriously, that couldn't possible hold up against the constitution/Supreme Court, could it?