So
a government authority takes away your freedom & subjects you to abuse
you depress yourself about having to work & pay for shit or deal with your feelings
same thing! 😊
I can’t believe everyone who buys this equivalence bullshit of illegitimate abuse & coercion in one case and lack thereof in the other. It’s like they have some submission kink to getting dominated.
It’s entirely different when the government authority not only says it but takes away your freedom & subjects you to abuse. How are so many here missing that crucial distinction?
It’s entirely different when the state authority not only says it but takes away your freedom & subjects you to abuse. How are so many here missing that crucial distinction?
open-source fonts
Don’t they already exist? Work already done makes no work needed.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
Did they try looking for discounts from patient assistance programs from the manufacturer? They’ll reduce the cost to $35.
Manufacturers try to shakedown insurance companies for obscene pay without affecting the amount individuals pay, so they offer those programs directly to individuals. Not saying this good, just how the system works.
Jewish banking is a legacy of antisemitic Christian doctrine in Medieval Europe that restricted the Hebrew people only to professions proscribed (as usury) to Christians such as financial services. Their prevalence in those professions is a historic consequence of discrimination of no fault to the Hebrew people, and acknowledging that reality isn’t necessarily distasteful or false.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
They don’t do much: they’re obsolete middlemen.
It’s funny, because researchers at CERN invented the World Wide Web long ago to solve this problem: a web of hyperlinking[1] dissertation articles. Then physicists at Los Alamos National Laboratory who were building a central repository of electronic preprints seized on the web to create arΧiv for sharing those preprints, thus pioneering open access. The NIH, inspired by arΧiv to do similar for biomedical & life sciences, dreamt up E-biomed
The goal of E-biomed was to provide free access to all biomedical research. Papers submitted to E-biomed could take one of two routes: either immediately published as a preprint, or through a traditional peer review process. The peer review process was to resemble contemporary overlay journals, with an external editorial board retaining control over the process of reviewing, curating, and listing papers which would otherwise be freely accessible on the central E-biomed server. Varmus intended to realize the new possibilities presented by communicating scientific results digitally, imagining continuous conversation about published work, versioned documents, and enriched “layered” formats allowing for multiple levels of detail.
but capitulation to industry pressure led them to settle for almost none of that with PubMed Central
Under pressure from vigorous lobbying from commercial publishers and scientific societies who feared for lost profits, NIH officials announced a revised PubMed Central proposal in August 1999. PMC would receive submissions from publishers, rather than from authors as in E-biomed. Publications were allowed time-embargoed paywalls up to one year. PMC would only allow peer-reviewed work — no preprints.
So, the technology to solve this has existed since the web began, but parasitic special interests who are pretty much obsolete inhibit their realization.
so hyperlinks could replace citations & references ↩︎
These guys are brilliant. Just look at them
“my” version is for when the Nazis have already taken power and are killing people.
Inconsistent with your prior remarks.
The faster you string fascists up, the better off society will be. The body? Who cares, do what you want with it.
It’s not fascist, to be “fascist against fascism”.
“Faster” is not after “Nazis have already taken power and are killing people”. “String up” is force & violence. So, you’re advocating force & violence before “the fascists” use force.
Per the above, you’re “misconstruing the paradox”. Intolerance of those who argue with force & violence is justified, and therefore, society is justified to not tolerate your force & violence.
you disagree with the actions of WW2 resistance movements
Nope, cool straw man.
Popper is right about institutional power beforehand (protecting society from fascism “early”).
Nope, straw man of Popper, again: learn to read.
“Killing the patient” means giving into fascists by corrupting the protection of inherent rights & liberties exactly as a fascist would want you to do. It doesn’t matter that you do it to “beat fascists”: you’re still serving their goals like a useful idiot.
Protecting free society means protecting inherent rights & liberties from illegitimate authority, ie, freedom. The freedom of free society comes from the rule of law & that very thing you’re arguing to erode.
Nah, brah. It’s settled: you don’t explain it because you can’t & simply lack moral principles. The only one being “silly” about it is you.
I don’t think you’ve even broken it down to yourself. Killing a person who hasn’t done anything wrong is inherently immoral. It’s basic logic & moral reasoning.
Authoritarianism wins when the people act authoritarian, ie, corrupt the legitimacy of their government by abandoning the protection of inalienable/universal/inherent rights & liberties. Your “remedy” is to kill the patient.
Society has been lazily disengaging from each other, segregating ourselves into ideological spaces where no one feels challenged to change their minds. Society isn’t fully utilizing the classic remedies in a liberal democratic of speech, civic engagement, & political organization.
Maybe if logical consistency is silly. You argued in favor of killing someone unjustifiably. Moral principles mean nothing to you?
Wouldn’t that make you an immoral monster who “should still be killed as quickly as possible”?
The more coherent answer is the deceased lack inherent rights/liberties. At best, the living have duties to legacies & claims by descendants toward the deceased.
It’s call the Paradox of Tolerance
The paradox distorted by authoritarians to justify illegitimate force?
Seems some non-liberals willfully find it “very difficult” “to understand”.
By philosopher Karl Popper[1]
You think you know the Popper Paradox thanks to this? (👉 comic from pictoline.com)
Karl Popper: I never said that!
Popper argued that society via its institutions should have a right to prohibit those who are intolerant.
Karl Popper: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
For Popper, on what grounds may society suppress the intolerant? When they “are not prepared to meet on the level of rational argument” “they forbid their followers to listen to rational argument … & teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”. The argument of the intolerably intolerant is force & violence.
We misconstrue this paradox at our peril … to the extent that one group could declare another group ‘intolerant’ just to prohibit their ideas, speech & other freedoms.
Grave sign: “The Intolerant” RIP
Underneath it lies a pile of symbols for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Black power.
A leg labeled tolerance kicks the Gay Pride symbol into the pile.
Muchas gracias a @lokijustice y asivaespana.com
Source: The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl R. Popper ↩︎
an argument against right to privacy
How do the dead have any rights? I’m pretty sure the dead don’t give any fucks.
Is this called whataboutism? Henrietta Lacks may be why we argue this, eg, do the arguments on Henrietta Lacks apply as much to Hitler?
Would a Hitler clone be morally culpable of someone else’s actions?
The rough gist I’m getting is some poorly substantiated claim of ignorance of general exploitation as worse than overt abuse of human rights, eg
Perhaps workers could earn better without “exploitation” in liberal democracies, but historical record & economic data show the opposite:
The Soviet Union gave up & dismantled itself for this reason. There was no tradeoff of human rights abuses somehow yielding a better life for a less exploited, average worker. For all its rhetoric, the Soviet workers got the worst of everything.
Per the philosophy of social democracies, socialism doesn’t require human rights abuses. Authorities abusing human rights are definitely worse than authorities not doing that & letting people fail on their own terms. In the case of those liberal democracies beating the performance of communist states, those “exploited” workers are freer & doing better than the “unexploited” ones. Given the results, it’s hard to find your notion of “exploitation” credible: I think it’s full of shit & mostly in your deluded theory that’s failing to bear out.