Your Top 5 Policies

[Philboid Studge]

ubs wrote

This group has gotten so nasty that they have are actually praising the virtues of child pornography...

Like me with 'stoning,' I don't think that article means what you think it means. (Unless you're being as disingenuous as the person who wrote the torrentfreak headline, and you would never be being that. In fact, if anybody is pro-child porn, it's Falkvinge. )

[ubs]

Philboid Studge wrote

Like me with 'stoning,' I don't think that article means what you think it means. (Unless you're being as disingenuous as the person who wrote the torrentfreak headline, and you would never be being that. In fact, if anybody is pro-child porn, it's Falkvinge. )

Happy for the access it grants you into people's servers is still happy. Psychopathicly so.

“Child pornography is great,” the man said enthusiastically. “Politicians do not understand file sharing, but they understand child pornography, and they want to filter that to score points with the public. Once we get them to filter child pornography, we can get them to extend the block to file sharing.”

The date was May 27, 2007, and the man was Johan Schlüter, head of the Danish Anti-Piracy Group (Antipiratgruppen). He was speaking in front of an audience from which the press had been banned; it was assumed to be copyright industry insiders only. It wasn’t. Christian Engström, who’s now a Member of the European Parliament, Oscar Swartz, and I were also there

[Philboid Studge]

ubs wrote

Happy for the access it grants you into people's servers is still happy. Psychopathicly so.

Yeah, it's "still happy" but not with child porn, it's happy with the access. To say they are "actually praising the virtues of child pornography..." isn't just a stretch, it's a lie.

[ubs]

Philboid Studge wrote

Yeah, it's "still happy" but not with child porn, it's happy with the access. To say they are "actually praising the virtues of child pornography..." isn't just a stretch, it's a lie.

No it isn't. Censorship doesn't stop child pornography - it hides it. It drives it underground and prolongs it. They are pushing policies they know to be false so they can check servers. That's absolutely pathological and torrentfreak is right on the money with that.

[Philboid Studge]

ubs wrote

No it isn't. Censorship doesn't stop child pornography - it hides it. It drives it underground and prolongs it. They are pushing policies they know to be false so they can check servers. That's absolutely pathological and torrentfreak is right on the money with that.

I'm not arguing for censorship or making any claims about whether it promotes or discourages kiddie porn. That is besides the point.

An analogy: In the 1980s, Reagan got skin cancer on his nose and that's what prompted him to sign us on to the Montreal Protocol (supposedly), thereby saving, or at least slowing, the widening goetse that was the ozone layer. A relatively great achievement in environmental policy. So supposing I'm at a Conference of the Parties to the protocol, and I'm addressing a small group of business interests--let's say refrigerator manufacturers-- in an off-the-record setting, and I say, "Skin cancer is great. Politicians do not understand chlorofluorocarbons, but they understand skin cancer."

So one of the refrigerator magnates (that's a pun) in my audience starts writing anti-regulation polemics titled, "ENVIRONMENTALISTS ABSOLUTELY LOVE SKIN CANCER", and then their fanboys and girls start writing things like "Environmentalists have gotten so nasty that they are actually praising the virtues of skin cancer."

Yeah, that would be a lie.


My you're up early today!

[ILOVEJESUS]

Smellyoldgit wrote

• Abolish the ‘peer for life’ role for bishops in our highest legislative body (coz they’re good for nothing slimy fuckers)
• Ensure all churches/religions/cults pay taxes/rates/duties in line with any other business.
• Disestablish the link between the church of England and the unelected head of state (coz it stinks)
• Enact an advertisement-based law to force religions to prove their claims – or shut the fuck up.
• Outlaw the teaching of ID/creationism in any science class.

You sound like you might well be thinking about becoming an atheist.

[ILOVEJESUS]

1. All laws have to go through me to be okayed.

2. Anything I say goes.

3. If you disagree, take a look at point 2.

4. I own all the money in the world, and offer allowances to the population.

5. Anyone who opposes me is removed to the moon in exile.

[lostsheep]

okay....I'm going out on a limb by being serious here....my understanding of tax laws and campaign finance laws is not that great, but here are my ideas, for any to mock or ignore, as desired...

1. Limit campaign contributions for all individuals and corporations, to 1000$ per year. Campaigns could be further financed by gov't pools of money obtained from taxes, but an individual must have enough signatures and support by individuals to be eligible for these funds.

2. A tax system that is fairer. Everyone is taxed at the same rate on the same earned amount of money. Only money you earn beyond that taxed at one rate would be subject to a higher rate, so you still make more money and there is still incentive to earn more money. So for example, if you get up to say, 1 million a year in salary/personal income, then the next million would be taxed at like, 50%, and then if you make 3 million, the million after 2 million would taxed at 75%....I have not worked out the exact details but this is the general idea. But there would be a cap at say, 90%. But end all loopholes, no exceptions.

3. Money that is invested in capital growth or research by a company is not taxed: I actually think corporation tax is sort of weird, unless it goes to a CEO in the form of a salary, but then that would be personal income tax.

4. Extend terms to 5 years, 10 year (two term) maximum. Also have some conditions: no criminal records/convictions, no fraud, etc. Also, no lifetime benefits, and no special benefits like extraordinary health care, and salaries can only be raised by a public vote during election years.

5. Abolish capital punishment!

I could think of few more....

[Philboid Studge]

lostsheep wrote

2. A tax system that is fairer. Everyone is taxed at the same rate on the same earned amount of money. Only money you earn beyond that taxed at one rate would be subject to a higher rate, so you still make more money and there is still incentive to earn more money. So for example, if you get up to say, 1 million a year in salary/personal income, then the next million would be taxed at like, 50%, and then if you make 3 million, the million after 2 million would taxed at 75%....I have not worked out the exact details but this is the general idea. But there would be a cap at say, 90%. But end all loopholes, no exceptions.

This is pretty much the current U.S. system, but with different %'s (although the top marginal tax rate was 90% in 1950 [it's 35% today]). And of course there are loopholes ... kind of like your #3...

[ubs]

Philboid Studge wrote

Yeah, that would be a lie.

The lie is in your analogy that skips the part where the refrigerator magnets hire attorneys to promote the destruction of the ozone.

Kind of a big part to leave out.

Philboid Studge wrote

My you're up early today!

I am up early making Alamo car rental miserable. The representative looked like Smelly but had a strong East coast accent which was kind of weird.

[Kate]

[ghoulslime]

ubs wrote

The lie is in your analogy that skips the part where the refrigerator magnets hire attorneys to promote the destruction of the ozone.

Kind of a big part to leave out.




I am up early making Alamo car rental miserable. The representative looked like Smelly but had a strong East coast accent which was kind of weird.

Does he drink Drambuie? Oh, ask him if he drinks Drambuie!

[Philboid Studge]

ubs wrote

The lie is in your analogy that skips the part where the refrigerator magnets hire attorneys to promote the destruction of the ozone.

Kind of a big part to leave out.

And? Your point is that Engström or Swartz or Falkvinge don't hire lawyers ? Whether that's true or not -- so what?

We agree on many things, but you are wrong to call out the industry in this way for two reasons: It is beyond hyperbolic to say they "love child pornography" -- that is almost certainly a falsehood. At worst, you can say that their actions -- censoring kiddie porn -- might possibly have the unintended consequence of hiding the issue and therefore fostering it in some oblique way. But let's face it: neither you nor Falkvinge is concerned about the kiddie porn--you just don't want them accessing servers. (Conversely, the industry doesn't care about kiddie porn either--they just want to access servers.)

The other reason you're wrong to promulgate Falkvinge's obvious lie is that it is going to alienate people from your cause who might otherwise be sympathetic. Anybody who reads that article is going to do this:

[ubs]

ghoulslime wrote

Does he drink Drambuie? Oh, ask him if he drinks Drambuie!

Can you imagine
"Do you drink Drambui? No, I don't have any. I just wondered."

[ubs]

Philboid Studge wrote

And? Your point is that Engström or Swartz or Falkvinge don't hire lawyers ? Whether that's true or not -- so what?

We agree on many things, but you are wrong to call out the industry in this way for two reasons: It is beyond hyperbolic to say they "love child pornography" -- that is almost certainly a falsehood. At worst, you can say that their actions -- censoring kiddie porn -- might possibly have the unintended consequence of hiding the issue and therefore fostering it in some oblique way. But let's face it: neither you nor Falkvinge is concerned about the kiddie porn--you just don't want them accessing servers. (Conversely, the industry doesn't care about kiddie porn either--they just want to access servers.)

The other reason you're wrong to promulgate Falkvinge's obvious lie is that it is going to alienate people from your cause who might otherwise be sympathetic. Anybody who reads that article is going to do this:

Wow. Nasty, nasty. Could it be that someone is building a little 70 year copyright fortress around his every belch?

I'm not to worried about Falkvinge. Old men trying to attain imortality by throw the young under the bus is never attractive and he's doing a good job telling it like it is.