Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 06, 2016, 03:58:17 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates  (Read 97082 times)

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Okay, snarks aside, are there any new bills on the horizon?

Tinman57

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,702
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Okay, snarks aside, are there any new bills on the horizon?

  Oh, there are bunches of them.  I'll post some more in the near future depending on if they make it to the docket or not.

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member

Try this new wrinkle!
Former Copyright Boss: New Technology Should Be Presumed Illegal Until Congress Says Otherwise

http://www.techdirt....says-otherwise.shtml

"Commercial exploiters of new technologies should be required to convince Congress to sanction a new delivery system and/or exempt it from copyright liability. That is what Congress intended."


IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Former Copyright Boss: New Technology Should Be Presumed Illegal Until Congress Says Otherwise
http://www.techdirt....says-otherwise.shtml
"Commercial exploiters of new technologies should be required to convince Congress to sanction a new delivery system and/or exempt it from copyright liability. That is what Congress intended."
Some people (not me you understand) might say that all this probably proves is that some US departments and associated bureaucracies may employ more than the lion's share of congenital idiots, and that this could perhaps explain something about the US' apparent progressive spiral into a dysfunctional state over the last few decades.
If this were true, then maybe there is even an Equal Employment Opportunity policy in place that demands that such people have to be employed to meet a target of (say) 20% of all employees. Who knows?     :tellme:

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Seriously good thinking on Lauren Weinstein's Blog:
Free Speech, the Internet, and a Very Big Lie
Spoiler
Quote
September 26, 2012

A dangerous and decidedly false meme has been floating around in media and elsewhere in recent days. It's actually not a new concept at all, but we're now seeing calculated efforts being deployed to leverage recent world events toward the achievement of an ancient and evil goal -- the control of public and private speech in their various guises and forms.

The catalyst for this newly energized push to muzzle the world is of course the vile anti-Islamic YouTube video, which I have discussed previously in YouTube Blocking the Anti-Islamic Video: Censorship or Responsible Stewardship? and elsewhere.

I will not here and now discuss this particular case in much more detail, except to note that trying to understand the reactions to this video, without a comprehensive understanding of the geopolitical and social history of the Mideast, is like attempting to figure out how a smartphone works by staring intently at its miniaturized circuit board components.

Of great concern are the comments and editorial opining now appearing, suggesting that the U.S. puts too much stake in "free speech" concepts, that we must be "tolerant" of other countries' sensibilities about speech restrictions, and that perhaps global censorship of unpopular concepts and ideas can be justified in the name of community good and world peace.

Implicit (and sometimes explicit) in these arguments is the assumption that censorship leads to happier, more peaceful populations, where conflicts that would otherwise occur will instead be tempered or eliminated by the unavailability of particular types of information and content.

Attempts to impose such controls on speech are now of global extent, and have massively accelerated with the evolution of the Internet.

Some countries ban what they consider to be "sacrilegious" materials in a religious context. Others ban Nazi imagery, or negative comments about the ruling government or monarchs. In some nations, violations of associated speech laws can result in decades-long prison sentences. Even here in the U.S., multiple legislative attempts have been made to try ban a wide variety of broadly defined content from the Net, on the grounds of it supposedly being "inappropriate" for children.

But the question that is hardly ever asked is fundamentally a simple one.

Ethical questions aside for the moment, does government-imposed censorship -- or government-inspired self-censorship -- actually have the "desired" results?

As a thought experiment, imagine that Google had acceded to demands that the anti-Islamic video be immediately blocked globally on YouTube, instead of taking what I believe was the appropriate course of instead only implementing highly targeted and narrow blocking.

Would global blocking have avoided the violence? Would the leaders calling for such blocking have then been satisfied?

The answer to both questions clearly appears to be no.

In fact, most of the violence in reaction to the video has been from persons who have not even seen it. Most don't even personally know anybody who has seen significant amounts of the actual video. Rather, they have "heard" about it -- second hand, third hand, characterizations, rumors, bits and pieces from other sources.

This is a clue to the Very Big Lie of censorship.

Censorship is not actually about preventing violence, or keeping people happy, or even improving the economy.

Censorship is essentially a *political* act. It is a mechanism of political control and political empowerment of existing leaders, not an effective mechanism for improving people's lives -- other than the lives of rulers and politicians themselves.

If YouTube had blocked the video in question globally, various leaders would have crowed that they had bullied Google into submission, but so long as the video existed anywhere, in any form, protests and violence would continue, with many of these leaders tacitly or even directly urging protesters on, fanning the flames of emotion.

For it is the very *existence* of information, not *access* to information per se, that is at the heart of censorship demands.

And in the age of the Internet, information has become much like energy itself. It can be hidden, changed in form, but information has become virtually indestructible. And like a chain reaction in a pit of uranium-235, the suppressed energy of information can explode across the Internet in a relative instant, impossible to control around the planet.

Demands to censor the Net, to somehow limit or marginalize free speech as some sort of American aberration, are ultimately doomed.

Censorship proponents dream of the days before the Net -- before television, radio, newspapers, and the printing press, when information could not be easily duplicated, transmitted, and widely disseminated.

When the printing press was invented, church leaders in particular were horrified. Much like politicians and leaders today, they knew that the technology could serve them well, but the last thing they wanted was such communications powers in the hands of the common folk.

The Internet of today has become the fulfillment of would-be censors worst nightmares. It provides the ability of virtual "nobodies" to reach vast audiences with unapproved ideas of all sorts, at any time, in all manner of ways -- written, audio, video.

Without the Internet, you would obviously not be reading these words, nor would you likely even be aware of my existence. Multiply this effect by millions -- that's the technological marvel that is a terror to those who would control information, communications, speech, and ideas themselves.

The U.S. has plenty of problems when it comes to its own handling of free speech. Related government hypocrisies are as old as the union, and largely independent of which political parties are ascendant at any given time.

But the Founding Fathers, fresh from the repression of monarchy, wrote words of genius when they created the First Amendment to the Constitution, and ensconced freedom of speech firmly into the fabric of their new nation. That their foresight, in a largely agrarian society, is even more valid and important today, in a time of instantaneous global communications within a highly technological milieu, is a wonder of the ages.

We must firmly reject the claims of persons who assert that there's too much free speech, that perhaps censorship isn't so bad, that the world at large must cower to the lowest common denominator of narrow minds and political expediencies.

They are wrong, and unless they're willing to cut themselves off from the Internet entirely -- and perhaps not even then -- the Net will ultimately foil their efforts to impose "dark ages" sensibilities onto our world of now.

We're all well into the 21st century -- not the 13th.

Get used to it -- or learn the lessons of history the very hard way indeed.

--Lauren--

« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 10:07:57 AM by IainB »

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Looks like a pretty well-thought-out poster - I found it here: Which Countries Actively Suppress Internet Freedom?
(Enemies-of-the-Internet poster.gif - file size 3Mb.)

Enemies-of-the-Internet poster.gifInternet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
How bad could the loss of Intenet freedoms get?
Try this for size - maybe coming to a State near you soon...
Google Users in Pakistan Suffer as ISPs Block Sites Without Reason
I guess it couldn't be all that bad really - I mean, you'd at least still be able to browse the local government websites and government-approved websites.

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
More confusing stuff:

MPAA chief admits: SOPA and PIPA "are dead, they're not coming back."
http://arstechnica.c...yre-not-coming-back/

So is this classic Boiling Frog stuff where it looks like we won a tactical skirmish and then they sneak it in later?

Edit: First run of the net seems to be strong suspicion, with zero belief in the text of the announcement.


« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 07:50:05 PM by TaoPhoenix »

Tinman57

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,702
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
More confusing stuff:

MPAA chief admits: SOPA and PIPA "are dead, they're not coming back."
http://arstechnica.c...yre-not-coming-back/

So is this classic Boiling Frog stuff where it looks like we won a tactical skirmish and then they sneak it in later?

Edit: First run of the net seems to be strong suspicion, with zero belief in the text of the announcement.

  Well lets see......MPAA, AKA: Hollywood......Has lobbyist that dump millions of dollars into the pockets of our politicians..... The laws that they wanted didn't go through, but the politicians have already been paid......so they sneak it into another bill as a rider....  Hollywood is now happy that their millions paid off in the end.
  Unfortunately this is pretty much the norm for anti-consumer/citizen laws.  History does repeat itself......

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
History does repeat itself......

In more ways than we'd like to admit.

History is fundamentally taught wrong, with most of the important events in history being erased from textbooks. The glaring examples that cannot be avoided are kept in, but many of those are by-in-large just distractions. An excellent example would be the causes of WWI. Historians would do well to simply "follow the money".
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
While the occurrence of an event could (arguably) not be open to debate, the analysis of causes leading up to it - and the interpretation of its larger meaning - is very much open to individual interpretation. That is why History teaches us nothing.

History is nothing more than a story (mostly told by the "winners") in which the status quo of the winner is rationalized and justified. In short, things didn't just get to be the way they are "because." According to most historical accounts, things are the way they are today because some gifted and inspired individuals set in motion a chain of events in accordance with the Divine Plan for the Rightness of Things, and the rest...well...the rest is history.

That's why it's important to identify who is telling the story. It's not so much a history of something like WWII as it is who's history of WWII.

Humans tell stories about themselves in order to put themselves in the best possible light. And a frank admission we were lucky doesn't work too well when you're creating a mythos your nation or people can believe in.

People will kill each other over real or perceived threats, property, and money. But they will usually only go to war over an idea. Economics are almost always at the root of human conflict. But in most cases it takes the tinderbox of an idea (i.e. fatherland!, traditional family values!, blasphemy!, treason!, freedom!, evil!, communism!, terrorism!, capitalism!,  ) to set the wheels in motion.

The US would have never marched into Iraq (as opposed to just Afghanistan) if it were justified purely in economic terms. It took about 3000 civilian deaths, a wave of national shock and outrage, several falsehoods and exaggerations promulgated through official channels, a challenge to conduct a global crusade against all that is evil - and a political cabal that was willing to put it to use. Our history books will tell that story our way. And it will always be told (by us to us) that way, whether or not we later decide to revise or reinterpret it (like we have the Civil War). It's OUR story. (People in the Mideast will have their own version too.)

So while it's good to look at history, don't expect it to teach us much. Most of what passes for history is a polite fib at best. And always will be. The actual fibs told will simply change with the tenor of the times. And most people, at some level, know that.
 :) 8)
« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 12:05:26 PM by 40hz »

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
While the occurrence of an event could (arguably) not be open to debate, the analysis of causes leading up to it - and the interpretation of its larger meaning - is very much open to individual interpretation. That is why History teaches us nothing.

History is nothing more than a story (mostly told by the "winners") in which the status quo of the winner is rationalized and justified. In short, things didn't just get to be the way they are "because." According to most historical accounts, things are the way they are today because some gifted and inspired individuals set in motion a chain of events in accordance with the Divine Plan for the Rightness of Things, and the rest...well...the rest is history.

That's why it's important to identify who is telling the story. It's not so much a history of something like WWII as it is who's history of WWII.

Humans tell stories about themselves in order to put themselves in the best possible light. And a frank admission we were lucky doesn't work too well when you're creating a mythos your nation or people can believe in.

People will kill each other over real or perceived threats, property, and money. But they will usually only go to war over an idea. Economics are almost always at the root of human conflict. But in most cases it takes the tinderbox of an idea (i.e. fatherland!, traditional family values!, blasphemy!, treason!, freedom!, evil!, communism!, terrorism!, capitalism!,  ) to set the wheels in motion.

The US would have never marched into Iraq (as opposed to just Afghanistan) if it were justified purely in economic terms. It took about 3000 civilian deaths, a wave of national shock and outrage, several falsehoods and exaggerations promulgated through official channels, a challenge to conduct a global crusade against all that is evil - and a political cabal that was willing to put it to use. Our history books will tell that story our way. And it will always be told (by us to us) that way, whether or not we later decide to revise or reinterpret it (like we have the Civil War). It's OUR story. (People in the Mideast will have their own version too.)

So while it's good to look at history, don't expect it to teach us much. Most of what passes for history is a polite fib at best. And always will be. The actual fibs told will simply change with the tenor of the times. And most people, at some level, know that.
 :) 8)


Like I said:

History is fundamentally taught wrong...

The mere inclusion or exclusion of facts is the core problem that I see.

e.g.
WWI and WWII were funded by...?
The NSDAP's rise to power was funded by interests in which current world super-power?
The Final Solution was (at least in no small part) inspired by the eugenicists in which current world super-power?
The American eugenics movement inspired which Axis power to enact pro-abortion laws for minorities and ban abortions for (the purity of) "their own race"?
South Carolina succeeded (in part) because of Nullification (10th amendment) of fugitive slave laws from which states?
etc. etc.

(My WWII history is better than other areas, so examples there are a bit disproportionate - I'm sure others could come up with truckloads of historical facts that put things in a very different light than the "official story".)

Merely teaching the facts exposes so much that little interpretation, if any, is needed.

However, the "interpretation filter" usually operates at the "fact selection" level. Anything after that is largely irrelevant.

Thank goodness for the Internet, where we can (at the moment) freely share information, like those pesky little history lessons that were so conveniently left out of our education indoctrination.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Thank goodness for the Internet, where we can (at the moment) freely share information, like those pesky little history lessons that were so conveniently left out of our education indoctrination.


+1
Like you said: "at the moment"  :Thmbsup:

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member

It's been a while, but I vaguely recall from years ago that Edward Gibbon was willing not to be in the best light, and if I am not yet senile, poked a few jokes at some of the events he was telling.

(Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)

P.S. The Decline and Fall of something is not its best light.


tomos

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,325
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I wouldn't actually *know* most of the answers to
those questions in your history lesson Renegade -
I could guess a few though ;-)

(of course I thankfully can still research them too)
Tom

Tinman57

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,702
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
  Whoever controls the information is the ones in control.  Information is one of the most powerful tools.  If your only allowed to know what the government wants you to know, your in the dark, whether you know it or not.
  The very first thing we did when we went into Iraq was to blow up all communications, including the AT&T building.  Cut off the information, cut off the head of the snake, no one knows what's going on or what to do.
  This is exactly why I don't believe half the crap that I see on tv, hear on the news or read in the history books.  History was written by the winners, they're only going to tell you the good (or bad) that they want you to know, or mix in some truth with the lies to baffle you.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
 Whoever controls the information is the ones in control.  Information is one of the most powerful tools.  If your only allowed to know what the government wants you to know, your in the dark, whether you know it or not.
  The very first thing we did when we went into Iraq was to blow up all communications, including the AT&T building.  Cut off the information, cut off the head of the snake, no one knows what's going on or what to do.
  This is exactly why I don't believe half the crap that I see on tv, hear on the news or read in the history books.  History was written by the winners, they're only going to tell you the good (or bad) that they want you to know, or mix in some truth with the lies to baffle you.

Quote from: Was supposed to be a book... Turned out it was a manual...
'There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past,' he said.
'Repeat it, if you please.'

'"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past,"' repeated Winston obediently.

'"Who controls the present controls the past,"' said O'Brien, nodding his
head with slow approval. 'Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has
real existence?'

Again the feeling of helplessness descended upon Winston. His eyes flitted
towards the dial. He not only did not know whether 'yes' or 'no' was the
answer that would save him from pain; he did not even know which answer he
believed to be the true one.

O'Brien smiled faintly. 'You are no metaphysician, Winston,' he said.
'Until this moment you had never considered what is meant by existence. I
will put it more precisely. Does the past exist concretely, in space? Is
there somewhere or other a place, a world of solid objects, where the past
is still happening?'

'No.'

'Then where does the past exist, if at all?'

'In records. It is written down.'

'In records. And----?'

'In the mind. In human memories.'

'In memory. Very well, then. We, the Party, control all records, and we
control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?'

'But how can you stop people remembering things?' cried Winston again
momentarily forgetting the dial. 'It is involuntary. It is outside oneself.
How can you control memory? You have not controlled mine!'

O'Brien's manner grew stern again. He laid his hand on the dial.

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 01:24:24 AM by Renegade »

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
This seems seriously screwed-up, if true:
You've Been Owned: Tell Obama To Stop Siding With Copyright Trolls
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks.)
Quote
We need your help: Once again, the film studios and record companies that tried to censor the Internet are up to no good. The same business lobbyists who backed SOPA are trying to stop you from reselling most of the things that you own -- and President Obama has taken their side.

Arguments before the Supreme Court take place later this month: Please add your name at right to tell Obama to stand with consumers and Internet users.

A few months ago Demand Progress -- joined by over 100,000 Internet users and a coalition of public interest groups -- asked President Obama to take action and protect consumers' rights to resell their own things. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case (Kirstaeng v. Wiley) that will decide whether you have the right to sell your iPod, books, and other goods on eBay and Craigslist -- or even at your own yard sale.

But the entertainment industry lobbyists at the MPAA and RIAA have filed a brief in the Supreme Court mocking consumers' concerns -- just like they did during the SOPA Fight.  These special interests admit that they want the Supreme Court to decide against the interests of ordinary Americans and protect the music and film industries' "ability to control entry into distinct markets."

You heard that right -- Hollywood thinks that controlling their CD and DVD markets is more important than consumer rights.

Amazingly, the Obama administration agrees and has rejected the pleas of thousands of ordinary consumers: The White House's solicitor general filed a legal brief rejecting our arguments and allowing big businesses to sue people for reselling their things online.
Just sign on at right to email President Obama and your lawmakers.

The Supreme Court will hear this case in a couple of weeks, so please get your friends involved right away:
   If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.
   If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign:

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
This seems seriously screwed-up, if true:
You've Been Owned: Tell Obama To Stop Siding With Copyright Trolls

Just another in a long list of things that show that governments do not represent the people - they represent corporations. It's just what corporatists/fascists/socialists do - trample freedom "for the greater good". No big surprises there. Unfortunately.

Well, that is unless you believe that "Corporations are people, my friend."

Cued:

http://www.youtube.c...yer_detailpage#t=14s



Speaking of... ;)

execute-corp.png

:P



Makes it hard to tell the difference between Obomney and Robama. :P
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Makes it hard to tell the difference between Obomney and Robama. :P

One is an Obamination and the other sounds like something from Japanese Animation?

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member

Just another in a long list of things that show that governments do not represent the people - they represent corporations. It's just what corporatists/fascists/socialists do - trample freedom "for the greater good". No big surprises there. Unfortunately.

Well, that is unless you believe that "Corporations are people, my friend."

Oh! That explains a lot! "We the People (Corps) of the United States of America..."
Meanwhile the Carbon Units posting comments on this site are Slave Pawns. I don't recall anything in the Constitution protecting the rights of Slave Pawns.

Though the Rule 34 implications of Corporations as People are disturbing. I'll leave that one to my betters. Or 4Chan.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Makes it hard to tell the difference between Obomney and Robama. :P

One is an Obamination and the other sounds like something from Japanese Animation?

Oooo! Check this:

http://furryomnivore...art/Robama-110088913

Pretty good artwork there.

And saw this:

cyborg-finished.pngInternet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates

Couldn't really find any good manga/japanamation though. But "Robama" really does sound like a cartoon character! :)

Oh! That explains a lot! "We the People (Corps) of the United States of America..."
Meanwhile the Carbon Units posting comments on this site are Slave Pawns. I don't recall anything in the Constitution protecting the rights of Slave Pawns.

Though the Rule 34 implications of Corporations as People are disturbing. I'll leave that one to my betters. Or 4Chan.

Went a bit over my head there. Not sure what you meant.  :huh:

Do you mean this?

http://www.xkcd.com/305/

rule_34.png

Then yes... very disturbing...

Disturbed
Hey baby... How 'bout I stick my 401k in your spread sheet...

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 06:50:14 AM by Renegade, Reason: typo »

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Went a bit over my head there. Not sure what you meant.  :huh:

Do you mean this?

http://www.xkcd.com/305/
 (see attachment in previous post)

Well, sorta, that's the Rule 34, "If something exists, either pr0n exists or it will eventually be made."
As a young'un, I always liked those little books about logic absurdities when you start with an "illegal" (mathematically/logically) premise, then various absurdities appear, such as proving that Renegade is a Grapefruit.

So if Corporations are People, we get funny things like: "So let me get this straight, 11 people get together in Delaware to have sex and out comes a Corporation-Person? So then before it is 18 years old, it can't vote, so why is it "Voting" (lobbying)? If two corporations get together, is that Corporation Sex?"  On and on.

To which point the opponent says "well, not a PERSON, but ... uh... a Legal Person, but with more smileys." Or something.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 07:47:02 AM by TaoPhoenix »

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Well, sorta, that's the Rule 34, "If something exists, either pr0n exists or it will eventually be made."
As a young'un, I always liked those little books about logic absurdities when you start with an "illegal" (mathematically/logically) premise, then various absurdities appear, such as proving that Renegade is a Grapefruit.

Well, I'm not so sure that I'm a grapefruit, but can definitely be fruity at times~! :P

Y'know... Sometimes a sour sop, occasionally a jackfruit, other times a real peach... Hey! Wanna see my cherries?

fruity-cherries-01.jpgInternet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates

Took that pic many years ago in Seoul.

So if Corporations are People, we get funny things like: "So let me get this straight, 11 people get together in Delaware to have sex and out comes a Corporation-Person? So then before it is 18 years old, it can't vote, so why is it "Voting" (lobbying)? If two corporations get together, is that Corporation Sex?"  On and on.

To which point the opponent says "well, not a PERSON, but ... uh... a Legal Person, but with more smileys." Or something.

Yuppers. People end up with some pretty wonky beliefs once they get stuck in some weird fallacy.

Speaking of, I saw a fun proof that 4=3 the other day. Same kind of logic as the 1=2 proof.

The whole "corporate personhood" thing is just idiotic from the get-go. Anything after that is a waste of time.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Well, I'm not so sure that I'm a grapefruit, but can definitely be fruity at times~! :P

(Satire)
No. You ARE a grapefruit until proven otherwise. Terrorists are not Grapefruit. If you claim not to be a Grapefruit, that means you are a Terrorist. Which will it be, hmm? Members of your family will be forced to eat Grapefruits until you decide.
(/Satire)