Microsoft hates Freedom and Democracy!!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


So human rights violations only matter in areas where people are not 'generally free'? So you think the Abu Ghirab and Gitmo abuses don't matter because the American people are as generally free as anybody else?

What an utterly silly view.

Not being able to buy nazigear is not a serious abuse of free speech, and no amount of dramatization on your part will make it so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Not being able to buy nazigear is not a serious abuse of free speech, and no amount of dramatization on your part will make it so.

Ah, I see. So it isn't a serious abuse of free speech if you don't agree with the speech. Isn't that what free speech was supposed to combat? People like you making value judgements on what is allowable?

The violation on free speech is the inability to issue support for the Nazis, and Yahoo is being complicit by banning people from purchasing Nazi gear.

But, while I think that is a disgusting violation of human rights, I have no problem with Yahoo follow the laws of France.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, Kid and Oerdin, are you posting on computers with Microsoft products?!

OMG!!! You are supporting COmmunist China... EVIL BACKERS of human rights ABUSES!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, Kid and Oerdin, are you posting on computers with Microsoft products?!

OMG!!! You are supporting COmmunist China... EVIL BACKERS of human rights ABUSES!

What if it's a pirated copy?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah, I see. So it isn't a serious abuse of free speech if you don't agree with the speech. Isn't that what free speech was supposed to combat? People like you making value judgements on what is allowable?

The purpose of free speech is to give people a voice against oppression. I don't see how being a Nazi meets that goal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The purpose of free speech is to give people a voice against oppression. I don't see how being a Nazi meets that goal.

No, the purpose of free speech is to allow for open discourse and not discriminate against people on the basis of their political beliefs. That includes the popular as well as the unpopular beliefs. It is so the government is not the arbiter of what is 'correct' speech.

Naziism is just as protected by free speech as liberal democratic values, and should be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by General Ludd
What if it's a pirated copy?

Well... in that case, you could be supporting Microsoft's competitors by buying a copy of their software .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, the purpose of free speech is to allow for open discourse and not discriminate against people on the basis of their political beliefs.

That's an intermediate goal, not an end goal. The only value of that is to either meet the end goal or free speech for the sake of free speech itself.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That's an intermediate goal, not an end goal. The only value of that is to either meet the end goal or free speech for the sake of free speech itself.

No, that's the END goal. And there is nothing wrong having free speech for the sake of free speech itself. We have freedom to live for the sake of life itself. As autonomous beings, we should have the right to hold any political beliefs we want and not have a government say that it is discouraged. That can be an Enlightenment view, a Fascist view, or whatever else.

Hell, having free speech as an end unto itself is better than having it as an end to 'fighting oppression' (because that argument will really get many governments to back it).

[Agathon]

And there is nothing wrong having free speech for the sake of free speech itself.

That creates all sorts of philosophical problems. One is that you won't be able to construct a system where you can account for restrictions on speech.

This is a general problem of all rights based accounts, and is what makes them rather silly.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, that's the END goal. And there is nothing wrong having free speech for the sake of free speech itself. We have freedom to live for the sake of life itself.

Life is much more important than speaking, but I wouldn't even say that is absolute.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No one said the right to life was absolute. But we do have the freedom to live for the sake of life itself, do we not? Even then we can have the death penalty and all of that stuff. It is just in general, we uphold life.

That creates all sorts of philosophical problems. One is that you won't be able to construct a system where you can account for restrictions on speech.

True, if you look it absolutely, but I prefer to look at such a statement and say in general, we'd prefer it. The problem, of course, is that in the end, you have to have one principle that beats everything else (who decides what wins in the end).

It's why rights are decided by society, but we have our general preferences.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No one said the right to life was absolute. But we do have the freedom to live for the sake of life itself, do we not? Even then we can have the death penalty and all of that stuff. It is just in general, we uphold life.

I think it's about happiness and equality, not just living.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So if you didn't have happiness and equality (and let's say you aren't in constant excruitiating pain), you'd rather die?



edit: The reason we uphold life is because of our basic biological desire to continue to survive.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So if you didn't have happiness and equality (and let's say you aren't in constant excruitiating pain), you'd rather die?

I wouldn't care if I died. If I was unhappy then I would want to die. Happiness and equality are the end goals. Individual rights are simply intermediate goals that need to be comprimised to meet the end goals.