That isn't the same as sharing all of one's music collection over Kazaa or other file sharing networks, which I'm assuming is what you're getting at.
First, I was using the Fair Use Act as an example to back up my statement that our rights are not *just* in the Bill of Rights. ;)
I don't share music. After all, if the entire CD is $0.99 why bother downloading a crappy 96 kbps MP3 ? With the actual CD I have much better quality and all of the songs on the CD (the usual sample rate is 96 kbps for a downloaded MP3; ripped at home I can best 256 kbps)!
The real problem with CDs and the Fair Use Act comes from pressure from the RIAA. It used to be you could make your legal backup copy with stuff like Windows Media Player or the CD-burning tools that came with your PC. Now you need to pay a $25+ fee to enable your computer to copy music CDs. One shouldn't have to pay to exercise a legal right like that. Also, some CDs have programs that prevent you from playing the CD in a computer -- you need to buy a CD-player to listen to music while you're on the computer (something most people detest). That's the second place Fair Use Act rants come from. (Linux has K3B, other cd ripping tricks and is free, but not everyone can use Linux)
'Tis the price, I suppose, of not having TV and not having newspapers outside of the local one. :)
I don't watch TV, but I hang out at a dozen news sites, and that's usually enough to fuel paranoia.
Some links to the flag-draped coffins: SFGate.comCNN
After all, the news can (and did) show the dead Iraq troops and the bodies of Saddam's family. This "remains can't be shown" law seems only to come into play when bad press is possible.
The reporters fired over Bush's record is summarized here. Despite the obvious error in the story, there's the way it's been received as noted here.
I don't recall reporters being fired for making reports that were proved false before -- heck Fox would need a new cast each week.
People have many sources of birth control pills beyond privately-owned pharmacies (online, Planned Parenthood, large chain pharmacies, etc.) that they can go to if they want them.
In a small town, like where I live, there's just one pharmacy, which is family-owned. The next nearest pharmacy is a 2-hour drive into the nearest city. That's 2 hours going into town and 2 hours coming home.
Also, his idea of "birth control" wasn't just pills and condoms made to prevent unwanted pregnancies. He also refused to sell HRT's of any kind. You want to drive for 4 hours to get cystitis medication? He has the right to deny relief from hot flashes, mood swings and UTIs?
You know, I really don't want to get into a huge discussion about the gay marriage issue here.
Here's a one line summary: "Love the sinner, hate the sin, not hate the sinner because of the sin."
The Catholic Church told people to vote for the "Right to Abuse Act" since it was anti-gay. It was anti-woman too, but they didn't read farther than the word "gay".
I have not seen any evidence of anyone being forced to follow any one specific religious doctrine, Christian or otherwise.
Enforcing a Catholic view of marriage instead of enforcing the right to be treated equal doesn't sound like being forced to follow Christian beliefs?
Quote: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
BUT many doctrines say these rights only apply to white men. The Christian Bible does support granting these rights to everyone, but the Catholic church and various Protestant denominations refuse to see that non-heterosexuals and in some cases women are people worthy of these rights.
First, I was using the Fair Use Act as an example to back up my statement that our rights are not *just* in the Bill of Rights. ;)
You're right. I was assuming that you were going to go off on an "I'll share my music if I want to!" tirade. I assumed incorrectly. In any case, I think there needs to be a balance with Fair Use. Yes, it sucks that measures have to be taken to prevent people from pirating, and I'm thinking that there has to be an equitable solution somewhere. We just haven't arrived at it yet. For the record, though, my brand-new Hewlett-Packard CAD station at work came with WindowsXP (I know; yuck ;) ) and EZ Media Creator for the DVD burner. It plays all the CDs I've put into it just fine and I've backed up software CDs on it without a problem, including the brand-new $4,000.00 CAD software. This is the first I've heard (although, as I said, I tend to be fairly out of touch. :)) of the kind of things you're describing (i.e. the CDs that won't play in a computer CD drive) That might be something to get upset about, yes. I don't, however, think it heralds the Apocalypse or anything. ;)
As for the two "Freedom of the Press" examples...I'm not seeing anything about the government demanding that people be fired. I see, for instance, CBS deciding to fire some people who created a false news story. Were I a reporter and I'd created a false news story, particularly about a controversial subject, I'd expect to be at least sanctioned if not fired. It looks to me, in both cases, that the news sourced involved censored themselves, in a sense, by firing people. I don't see any evidence of the government trying to control what the press can and can't present. That's what freedom of the press is all about. The news sources themselves can conduct their operation however they see fit, including firing people if they so choose. So, I'm not seeing any rights infringement here, no...
In a small town, like where I live, there's just one pharmacy, which is family-owned. The next nearest pharmacy is a 2-hour drive into the nearest city. That's 2 hours going into town and 2 hours coming home.
Not to sound callous...but so what? The fact of the matter is that if this guy privately owns his own pharmacy he can sell or not sell whatever he wants for whatever reason. He is not suppressing anyone's rights; he is instead exercising his own. And as I said to Devi, there are always alternative methods for getting birth control, HRTs, etc. If I lived two hours away from the next closest pharmacy, I'd simply go for mail order. In fact, that's just what I did for all of my preteen and teen years, when I was on birth control because of uncontrollable monthly hemorrhaging. I did it because I was too embarrased, as a ten-year-old, to go to a pharmacy and pick up my birth control pills. :) Mail order worked like a charm and is open to everyone. In fact, insurance companies nowadays encourage people to use mail order for their prescriptions. So, anyway, like I said there are alternatives.
Now, I won't deny that the guy is kind of being a pompous ass, even though I admire his conviction, but being a pompous, self-righteous ass isn't the same being an evil rights-supressor, y'know? :)
Here's a one line summary: "Love the sinner, hate the sin, not hate the sinner because of the sin."
Alas, it is far more complicated that that, I'm afraid.... :\
Enforcing a Catholic view of marriage instead of enforcing the right to be treated equal doesn't sound like being forced to follow Christian beliefs?
As I've said to others, it's not the Christian view of marriage, per se, that is being "enforced" because not all people opposed to gay marriage are Christian. Rather, it is the traditional view of marriage -- the view, I reiterate, that was traditional even before Christianity came into being -- that is being, for now, upheld. And that's what I've been saying here: That the issue is not just one of religious/moral beliefs but of changing tradition and of people's general aversion to doing so. Which, as I've said, is why the issue is such a tough one. It crosses the boundaries so that it is not just one group who is opposed to or who supports it, but many groups. It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out...if it ever pans out now that it's the current Big Issue. *rolls eyes*
The Christian Bible does support granting these rights to everyone, but the Catholic church and various Protestant denominations refuse to see that non-heterosexuals and in some cases women are people worthy of these rights.
Be that as it may...As I said, that isn't really the core issue, now is it? And if it is, you'd better start singling out more than just the various incarnations of Christianity for censure. As I recall, even the pagans never allowed homosexual marriage...
YAY! I'm done replying. Now off to Steamworks for some yummy dinner. :)
First, I was using the Fair Use Act as an example to back up my statement that our rights are not *just* in the Bill of Rights. ;)
I don't share music. After all, if the entire CD is $0.99 why bother downloading a crappy 96 kbps MP3 ? With the actual CD I have much better quality and all of the songs on the CD (the usual sample rate is 96 kbps for a downloaded MP3; ripped at home I can best 256 kbps)!
The real problem with CDs and the Fair Use Act comes from pressure from the RIAA. It used to be you could make your legal backup copy with stuff like Windows Media Player or the CD-burning tools that came with your PC. Now you need to pay a $25+ fee to enable your computer to copy music CDs. One shouldn't have to pay to exercise a legal right like that. Also, some CDs have programs that prevent you from playing the CD in a computer -- you need to buy a CD-player to listen to music while you're on the computer (something most people detest). That's the second place Fair Use Act rants come from. (Linux has K3B, other cd ripping tricks and is free, but not everyone can use Linux)
'Tis the price, I suppose, of not having TV and not having newspapers outside of the local one. :)
I don't watch TV, but I hang out at a dozen news sites, and that's usually enough to fuel paranoia.
Some links to the flag-draped coffins:
SFGate.com CNN
After all, the news can (and did) show the dead Iraq troops and the bodies of Saddam's family. This "remains can't be shown" law seems only to come into play when bad press is possible.
The reporters fired over Bush's record is summarized here. Despite the obvious error in the story, there's the way it's been received as noted here.
I don't recall reporters being fired for making reports that were proved false before -- heck Fox would need a new cast each week.
People have many sources of birth control pills beyond privately-owned pharmacies (online, Planned Parenthood, large chain pharmacies, etc.) that they can go to if they want them.
In a small town, like where I live, there's just one pharmacy, which is family-owned. The next nearest pharmacy is a 2-hour drive into the nearest city. That's 2 hours going into town and 2 hours coming home.
Also, his idea of "birth control" wasn't just pills and condoms made to prevent unwanted pregnancies. He also refused to sell HRT's of any kind. You want to drive for 4 hours to get cystitis medication? He has the right to deny relief from hot flashes, mood swings and UTIs?
You know, I really don't want to get into a huge discussion about the gay marriage issue here.
Here's a one line summary: "Love the sinner, hate the sin, not hate the sinner because of the sin."
The Catholic Church told people to vote for the "Right to Abuse Act" since it was anti-gay. It was anti-woman too, but they didn't read farther than the word "gay".
I have not seen any evidence of anyone being forced to follow any one specific religious doctrine, Christian or otherwise.
Enforcing a Catholic view of marriage instead of enforcing the right to be treated equal doesn't sound like being forced to follow Christian beliefs?
Quote:
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
BUT many doctrines say these rights only apply to white men. The Christian Bible does support granting these rights to everyone, but the Catholic church and various Protestant denominations refuse to see that non-heterosexuals and in some cases women are people worthy of these rights.
Reply
You're right. I was assuming that you were going to go off on an "I'll share my music if I want to!" tirade. I assumed incorrectly. In any case, I think there needs to be a balance with Fair Use. Yes, it sucks that measures have to be taken to prevent people from pirating, and I'm thinking that there has to be an equitable solution somewhere. We just haven't arrived at it yet. For the record, though, my brand-new Hewlett-Packard CAD station at work came with WindowsXP (I know; yuck ;) ) and EZ Media Creator for the DVD burner. It plays all the CDs I've put into it just fine and I've backed up software CDs on it without a problem, including the brand-new $4,000.00 CAD software. This is the first I've heard (although, as I said, I tend to be fairly out of touch. :)) of the kind of things you're describing (i.e. the CDs that won't play in a computer CD drive) That might be something to get upset about, yes. I don't, however, think it heralds the Apocalypse or anything. ;)
As for the two "Freedom of the Press" examples...I'm not seeing anything about the government demanding that people be fired. I see, for instance, CBS deciding to fire some people who created a false news story. Were I a reporter and I'd created a false news story, particularly about a controversial subject, I'd expect to be at least sanctioned if not fired. It looks to me, in both cases, that the news sourced involved censored themselves, in a sense, by firing people. I don't see any evidence of the government trying to control what the press can and can't present. That's what freedom of the press is all about. The news sources themselves can conduct their operation however they see fit, including firing people if they so choose. So, I'm not seeing any rights infringement here, no...
In a small town, like where I live, there's just one pharmacy, which is family-owned. The next nearest pharmacy is a 2-hour drive into the nearest city. That's 2 hours going into town and 2 hours coming home.
Not to sound callous...but so what? The fact of the matter is that if this guy privately owns his own pharmacy he can sell or not sell whatever he wants for whatever reason. He is not suppressing anyone's rights; he is instead exercising his own. And as I said to Devi, there are always alternative methods for getting birth control, HRTs, etc. If I lived two hours away from the next closest pharmacy, I'd simply go for mail order. In fact, that's just what I did for all of my preteen and teen years, when I was on birth control because of uncontrollable monthly hemorrhaging. I did it because I was too embarrased, as a ten-year-old, to go to a pharmacy and pick up my birth control pills. :) Mail order worked like a charm and is open to everyone. In fact, insurance companies nowadays encourage people to use mail order for their prescriptions. So, anyway, like I said there are alternatives.
Now, I won't deny that the guy is kind of being a pompous ass, even though I admire his conviction, but being a pompous, self-righteous ass isn't the same being an evil rights-supressor, y'know? :)
Reply
Alas, it is far more complicated that that, I'm afraid.... :\
Enforcing a Catholic view of marriage instead of enforcing the right to be treated equal doesn't sound like being forced to follow Christian beliefs?
As I've said to others, it's not the Christian view of marriage, per se, that is being "enforced" because not all people opposed to gay marriage are Christian. Rather, it is the traditional view of marriage -- the view, I reiterate, that was traditional even before Christianity came into being -- that is being, for now, upheld. And that's what I've been saying here: That the issue is not just one of religious/moral beliefs but of changing tradition and of people's general aversion to doing so. Which, as I've said, is why the issue is such a tough one. It crosses the boundaries so that it is not just one group who is opposed to or who supports it, but many groups. It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out...if it ever pans out now that it's the current Big Issue. *rolls eyes*
The Christian Bible does support granting these rights to everyone, but the Catholic church and various Protestant denominations refuse to see that non-heterosexuals and in some cases women are people worthy of these rights.
Be that as it may...As I said, that isn't really the core issue, now is it? And if it is, you'd better start singling out more than just the various incarnations of Christianity for censure. As I recall, even the pagans never allowed homosexual marriage...
YAY! I'm done replying. Now off to Steamworks for some yummy dinner. :)
Reply
Leave a comment