6661 pts ยท February 6, 2019
Yay! But imgur generally downvotes selfies.
...sure, why not.
The more expensive it is to comply with the laws, the more gov't shuts down smaller competition.
HA!! He muted me, deleted his comment, and reposted above. What an ass.
that was my point, yes. :)
You've never heard of theocracy?!
Isn't that what happens if she 69s with King Kong?
That''s what she said.
Yes. Thank you.
That is sooo close to a different kind of pic. :)
3/3 can describe that in terms of ethics, ethics remains incidental under legal reasoning. Amendment can allow evil, if passed.
2/3 is legal reasoning. If you were right, SCOTUS would call amendments ethical, but they don't--they ask, "what does this mean?" And one
1/2 No sir--they are making a legal determination of what the constituiton means; ethics is incidental. Just like grammar is an-ethical, so
2/2 challenges aren't legal challenges. There isn't anything ethical or unethical abojt a gun registry, or licensed speech.
1/2 Nowhere in the link you provided did it say you must demonstrate the ethics of a law, only that you conform to rule of law. Ethical
13th isn't overturned. The slavery it explicitly allows continue today.
And the 1st DOES: there are no legal consequences to me copying your work when you lose a copyright; my theft is protected under 1st Amend.
...that's not how laws work. The 13th Amendment explicitly allows slavery, regardless of its ethics. The 21st amendment isn't ethics based
We have been talking past each other. I agree ethically it is theft; but OP's point was all about legal, and my responses were legal.
If you google "copyright, freedom of speech," you can see this isn't me beong a wingnut.
2/2 DO have copyright law. U aren't saying copying the Bible is theft, right? Or, are you? Is any copying theft, no public domain?
1/2 IF Congress didn't have copyright laws, right--which is exactly why it is NOT theft to copy and publish work in public domain. But we
4/4 broadcast what or when. OP's objection against gun registry fails on that count; speech is federally licensed and limited already.
3/4 you speak in violation of the license, and these licenses are federally registered--like TM, or copyright, or FCC license on who can
2/4 there ARE laws, and these laws limit speech: if you don't hold a license, your speech is limited, in that you suffer consequences when
1/4 I think we're talking past each other here. 'Copying' can be moral theft, regardless of whether there are laws or not. Regardless:
3/3 because rights to books are recognized property rights by congress. Cipying isn't dispositive; congress license is.
2/3 You copied someone else's copy of someone else's work--still theft. Copying is incidental. The property right is central. You stole
1/3 You are missing something here. A publisher buys the rights to a book; they copy and print the book. You copy and print their book.
I did; "if we remove the limits on speech, speech is free." Now answer mine?
Yay! But imgur generally downvotes selfies.
...sure, why not.
The more expensive it is to comply with the laws, the more gov't shuts down smaller competition.
HA!! He muted me, deleted his comment, and reposted above. What an ass.
that was my point, yes. :)
You've never heard of theocracy?!
Isn't that what happens if she 69s with King Kong?
That''s what she said.
Yes. Thank you.
That is sooo close to a different kind of pic. :)
3/3 can describe that in terms of ethics, ethics remains incidental under legal reasoning. Amendment can allow evil, if passed.
2/3 is legal reasoning. If you were right, SCOTUS would call amendments ethical, but they don't--they ask, "what does this mean?" And one
1/2 No sir--they are making a legal determination of what the constituiton means; ethics is incidental. Just like grammar is an-ethical, so
2/2 challenges aren't legal challenges. There isn't anything ethical or unethical abojt a gun registry, or licensed speech.
1/2 Nowhere in the link you provided did it say you must demonstrate the ethics of a law, only that you conform to rule of law. Ethical
13th isn't overturned. The slavery it explicitly allows continue today.
And the 1st DOES: there are no legal consequences to me copying your work when you lose a copyright; my theft is protected under 1st Amend.
...that's not how laws work. The 13th Amendment explicitly allows slavery, regardless of its ethics. The 21st amendment isn't ethics based
We have been talking past each other. I agree ethically it is theft; but OP's point was all about legal, and my responses were legal.
If you google "copyright, freedom of speech," you can see this isn't me beong a wingnut.
2/2 DO have copyright law. U aren't saying copying the Bible is theft, right? Or, are you? Is any copying theft, no public domain?
1/2 IF Congress didn't have copyright laws, right--which is exactly why it is NOT theft to copy and publish work in public domain. But we
4/4 broadcast what or when. OP's objection against gun registry fails on that count; speech is federally licensed and limited already.
3/4 you speak in violation of the license, and these licenses are federally registered--like TM, or copyright, or FCC license on who can
2/4 there ARE laws, and these laws limit speech: if you don't hold a license, your speech is limited, in that you suffer consequences when
1/4 I think we're talking past each other here. 'Copying' can be moral theft, regardless of whether there are laws or not. Regardless:
3/3 because rights to books are recognized property rights by congress. Cipying isn't dispositive; congress license is.
2/3 You copied someone else's copy of someone else's work--still theft. Copying is incidental. The property right is central. You stole
1/3 You are missing something here. A publisher buys the rights to a book; they copy and print the book. You copy and print their book.
I did; "if we remove the limits on speech, speech is free." Now answer mine?