"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a07196f$1@news.povray.org...
> On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:37:51 -0600, somebody wrote:

> >> How about we also outlaw cars, since those are used to commit crimes.
> >
> > Did I ever mention outlawing internet or copiers? In any case, that's a
> > very silly slippery slope argument not worth countering.

> Not silly at all.
>
> You are proposing restricting a technology because it *may* be used for
> copying copyrighted content, IOW, it may be used to break the law.

Need I remind you of speed limits, radars, traffic lights, bus traps, even
remote disablers... etc? Motoring *is* aldready restricted.

> If that's the threshold that you think is reasonable, then we should
> apply it consistently across all aspects of our lives.  Violating
> copyright is a crime, certainly, but compared to the deaths caused by
> illegal uses of automobiles, it seems reasonable (using your own logic)
> to say "hey, we can save lots of lives by outlawing cars" and making that
> happen, too.

Monitoring, regulating and policing is *not* outlawing. Motorways are
policed. Do you disagree? Do you think we would be better of without
regulating traffic? Well, I propose the same thing for internet. And whether
you or I like it or not, that's going to happen.

> Or guns, shall we apply this logic to guns?

Yes. Guns need to be even more tightly monitored and policed, for they have
no other redeeming use (unlike cars or internet). Private citizens should
not be able to carry assault weapons, for instance.

Post a reply to this message