|
 |
On Sun, 10 May 2009 16:46:45 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospam com> 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.
It's not totally disabled, which is what you propose for p2p traffic.
> 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.
Again, you are proposing filtering certain file transfer technologies.
That is not monitoring, regulating, and policing, that is totally
eliminating - even for legitimate use.
If you can't see that distinction, then again there's no point in
discussing further.
>> 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.
Well, there's something we agree on, but I do understand the perspective
of people who want to limit the 2nd amendment.
There is a fundamental difference, though. Guns cause serious injuries
and death. p2p downloading doesn't.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
