Cow, maybe you wouldn't have to keep on telling the same people they didn't read the article if you just cited what parts disagree with their claims. Just a suggestion, if you insist on responding to those you feel haven't read the bill. By the way, your claim that information flows only from the federal government to private entities disagrees with section (a)(2) and the subsections thereof. In particular, it gives private entities the right to (under the right conditions) share their private information within their system with other private entities and the federal government and vice versa.
In general the bill seems to have good intentions to me. I think that Americans' major concern is whether or not the general concept of due process will be undermined by CISPA. Personally, I don't know the Constitution like the back of my hand, so that's something I'd rather let the Supreme Court decide.
Also I don't see what was wrong with that banner. Presumably hampa or some other nabi affiliate was apposed to CISPA (Most likely meaning that they felt that it did violate their constitutional right to due process of law) and wished to express his or her concerns about the law to the Toribash Community. What's wrong with that? It even looked nice!
In general the bill seems to have good intentions to me. I think that Americans' major concern is whether or not the general concept of due process will be undermined by CISPA. Personally, I don't know the Constitution like the back of my hand, so that's something I'd rather let the Supreme Court decide.
Also I don't see what was wrong with that banner. Presumably hampa or some other nabi affiliate was apposed to CISPA (Most likely meaning that they felt that it did violate their constitutional right to due process of law) and wished to express his or her concerns about the law to the Toribash Community. What's wrong with that? It even looked nice!
Last edited by GoodBox; Apr 22, 2013 at 09:36 PM.
(>^_^)>
Slippery slope may not be a solid arguement but it's a real concern. For example, before the great depression hit, the US was almost completely a free market. The governenment literally did nothing for the economy. Social programs didn't exist back then, and taxes were tiny in comparison to now. Then the great depression hit. That showed that the free market can have some big issues. So the governemnt decided to raise taxes and use the money for social programs that prevent another great depression. This isnt a bad thing, but over the years since then, America has become more and more reliant on the governemnt to do everything. Taxes have been getting higher, more taxes are being placed on more things, theres more social programs spreading the wealth, the government pays certain industries to produce more of specific goods. Now we have ridiculous income tax rates that take away over a third of our income, and a barrage of other taxes on top of it. Basically the government has been slowly gaining more and more control over the economy. This is an example of the government getting a foot in the door and escalating it. Whether they originally intended for it to happen or not, it happened.
Im personally against giving the government more power in general. They should stay out of the private sector completely.
Im personally against giving the government more power in general. They should stay out of the private sector completely.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Originally Posted by Pindar
Slippery slope may not be a solid arguement but it's a real concern. For example, before the great depression hit, the US was almost completely a free market. The governenment literally did nothing for the economy. Social programs didn't exist back then, and taxes were tiny in comparison to now. Then the great depression hit. That showed that the free market can have some big issues. So the governemnt decided to raise taxes and use the money for social programs that prevent another great depression. This isnt a bad thing, but over the years since then, America has become more and more reliant on the governemnt to do everything. Taxes have been getting higher, more taxes are being placed on more things, theres more social programs spreading the wealth, the government pays certain industries to produce more of specific goods. Now we have ridiculous income tax rates that take away over a third of our income, and a barrage of other taxes on top of it. Basically the government has been slowly gaining more and more control over the economy. This is an example of the government getting a foot in the door and escalating it. Whether they originally intended for it to happen or not, it happened.
Actually, social programs have been getting cut in the past decades. What's actually happening is a decrease in social spending, but an increase of pork barrel spending. More money is spent to fund rather pointless endeavors to siphon federal money into local areas, promoted by the politicians elected to that area. Taxes actually went lower for the longest time, while spending skyrocketed (Reagan era, btw), which resulted in a massive budget deficit. Basically, America's past policies are now reaping what they've sown. And taxes have still been going down, because clearly that's helped us with our past economic problems :/
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
Slippery slope fallacy.
You know better Hyde. Not to mention the random flaming...
When they try and introduce a bill that actually does something bad, then you can oppose it.
The fact you just noted that fallacy as making Hyde's argument invalid is a fallacy of itself. Argumentum ad antiquitatem- to be more specific. Just because it's a fallacy and such fallacies usually result in a void argument doesn't mean his argument is completely wrong. Hyde brings up a good argument. He brings up a rather scary realization. The same way people attempt to push marijana into legalization by introducing municple marijana, Hyde makes the point that government wants to introduce this bill to make headway for another more powerfull bill. Only this time, it's perfectly clear that that's their goal. They have tried to ram other legislation down our throats. Bills that actually posed a threat to cyber anonymity.
Look at it in terms of an analogy. I'll keep it simple:
Consider the anonymity of the internet as a pie. This bill suggests to take a small portion of the pie and consuming it. (I.E. sending private information from businesses directly to the government). Fine, we can all live with that.
But wait, that's not enough. So they propose to take another slice after proposing another problem. Eventually we run out of pie. Not good. All government has to do is keep finding problems and propose solutions. Something they do on a regular basis anyways.
Observe this diagram depicting the possible outcome of this scenario.
Diagram
You can imagine what happens without intervention.
Originally Posted by JayStar
The fact you just noted that fallacy as making Hyde's argument invalid is a fallacy of itself. Argumentum ad antiquitatem- to be more specific. Just because it's a fallacy and such fallacies usually result in a void argument doesn't mean his argument is completely wrong. Hyde brings up a good argument. He brings up a rather scary realization. The same way people attempt to push marijana into legalization by introducing municple marijana, Hyde makes the point that government wants to introduce this bill to make headway for another more powerfull bill. Only this time, it's perfectly clear that that's their goal. They have tried to ram other legislation down our throats. Bills that actually posed a threat to cyber anonymity.
Look at it in terms of an analogy. I'll keep it simple:
Consider the anonymity of the internet as a pie. This bill suggests to take a small portion of the pie and consuming it. (I.E. sending private information from businesses directly to the government). Fine, we can all live with that.
But wait, that's not enough. So they propose to take another slice after proposing another problem. Eventually we run out of pie. Not good. All government has to do is keep finding problems and propose solutions. Something they do on a regular basis anyways.
Observe this diagram depicting the possible outcome of this scenario.
Diagram
You can imagine what happens without intervention.
Thank you. I don't think I could have posted without wanting to punch through the screen.
Hoss.
