Sunday School

Sunday School 23rd May 2021

This topic contains 63 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer 2 weeks, 4 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 64 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #37805

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Enco, ya might not want to go to law school.

    #37806

    Autumn
    Participant

    Autumn,

    That’s not even a little bit true. For instance the right to a fair trial isn’t merely the absence of bias and discrimination. It requires adherence to process and specific steps that need to be taken. Many legal and moral rights create positive obligations in practice.

    The obligation of due process is imposed by the Constitution and the law upon the government, not upon private individuals, and the individuals who serve in the government (i.e. law enforcement, judges, magistrates, bailiffs, wardens, prison guards, etc.) take up that obligation willingly when they assume their positions.

    Private individuals? Churches are private individuals?

    It doesn’t refer to people purging you from their minds. It refers to certain circumstances where you have the right for your personal data to be purged.

    That requires prior restraint upon whoever uses a medium of communication to convey information. Again, under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and subsequent court rulings by the Supremes, government cannot exercise such prior restraint.

    It would be easier if you stuck with what was being discussed instead of changing the topic. The Diocese of Ossary is in Ireland, not the United States, so the U.S. Constitution is a little out of its jurisdiction there. But even if we’re talking about rights in the context of general principles and philosophy, I certainly wouldn’t agree to constraining ourselves to that constitution.

    Also, if there’s such a thing as a statutory “right to be forgotren” and a legal process for implementing that right against individuals with communications media, wouldn’t there have to be a legal record somewhere of all the persons who asserted “the right to be forgotten?”

    What are you talking about? Freedom of mobility is a protected right in Canada. That doesn’t mean I have the right to trespass, or that I cannot be confined if I’ve been convicted of a crime. It doesn’t allow me to defy physics and fly, unassisted, at will. Rights exist within practical limitations.

    That said, the answer is not necessarily.

    I think at this point in time it might benefit you to actually look up what the right to be forgotten is. It seems like you’re just reacting to the term ‘right to be forgotten’ itself, ignoring that it’s just a convenient label for a more involved concept.

     

    #37807

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Fellow Unbelievers,

    Here it comes…Here it comes…Here it comes!…It’s just Jake’s and Davis’ Nineteeth Nervous Breakdown!

    A daily nervous breakdown, where every day is The Spanish Civil War, The Triangle Waistcoat Fire, and Woolworth’s Lunch Counter all at the same time!

    Jake, you wrote:

    Enco, all of those rights (liberty, property, life) are hollow when the inequities of capitalism create an unconscionable imbalance in wealth and opportunity. There are great numbers who in fact do need assistance to right the wrongs of capitalism. If it is by implied consent of the masses that an economic system that insures the few will have the lion’s share and the many will have the scraps then it is disingenuous to assert that it is hands-off my tail that is tantamount to those vaunted rights.

    So, Jake, taking from the “haves” (whoever they are; it changes over time) and giving to the “have-nots” (again, they change too) makes everything aaaaall better?  And what about those using criminal or legalized coercion to do the taking?  Are they the equals of everybody else too?  Will they share their power once they are entrenched?  Real history tells a very different story from the “narrative” you believe.

    Before workers fought for their rights capitalists were abusing the living bejesus out of children. The famous Ricardo’s iron law of wages (more or less the idea that employers pay only subsistence wages to workers cuz that is all they had to do to keep their factories rolling) was promulgated at a time when capitalist owners held all of the cards and they exploited the living fuck out of workers. And when workers began to form unions and fight for rights thousands were killed by the employers’ agents and by governments. Even now corporations are wont to go overseas to exploit foreign workers. Corporations have undue influence in government and politics and utilizing their power to gain advantages.

    Priot to the Industrial Revolution, some 40 percent of the human beings who ever lived or died on this Planet were either stillborn or didn’t live past age one.  And those that did live worked for a Pharoah, King, or Feudal Lord for 18-hour days.

    The Industrial Revolution was the beginning of the end for child labor.  The machines used in the factories of England and the U.S. far outdid what children could do as far as productivity, and even what adult manual labor could do.

    Nowadays, we have micro-machines and nano-machines that can go places even the tiniest hands can never go and macro-machines and mega-machines that can do in minutes and hours what teams of scourged chattel-slaves couldn’t do in years.  The labor laws followed the technology and the culture, not vice-versa.

    Economies show no mercy to employers or companies either.  They can and do suffer labor shortages and have to pay higher and give more benefits to secure quality employees.  Companies are suffering most notably now, when our government is paying people more in stimulus and unemployment to stay home and just exist than to get out and do something productive.

    Thus, the libertarian fairy tales about equal opportunity ought to be understood for what they are. Those chimerical notions are wonderful for the powerful few but they are poison for the disadvantaged many.

    A rising tide not only floats all boats, but brings the fish and plankton closer and makes the surfboard rides fun for all…as long as no one holds us back.

    • This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: I was forced by my writing etiquette to respell "coercion."
    • This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Respelling "everybody" for everybody to see
    #37808

    Davis
    Moderator

    WTF Enco? You just accused our rational and unemotional responses as being a “meltdown” by starting your own post with an emotional theatrical outburst? You have a very strange concept of meltdowns as well as “rights”.

    #37811

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Enco, Like i said initially you are a very religious or black/white thinker. Just like a fundamentalist, you posit certain positions-those positions are unassailable and you are not in the least amenable to reexamining your positions.

    Those haves HAVE because they are beneficiaries of a construct of civilization. When we subject all members of a nation to that construct we ought to rein it in at times to attain a more utilitarian result. The disparities are unconscionable between upper and lower socioeconomic echelons and the myriad harms of unchained capitalism are similarly shocking. The example i gave earlier about restrictive covenants is one small example. Slavery is another. Health care is another. If you just pay attention you will observe many bad and avoidable results where capitalism holds sway.

    I aint looking for absolute equality. No form of government or economics can deliver it. Nor would i favor the abolition of capitalism but failing to recognize how things go when it has unchecked authority is blind.

    You have hit on a theme of history that is axiomatic. Power corrupts. It is true of individuals and of institutions. And that is why it is a mistake to allow capitalism to run amok. Too few having too much power inures to the benefit of the few and fucks the many.

    Your thoughts on coercion and theft ring the same old libertarian bells but they fail to acknowledge that WE HUMANS ARE IN THIS SHIT TOGETHER. None of us are islands. It is a fairy tale to conceive an economic landscape as an equal playing field. That is not to say that in the USA the industrious and motivated individuals can never make it. They can. They do. That reality does not mitigate the unjustifiable advantages of the small minority at the expense of the masses.

    I don’t know where you got your figures but 40 percent stillborn or checked out by age 1 seems too high. I doubt it is that bad for those few humans still living primitive lives. But it was certainly high and capitalism has driven the technological advances to a great degree. And those advances while more beneficial to the wealthy are a great benefit to many.

    I suppose it is true that industrialization made children less valuable in factories. It is also true that authors like Blake and Dickens shined a light on the abuses that were instrumental in changing the zeitgeist and ultimately passing laws against child labor. Regardless you are missing the point. We have a historical model of what happens when capitalism is unregulated. Industrialization playing a role in ameliorating abuses of child labor is incidental.

    #37812

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Autumn,

    Private individuals? Churches are private individuals?

    Churches and other religious bodies are associations of individuals, deriving their existence from the right of individuals to freely associate. Associations have no less and no more existence, life, rights, or responsibilities than the individuals of which they are comprised.

    It would be easier if you stuck with what was being discussed instead of changing the topic. The Diocese of Ossary is in Ireland, not the United States, so the U.S. Constitution is a little out of its jurisdiction there. But even if we’re talking about rights in the context of general principles and philosophy, I certainly wouldn’t agree to constraining ourselves to that constitution.

    While the U.S. Constitution doesn’t have jurisdiction over Ireland, if Ireland’s applicable laws or constitutional provisions or court cases on free expression forbid prior restraint by government, the same idea applies.

    Also, the authorities in various nations in the European Union and elsewhere want “the right to be forgotten” to be universal upon all Internet search engines and affecting all Internet searches by anyone and anywhere. These authorities are the ones out of their depth here.

    I cite the U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights to point out just some of what they’re up against if they try to bring this crap here.

    To address another point regarding the U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights, the rights it recognizes are not limited to those listed.

    The Ninth Amendment clearly states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    In other words, rights don’t have to be enumerated to exist, but they do have to be non-contradictory of each other.

    What are you talking about? Freedom of mobility is a protected right in Canada. That doesn’t mean I have the right to trespass, or that I cannot be confined if I’ve been convicted of a crime. It doesn’t allow me to defy physics and fly, unassisted, at will. Rights exist within practical limitations.

    See the Ninth Amendment above.  Rights have to exist non-contradictory, so we are in agreement here.

    Also, nota bene, rights are claims made against other humans and especially governments. Rights are not claims made against nature. A right to property doesn’t provide me any claim against Mother Nature for destroying my property with a hurricane, tornado, volcano, meteor, or other natural disaster.

    That said, the answer is not necessarily.

    A “right to be forgotten” would have to be claimed in some tangible form. Otherwise, media owners would have no way to know who to “forget” and anybody could yell “Stop the servers and presses!”

    By the way, I looked up “The right to be forgotten.”

    It is every bit as problematic as I said it was and worse…right down to a freed convicted murderer and an entire Catholic Church in Poland demanding a “right to be forgotten.”

    The Right to Be Forgotten–Wikipedia

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten

    No one with regard for legitimate individual rights should support a so-called “right to be forgotten.”  Hey, Euros!  Forget this!

    #37813

    Autumn
    Participant

    Autumn,

    Churches and other religious bodies are associations of individuals, deriving their existence from the right of individuals to freely associate. Associations have no less and no more existence, life, rights, or responsibilities than the individuals of which they are comprised.

    Typically, churches are more than a mere association of individuals. For instance, most churches here are defined as charitable organizations, I believe. This makes them markedly different from, let’s say, a family picnic.

    It’s immaterial though. You are asserting things about rights which have no basis in reality. Even at the individual level, rights can come with positive obligations. For instance, children have rights that will create positive obligations for parents/ guardians. Certainly a child’s rights cannot create an obligation for all adults everywhere, but the right to be forgotten doesn’t work that way either.

    While the U.S. Constitution doesn’t have jurisdiction over Ireland, if Ireland’s applicable laws or constitutional provisions or court cases on free expression forbid prior restraint by government, the same idea applies.

    This isn’t a prior restraint issue. It’s a privacy and data management issue. By your reason, any and all privacy laws would be impossible in the USA.

    A “right to be forgotten” would have to be claimed in some tangible form.

    That doesn’t fall within the scope of the right to be forgotten as it’s defined in this case which I why I was saying you should reference the actual right rather than the version of it you made up on your own.

    But let’s say I am wrong. It still doesn’t matter. The request could be anonymized, or it could be subsequently purged once the request has been satisfactorily fulfilled. There may be practical complications with extant systems not designed with this in mind, but it certainly isn’t an insurmountable issue.

    It is every bit as problematic as I said it was and worse…right down to a freed convicted murderer and an entire Catholic Church in Poland demanding a “right to be forgotten.”

    I get the feeling you are seeing what you want to see at this point. Wolfgang Werlé not only lost his case about Wikipedia, but that case itself is describe in an article about Werlé on Wikipedia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Werl%C3%A9_and_Manfred_Lauber

    #37815

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Davis,

    Enco you have a really bizarre idea of what rights are and they bear little relation to how rights actually work. The idea that rights must only bequeath privilege to people and require no compromise to them is truly bizarre and not remotely how rights were conceived nor work in practice.

    The bill of rights place all sorts of limits on people (in order to respect other people’s rights) and those go back centuries. The end of slavery put limits on others to treat fellow humans as chattel.

    What is “bizarre” is that you read what I wrote and didn’t understand that I said just what you said here.  All rights have to be non-contradictory and there is no such thing as a “right” to violate pre-existing rights of others.

    Hence, there is no “right to be forgotten” if it means prior restraint upon the right to free expression or imposes involuntary servitude on individuals who hold data.  (Databases and search engines still have human beings behind them.  They haven’t gone full AI.)

    And “Neo-Con?”  What does a foreign policy position have to do with this?  (Neo-Cons have no single position on domestic issues.)

    As much as Big Tech can be a nuisance sometimes, they can’t make one Penny from someone’s data if no one clicks an ad or a “One Weird Trick” article.  Also, Big Tech can be as misinformed about what people want as ad agencies and marketers were before the Information Age.  And none of these companies run gulags or beheading ceremonies, so Big Tech is not exactly a pressing concern for human rights.

    #37816

    Autumn
    Participant

    As much as Big Tech can be a nuisance sometimes, they can’t make one Penny from someone’s data if no one clicks an ad or a “One Weird Trick” article.

    Click throughs are only one monetization mechanic, and that’s only one use for data. The Cambridge Analytical scandal is a notable example of other markets and usage. While the CA brand was destroyed by the blowback, other firms exist providing similar services (including Auspex which I believe was started by the same parent company that birthed CA).

    Whether this rises to the same level of human rights considerations as summary execution has nothing to do with whether or not the issue matters. If you were hospitalized after someone beat you with a baseball bat, it wouldn’t exactly be a pressing issue next to genocide, but I suspect most would think at least some effort should be put into addressing that crime and preventing subsequent assaults.

    #37817

    Autumn
    Participant

    Aw heck. I can’t type for shit, but some errors are worse than others.

    Cambridge Analytica*

    #37818

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Autumn,

    To address your previous posts, if someone from Cambridge Analytica or Facebook or Big Tech were beating data out of people with a baseball bat or otherwise coercing data from people, that would be a criminal offense and grounds for a civil suit for restitution.

    If any of these organizations broke “Peeping Tom” laws or used breaking-and-entering, burglary, or theft to obtain data from people, that would be a criminal offense and grounds for a civil suit.

    If any of these organizations used industrial espionage, bugging, wiretapping, or other unconsented audio, video, or cyberhacking surveillance to obtain data from people, that would be a criminal offense and grounds for a civil suit.

    The laws prohibiting these acts are all legitimate laws protecting individual privacy rights, which are fully compatible with The U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights.  People have a right to exercise free inquiry, but no right to guaranteed results or answers from others.

    But the fact remains none of these criminal acts mentioned above are the gravement of what’s alleged against Cambridge Analytica or Facebook or anybody in Big Tech.

    All data given to these organizations is done willingly by dumb schmucks who typically don’t even bother to read Terms of Service.  And how could a so-called “right to be forgotten” be applicable here?  Even if Facebookers got off of databases, many would repeat the same dumb mistakes and get back on the databases again.

    Yes, I read the whole article on “The Right to Be Forgotten” as is and yes, Wolfgang Werlé didn’t get “the right to be forgotten”…But the chance to get it never should exist in the first place because the alleged “right to be forgotten” contradicts other pre-existing rights.

    To address the question of the rights of children, yes they impose obligations, but only exist if adults choose to become parents or if adults choose to assume custody of the children.  Try as Hillary Clinton and others might, children are not an unchosen obligation upon everyone in “The Village” or “The Collective.”

    #37819

    Autumn
    Participant

    To address your previous posts, if someone from Cambridge Analytica or Facebook or Big Tech were beating data out of people with a baseball bat or otherwise coercing data from people, that would be a criminal offense and grounds for a civil suit for restitution.

    If any of these organizations broke “Peeping Tom” laws or used breaking-and-entering, burglary, or theft to obtain data from people, that would be a criminal offense and grounds for a civil suit.

    That doesn’t address my previous post though. It’s vaguely on the same topic, but it doesn’t really address anything I said on that topic.

    Yes, I read the whole article on “The Right to Be Forgotten” as is and yes, Wolfgang Werlé didn’t get “the right to be forgotten”…But the chance to get it never should exist in the first place because the alleged “right to be forgotten” contradicts other pre-existing rights.

    Werlé was one of your examples of why the right to be forgotten was problematic. But Werlé shows that there were boundaries to the right such that his case is not an issue. Yet you still say it’s an issue because the right to be forgotten is problematic?

    You do realize you just ran yourself in a circle, yes?

    Regardless, conflicting rights is not a new issue neither is it a rational basis for categorically nullifying a right.

    To address the question of the rights of children, yes they impose obligations, but only exist if adults choose to become parents or if adults choose to assume custody of the children

    The same applies to the right to be forgotten. It doesn’t apply to all people categorically by virtue of existing. It applies a limited responsibility to a limited set of people and organizations based on their chosen activities surrounding online data/ content.

    #37822

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Autumn,

    Werlé was one of your examples of why the right to be forgotten was problematic. But Werlé shows that there were boundaries to the right such that his case is not an issue. Yet you still say it’s an issue because the right to be forgotten is problematic?

    You do realize you just ran yourself in a circle, yes?

    Maybe I did, but I’m just trying to avoid being part of a big danse macabre.

    In the past, a Werlé who got off easy because of corrupt justice system would not have even a chance afforded by a so-called “right to be forgotten.”  He’d have to take his “Mark of Cain” and pray to his Moloch God that friends and family of the victim never take matters into their own hands.

    The so-called “boundary” on “the right to be forgotten” is entirely whimsical and “will o’ the wisp” with whomever makes the decision to delete information.

    Look, I wish best of luck to anybody who wants to undo the stupid Facebook and Instagram posts they made as a punky kid and they’re perfectly free to ask and petition Mark Zuckerberg if they can get a hold of him.  But this wish is still not a right.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Removing HTML tag
    #37824

    Autumn
    Participant

    In the past, a Werlé who got off easy because of corrupt justice system would not have even a chance afforded by a so-called “right to be forgotten.”

    This is part of the function of court systems: to hear cases and determine how the law applies to the unique circumstances of a given case.

    He’d have to take his “Mark of Cain” and pray to his Moloch God that friends and family of the victim never take matters into their own hands.

    You’re making more of an argument for Werlé’s case here. That legal system wasn’t designed for ordinary citizens to take retributive measures into their own hands. Or at leasts, might be the case if what you said made sense. Friends and family of the victim still know who he is.

    The so-called “boundary” on “the right to be forgotten” is entirely whimsical and “will o’ the wisp” with whomever makes the decision to delete information.

    It’s not though. The law isn’t anything-goes. Companies like Google will want to apply their decision-making process in a way that is consistent with the law and what it seeks to accomplish. In some cases, a court decision may be required. That court decision will have to be based on jurisprudence.

    It is not a perfect system, but neither is it ‘whimsical’.

    But this wish is still not a right.

    You’re using the term ‘right’ in a way that is a little too airy for my liking here. Literally, it is a right in a number of jurisdictions whether you think it should or should not be. Pulling rights from the aether is tricky business. The idea that a thing simply is or is not a right absent any framework for defining rights with reason and necessity is dodgy business. Simple saying ‘But this wish is still not a right’ is roughly on par with ‘I know you are, but what am I?’

    #37842

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Autumn,

    You’re making more of an argument for Werlé’s case here. That legal system wasn’t designed for ordinary citizens to take retributive measures into their own hands. Or at leasts, might be the case if what you said made sense. Friends and family of the victim still know who he is.

    Seriously, I know our system is not designed for friends and family of victims to exact justice and the law would most likely act if they did, but on the flip side, it’s doubtful many juries in the land would do much to the friends and family beyond convict them for littering the streets if that’s part of the charges.

    This brings up yet another problem: If a convicted criminal ever succeeded in silencing news media with a “right to be forgotten,” couldn’t the convicted criminal use the “right to be forgotten” to silence the victims too?

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 64 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.