And the loop starts again.

Post #5,292 by Brandioch 8/15/01 1:48:29 PM Reply	And the loop starts again. "Yes, you have. You have stated that you own your image, and you can prevent someone from capturing it." Yes. I am saying that. I've been saying that all along. Because I believe that the rights are inherent in the individual whether or not the government recognizes them. So, whether I own my image or not does not depend upon whether the government thinks I own my image or not. My rights exist whether the government confirms them or not. The government cannot take my rights away, only punish me for exercising them. And so on and on and on and on. Now, as to the concept of CONTEXT. No. I cannot stop someone from photographing me. Anymore than you can stop someone from murdering you. Yet the common usage of the language would be "you cannot murder people". So, can I murder you? Yes or no.
Post #5,298 by addison 8/15/01 2:30:57 PM Reply	I can but hope that you really don't think this way. Yes. I am saying that. I've been saying that all along. But yesterday you berated and insulted and belittled when that was attributed to you. Because I believe that the rights are inherent in the individual whether or not the government recognizes them. That's a philisophical debating point. If you'd like to, that's fine. But when you say "I have this right", and its not supported by anybody but yourself, then that's usually considered to be wrong. If you say "The government should recognize this right"... But we've been over this. You're (at best) misusing English on purpose. At worst, you can't tell the difference yourself. You're confusing "right" with "ability". In any country in the world, you have the ability to do many things. What the government recognises is another story. What they're constrained from doing is yet another. In theory, the USSR had freedom of speech. The "right" was right there in black and white. But it wasn't respected by the government, I think, needless to say. So did it "exist?" The Bill of Rights enumerates some of the rights that were considered so basic, that any government who did not respect them/recognise them was invalid. My rights exist whether the government confirms them or not. Again, IN THAT SYSTEM, then everything is OK, because "right" is defined by each and every person. Completely unworkable. Just like your asseration that you can permit/deny people from looking at you (which you asserted you could, since you have explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation). The government cannot take my rights away, only punish me for exercising them. I don't think you understand the concept of "Right" in this context. But in your construct, then everything everybody does is because of their "right" to it. Murder. Rape. Robbery. Genocide. They've got a "right" to it. Um. Which is completely nonsensical. I'll let you loop the loop and continue with this mental masturbation.. I'll just note that as of yesterday, you were berating people for not noticing that you said exactly what I said weeks ago... And.. you're.. still.....arguing... Have fun on the ride. Um, I guess its your "right" to do that. Addison
Post #5,329 by imric 8/15/01 6:20:47 PM Reply	Sorry. You ARE authoritarian. when you say "I have this right", and its not supported by anybody but yourself, then that's usually considered to be wrong. So - unless government grants you a right, you don't have it? I can but hope that you really don't think this way. In any country in the world, you have the ability to do many things. What the government recognises is another story. What they're constrained from doing is yet another. "Everything not illegal is compulsory. Everything not compulsory is illegal". I can but hope that you really don't think this way. Again, IN THAT SYSTEM, then everything is OK, because "right" is defined by each and every person. Completely unworkable. So - since the government hasn't defined whether I have a right to do "X", I have no right to do "X"? Rights depend on whether the government decides/defines "X", or that system is "Completely unworkable"? I can but hope that you really don't think this way. which you asserted you could, since you have explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation No. He didn't say that. You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation. I can but hope that you really don't think this way. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #5,340 by addison 8/15/01 8:09:34 PM Reply	However, I do have the ability to read and understand. when you say "I have this right", and its not supported by anybody but yourself, then that's usually considered to be wrong. So - unless government grants you a right, you don't have it? Nope. Didn't say that. What did I say? If you say something diametrically opposed to what EVERYBODY ELSE says and thinks, that's "usually considered to be wrong". I'd have thought that to be self-evident.... but.... So - since the government hasn't defined whether I have a right to do "X", I have no right to do "X"? Rights depend on whether the government decides/defines "X", or that system is "Completely unworkable"? Brandioch has claimed that he has the right to put your eyes out. He has claimed he has EVERY RIGHT HE WANTS. No external validation. No constraints. But they can put him in jail (somehow, I don't think he understands the concept of "rights') for exercising them. This is what he said. Talk to him about it. Stop telling me its not what he said. Peter certainly noticed what he said. Read the post above his reply. which you asserted you could, since you have explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation No. He didn't say that. You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation. Learn to read. If you can't, call 1-800-ABCDEFG. They'll send you helpful tapes. He did say exactly that. Go find it. That's EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. He owns the rights to his image and HE CAN ARBITRARILY DECIDE WHO CAN VIEW IT. And not only do I not "refuse to admit" the difference, I've MENTIONED IT SEVERAL TIMES. Click on the top post here. (After you get the helpful tapes). Read and see where I mention this on several occasions. See where I say that.. Oh, hell, why bother. This would presume you actually were PAYING ATTENTION. So much easier to just scream and be reactionary. I can but hope that you really don't think this way. When you don't bother to read, I don't really care. I care about people's opinion who pay attention, and read. Addison
Post #5,342 by Ashton 8/15/01 8:24:33 PM Reply	I'm not sure that's true. Many of us deem that we have inalienable rights (those already enumerated and most.. not yet so). We would deem this, whatever the Constitution said; fortunately it also agrees - even provides a Rx for such time as our government should ever forget it. Your consistent POV is the assertion and reassertion that: we haven't. We haven't 'rights' until this week's government list - enumerates such rights. Or last year's -- but never, next year's, in your mentation. That's all: you wait for them to be 'allowed'. I and others know that the government is an imperfect, necessary institution - intended to ameliorate when disputes arise amongst the many and their interpretations. Still and always: the rights inhere. The rest is only about managing their practical expression. It's a philosophical POV - the one this country was formed around. Ashton
Post #5,345 by imric 8/15/01 8:44:24 PM Reply	Bullshit. Learn to use a dictionary. Hell - if you don't own a dictionary, use [link\|http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Image\|dictionary.com] I'll cut and paste for you, though. im\ufffdage n. 1. A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness. 2. Physics. An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror. 3. One that closely or exactly resembles another; a double: He is the image of his uncle. 4. 1. The opinion or concept of something that is held by the public. 2. The character projected to the public, as by a person or institution, especially as interpreted by the mass media. 5. A personification of something specified: That child is the image of good health. 6. A mental picture of something not real or present. 7. 1. A vivid description or representation. 2. A figure of speech, especially a metaphor or simile. 3. A concrete representation, as in art, literature, or music, that is expressive or evocative of something else: night as an image of death. 8. Mathematics. A set of values of a function corresponding to a particular subset of a domain. 9. Computer Science. An exact replica of the contents of a storage device, such as a hard disk, stored on a second storage device, such as a network server. 10. Obsolete. An apparition. tr.v. im\ufffdaged, im\ufffdag\ufffding, im\ufffdag\ufffdes 1. To make or produce a likeness of: imaged the poet in bronze. 2. To mirror or reflect: a statue imaged in the water. 3. To symbolize or typify: a kneeling woman imaging the nation's grief. 4. To picture mentally; imagine. 5. To describe, especially so vividly as to evoke a mental picture of. 6. Computer Science. 1. To print (a file) using a laser printer, imagesetter, direct-to-plate press, or similar device. 2. To transmit (an exact replica of the contents of a storage device) to another storage device: imaged the hard drive to the server. 7. To render visually, as by magnetic resonance imaging. Source: The American Heritage\ufffd Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright \ufffd 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. As to the rest, it's "govern"ment. Rights are regulated to allow people to live together succussfully, as in "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose". Do I have a right to free speech? I think so. Is it regulated? Yes. Is that a function of government and law? Yes. Is some compromise necessary to live with others that also want to execise thier rights? Yes. Tell me how this means that rights only exist when granted by some authority. Further, I seem to remember his saying that 'civil disobedience' also means that one must be ready to pay the consequence - including going to jail. It seems to me that there is no misunderstanding of law and how behaviour is "governed" there. And civil disobedience CAN in clude spray-painting cameras. You, on the other hand, brook no disobedience to authority at all, it seems. Such a "brave new world", that has such people in it! Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #5,346 by addison 8/15/01 8:51:17 PM Reply	Learn to read [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5048\|[link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5048\|http://z.iwethey.or...ntentid=5048]] Of course, I'm sure that you'll not read that, either. You, on the other hand, brook no disobedience to authority at all, it seem. Only to those too stupid to read. Go back and read what I said 2 weeks ago on the subject. At the start. The exact same damn thing he JUST SAID YESTERDAY. Damn, but I'm good. Addison
Post #5,356 by imric 8/15/01 9:41:23 PM 8/15/01 9:48:37 PM Reply	Good? At what? You know how to code, no? Do you remember what substitution is? OK, since you didn't bother reading the definition that I so kindly provided you, we'll try substitution. Since "image" is: 1. A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness. 2. Physics. An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror. for the purpose of your cite: image="reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror." Now, let's substitue. My [reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror] is not public. Even when I am in public. My [reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror] is my own. I reserve all rights to my [reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror]. You can look at me. (emphasis mine) You cannot photograph me. You cannot film me. Now, you assert ([link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5298\|here]) that he is saying that he has "explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation". Bzzzzt. NOWHERE does he say that. In fact, he says EXPLICITLY that "You can look at me". Sure doesn't sound like he is saying he has "explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation". Further, you become insulting to me when I say "You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation.", [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5329\|here]. All because you (willfully?) don't know the meaning of the word "image". Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Edited by imric Aug. 15, 2001, 09:48:37 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #5,359 by boxley 8/15/01 10:28:03 PM Reply	howsabout we all chip in and Buy Addy a poloroid camera and a round trip ticket to Kabul to nonchalantly take photo's of people in public. (sorry Addy medical and legal insueance is not covered) and while he celebrates his right to take pictures in public we can keep a team of mercenaries on standby to rescue him before he is stoned to death. Now taking pictures in public kinda depends on which public you are in. Now I dont advocate stoning people to death for takin my picture, but under the freedom of religion claus you cannot take mine. (make no graven image) thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #5,361 by addison 8/15/01 10:35:46 PM Reply	Re: Good? At what? Do you remember what substitution is? OK, since you didn't bother reading the definition that I so kindly provided you, we'll try substitution. He has claimed absolute and utter ownership of HIS IMAGE. The implications of that, if not clear to you, I shouldn't pursue further.(but I guess I have to) Further, you become insulting to me when I say "You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation.", here. You mean, in reply to the insults directed at me? After for two weeks saying that if you want a difference you have to legislate said same? I didn't say I didn't see a difference. I said that legally there wasn't, and trying to make those distinctions is splitting hairs, and is damn hard. And I said that enough there SHOULDN'T be a problem understanding that. reading what OTHERS said I said, however... All because you (willfully?) don't know the meaning of the word "image". No, because I've pointed out the problem with (yesterday's) Brandioch (he's changed his tune today) statements that he OWNS his image, and has exclusive rights to it. NOWHERE does he say that. In fact, he says EXPLICITLY that "You can look at me". Sure doesn't sound like he is saying he has "explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation". BZZZT. According to his logic, he ALLOWS you to look at him - and he could change that. Don't talk to ME about that - talk to him. Oh, and anatomy note? You see an "image" on the back of your retina - after it goes through a lens. There's no difference between that, and a 35 MM SLR, to that point. Facts in the way. So how do you distinguish between them? I've been pointing out the problems with Brandioch's "solutions". And your main point - that "You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation." isn't true. I HAVE stated that according to current laws, the are so close as not to be a problem. Which unless you can prove otherwise, I'll stand by. And that's what I've been saying for 2 weeks. Currently, there is (essentially) no difference. If you WANT there to be a difference, you should get the laws concering such changed, rather that just destroy things. Addison
Post #5,369 by Ashton 8/15/01 11:46:04 PM Reply	Heh.. You__still__don't__ Get!__it__...____a-tall.
Post #5,429 by Brandioch 8/16/01 12:40:32 PM Reply	Again, strawman. "No, because I've pointed out the problem with (yesterday's) Brandioch (he's changed his tune today) statements that he OWNS his image, and has exclusive rights to it." Because you want to misunderstand does not mean that I've changed my position. "BZZZT. According to his logic, he ALLOWS you to look at him - and he could change that." No. You are free to look at me. You are not free to take pictures of me. We've been over this again and again and again. But, because it is important to your position that I be the one who is making unreasonable demands here, you do not want to see the distinction. You do not have the right (moral) (inherent) to photograph me. You do have the right (moral) (inherent) to look at me. The distinction is whether a physical copy of my image is made. "There's no difference between that, and a 35 MM SLR, to that point." And you can LOOK at me through a camera. You just cannot capture my image on film. "Facts in the way. So how do you distinguish between them? I've been pointing out the problems with Brandioch's "solutions"." Again, the "problems" you've been pointing out have been clarified in the past. It isn't about VIEWING me. It is all about CAPTURING my image. Film, tape, whatever. Anything other than the cells in your brain. "If you WANT there to be a difference, you should get the laws concering such changed, rather that just destroy things." And until such time as the laws are changed, civil disobediance is an option.
Post #5,445 by DonRichards 8/16/01 2:38:51 PM Reply	Agree except for one point ...And until such time as the laws are changed, civil disobediance is an option. I would say that civil disobediance in response to unjust government is, at least among right thinking men, a requirement, not an option. "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #5,462 by Ashton 8/16/01 4:12:58 PM Reply	Amen (to coin a phrase) Brevity Award ****
Post #6,095 by addison 8/21/01 2:29:19 PM Reply	Its not a strawman if its exactly what you're saying. Your inability to understand what you, yourself, are saying, ain't my problem. Because you want to misunderstand does not mean that I've changed my position. Nope. Because you've changed your tune means you've changed your position. Golly, how that works. No. You are free to look at me. You are not free to take pictures of me. As I keep pointing out, this means that you are establishing a criteria. You. You are establishing an arbitrary criteria - and as such, can be as arbitrary as you'd like. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work that way. Because that's called "anarchy". You're in public, I certainly can look at you. Even take pictures of you. Not just because its legal, but because its (damn near) impossible to make a disctinction between the two. You may not like it. You don't have to. Tough. That's what happens when you're in public. You do not have privacy. We've been over this again and again and again. Yes, we have. And as long as you continue to misuse the English language, there isn't a way past it. The distinction is whether a physical copy of my image is made. Which is your distinction. Thus, accepting that for the sake of argument, means you can then make ANY distinction. (such as ordering no one to look at you) Which I keep pointing out, and because it ILLUSTRATES exactly how ridicolous your argument is, you say that I've "misunderstood". By that logic, you HAVE to outlaw cameras. You CANNOT have ANYBODY taking ANY PICTURES at Disney World. This isn't my logic, its yours. This does not mean that there isn't a distinction between the two. But you making it as Emperor Brandioch "Thou shalt take no picture of me, but of my good side" doesn't change that the distinction isn't recognized, BECAUSE of how slight it is. In fact, the distinctions now made, are not in the image, but the use of said image. (as I've pointed out many times). I can take your picture. I have to meet certain conditions to publish for profit. I've had my picture in the newspaper, and on the evening news. (For making a really good looking tackle in a football game, actually). Could I have forbidden anyone from taking my picture, as you claim that I can? Again, the "problems" you've been pointing out have been clarified in the past. Just ignored. ch time as the laws are changed, civil disobediance is an option. I suppose it is, but under your system, its total anarchy, meaning there isn't any such thing as "civil disobediance". You advocate anarchy. You demean and reduce "rights" to nothingness in your system. (if anything anybody does is a "right", then the "right" to murder is on a par with the "right" to free speech, and the "right" to molest children....) Fine. Its you making these unbacked assertations. If you're in public, there is no difference in me witnessing something you do, and videotaping/photographing it. Not currently, and not logically. If you're worried about the ramifications this implies for the government, by all means, lets put some (arbitrary) limits on what they can do with it. But that would be useful. Addison
Post #5,303 by boxley 8/15/01 3:22:05 PM Reply	utter agreement My rights exist whether the government confirms them or not Im free! doesnt matter whether the rest of thew world aknowledges that or not Im free! (break into a rousing chorus of magic bus) thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk

Welcome to IWETHEY!