Post #5,356
8/15/01 9:41:23 PM
8/15/01 9:48:37 PM
|
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
|
Post #5,359
8/15/01 10:28:03 PM
|
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
8/15/01 10:35:46 PM
|
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
8/15/01 11:46:04 PM
|
Heh.. You__still__don't__ Get!__it__...____a-tall.
|
Post #5,429
8/16/01 12:40:32 PM
|
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
8/16/01 2:38:51 PM
|
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
8/16/01 4:12:58 PM
|
Amen (to coin a phrase)
Brevity Award ****
|
Post #6,095
8/21/01 2:29:19 PM
|
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
|
