The Liberal Section (USA EDITION)

[Violet]

The chat room is not community funded.

Forum, chat room, tis hard to know which one someone is talking about at any given time unless they write in big bold letter Chatroom:

Don't take everything I say seriously, seriously. I still don't want my maid to own my house because she's more responsible than me

uhhh...

At a loss for words again? ^_^

The host is the service provider, Adrian has the responsibilities for what goes on inside #Atheistforums, like I said it's Analogous to the landlord/tenant scenario. Besides, the chat room isn't community funded, all of that money goes towards the server and domain name registration.

The service provider is the one who owns whatever the service is (unless someone more powerful can force them to perform their service, of course... though that would mean that they essentially are the service provider). I don't deny that Adrian is largely responsible for what goes on in the chat room.

'Rights' are an opiate to the masses, Void Please use a better word to describe whatever you meant by the above statement.

You are speaking as if some wrong has been done here by Adrian, it seems like you are demanding of something you simply do not have rights to. I'm not going to assume your position on rights in a response, if you want to explain it go ahead.

/beginramble <I don't think I've demanded a single thing in... oh wait, there was that annoying computer fiasco I had to fix. Other than that, at least a month. I think. Did I demand anything else in the last month? 0.o I demand myself to remember everything I've said over the past month! Well, I failed that too At least I can demand the Silicoid Scourge perfectly. Almost perfectly. Very well. In a way that isn't bad. I don't suck. SHUT UP, ARKTUOS! i DON'T NEED TO HEAR YOUR OPINION RIGHT NOW. i WON. AND NO SHE DIDN'T, YOU'RE JUST JEALOUS. I DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK GIVING THE MRRSHAN AND THE ALAKARI TECHNOLOGY TO KEEP THEM FROM DYING WAS A BAD IDEA. IT GOT THE FUCKING KLACKON OFF OF MY BACK, EVEN IF I THEN COULND'T INVADE THEIR PLANETS TIL ENDGAME. NO, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT. NOT AGAIN. JUST PLEASE SHUT UP!> /endramble

I am commenting that I think it is somewhat hypocritical for someone of his supposed beliefs regarding freedom (did he not say using different words that 'My views toward government's interference with people's lives border on anarchy/zero'?) to then perform authoritarian actions of such an extreme as to ban someone, especially for such a minor thing as disagreeing with a person/feeling insulted by their opinion.

I'd also like to note that I think it was rather unkind of fr0d0 to call Adrian a posh twat (To be frank, i'd rather be considered a twat than posh...). I certainly wouldn't think I needed to say that.

My position on 'rights' is not dissimilar to my understanding of laws. Often I hear people say that 'laws are there to protect our freedoms'... yet this is false. Laws are restrictions. 'Rights' are allowances within those restrictions that have their own restrictions. None of this is about freedom, all of this is about control, and tell me that governments are wrong in their approach.

Do I have the 'right' to do something? That doesn't have an influence on what I can do, and the influence on what I will do is often slight. It doesn't stop me from murdering someone... it only makes me attempt to not get 'caught' for doing so. A law is a half-measure that assumes that a society at large will respect the lawmaker enough to follow the laws that are made. Giving someone the 'right' to do something only matters if the person is owned by you.

Unlike most people, I am not owned by a government (because I am not controlled by one, though I do tend to work within a system where one already exists). I'm dangerous in that extent: a wild card that doesn't base its actions on an arbitrary statement of something generally regarded as powerful. Ownership is control. If you do not have it for that thing, then you do not own that thing. A person who cannot control himself owns not even that.

There's more indepth to all of that, of course... but I think that explains those three related ideas well enough for now (iow: one cannot make a law in a place they do not own, one can't declare what is allowed where they cannot defend against what is not, one cannot control, defend, or take a thing without power in the first place. Power is what defines government, and without it there is no government).

Adrian is given 'rights' by a more powerful being to exercise some limited power to some limited discretion. He does not own the chat room, though he owns the people who enter into the chat room. Maybe it's nitpicking on my part, but I think there is an important difference to be found there.