>> ^Xax:

>> ^jwray:
Under the law as it is now, Private property is essentially a dictatorship. You can be asked to leave by the owner of the property or his representative for any reason whatsoever and failure to comply can be considered trespassing. So Free speech does not really exist at all in 90% of the land of this country, because it's privately owned. Fuck that.

That's the way it should be. Can you imagine if the government told me I couldn't kick someone off my own property for calling my wife a bitch? If I own property, and someone comes onto it and says something I don't like, I should have every legal and moral right to have them removed for trespassing on my whim. The reason is irrelevant; I should have the right to control who is on my property, period. The First Amendment is to protect free speech from the government, but the government doesn't own my property. Don't like it? Stay off my property.
In any case, the property on which this bullshit meeting took place on appears to be public property, so it seems to me that this lady had her rights violated.
Fuck McCain and his minions.


I know where you're coming from and would like to agree, but the problem arises under this system: You have no freedom unless you have your own private property.
If you're on someone else's private property, you basically have 3 choices:
1. Do whatever they say in exchange for permission to stay.
2. Get arrested for trespassing
3. Go somewhere else (Where? Someone else's private property?)

If the whole world will be someone else's property, poverty will be equivalent to slavery.

Since land existed long before people existed, it was at some point appropriated in a way that's just as illegitimate as if Neil Armstrong were to claim ownership of the entire Moon.

>> ^jonny:
>> ^chilaxe:
In several decades it's going to trickle down that our religious experiences, which are generally the final proof of religious forces, are generated by turning off some neurocircuits and turning up the power on other neurocircuits.
That doesn't really prove anything except that our brains are wired to have spiritual experiences. Compare that with, say, the specialized neural circuits for face recognition. Just because those circuits are active doesn't say anything about the reality of the face we're looking at, be it on a friend or a piece of toast.


Doesn't the problem arise when we feel our neural circuits are proof of unverifiable ideas?

"Who decides what how things 'should' be? That's strictly your (human) opinion. There's no representative from nature that comes down to sign a treaty or something. How can you argue against this??"
Well there is no morally objective code that we can check to see if something objectively should or shouldn't be, i can grant that.
It is required that we use our own reasoned judgments to determine matters of right and wrong.
This is not an error-free process, but it is evidently the best possible way to derive what we should or shouldn't do.
The problem arises when you point at nature IN ORDER to exclaim that because X-action does or does not occur in nature- either that "THIS is why X-action is right", or "THIS is why X-action is wrong" ..

"And human morals don't have anything to do with how nature works. Does earthquakes have anything to do with morals? natural selection have anything to do with morals?"
human morals don't have anything to do with how nature works, indeed.
Your previous point was that "There's nothing wrong with exploiting animals because it occurs in nature"
This is a human moral derived from nature^^^
it is a human moral with respect to non-humans, but a human moral nonetheless.

Am I to presume you are trying to separate human-human affairs from human-animal affairs, and claiming an ENTIRELY different moral paradigm in each?

So "Inflicting pain should be avoided, when reasonably possible" is an ethic that only applies to humans, but not non-human animals?
May i ask why?
Because you don't understand each other?

I am still wondering, based on your supposed disregard for the well-being of non-human animals, how you justify the abolition of slavery?

Farhad. It's not really a marketing gimmick. I mean, there are even clues to the meta game in the songs themselves, on the cd. Reznor wanted it to be an experience. He came up with the whole idea, and sat there and based his songs around it. If it were marketing, the game would be based around the album. Instead, the album is based around the game and it's storyline.

Crushbug, I just copied and pasted that from youtube. Although I guess it is my fault for forgetting to quote it.

Mgshadow, the top of the CD is layered. The only problem arising from this is that sometimes the CDs might be all white instead of black, and the CD having a brown background instead of black, both of these due to production issues. But yeah the data itself is fine because of the layers. The original purpose of this color change was when you listened to the album enough, the heat from the player reading the CD would make the CD change color and you'd be like "OMGWTFBBQASS" and etc.

Oh btw. The album IMO is really good.

problems arises if the goats can shoot fireballs