Aaron Swartz sucide

There is no correcting those people. None whatsoever. They live in fact-proof bubbles.

They live in fact-proof bubbles.

Brilliant quote, I may use it. +1 on the Kama

However, if we don't keep correcting the idiocy every time we see or hear it, we're part of the problem.

I consider more of a problem when the "elitists" couldn't think logically and insisted that others follow them off a logic cliff.

Swartz didn't like the laws and decided that he would be the final arbiter of what's right and wrong and executed the people's will, whether they liked it or not.

He probably didn't expected the potato to be so hot.

Neither did Ghandi. Oft times, the laws are bad, and the only way to change them and not hurt people is to simply disobey them. Get enough attention to the problem and will be addressed. Keep your mouth shut and hide behind the ‘law’ and you’re part of the problem again.

No, being so young and idealistic, he wasn’t prepared for an aggressive hound of a prosecutor playing games with virtually unlimited resources and ambition.

Swartz tweaked powerful noses. And who knows what he might do next?

Loose cannon and all that, threat to the comfort of his betters, someone get a hound on his tail, grumble-grumble where's my tea? And my oxy?

Neither did Ghandi.

Bad example.

No, being so young and idealistic

Yeah. He was such a genius that he failed to anticipate how the mortals would have reacted. Too bad for him.

Nice one GoForSmoke. dhenry, you're just a troll; totally ignorable from now on.

dhenry:

However, if we don't keep correcting the idiocy every time we see or hear it, we're part of the problem.

Swartz didn't like the laws and decided that he would be the final arbiter of what's right and wrong and executed the people's will, whether they liked it or not.

Sounds like he has achieved Stage 6 of Kohlberg's Six Stages of Moral Development.

"Moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true. The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level."

People keep asking why we are seeing a decline in brilliant people in America. Well, here they are. Diagnosed with mental conditions and driven to suicide, because brilliant people don't fit social norms.

Not being understood is a good way to be either cast out or "straightened out".

It's also weird how many 'tough individualists' not only conform to an image but push others to do the same.

why we are seeing a decline in brilliant people in America.

Fortunately for those "brilliant" people, THEY don't have a lot of them.

It's also weird how many 'tough individualists' not only conform to an image but push others to do the same.

I was keeping up until you said this. I'm a bit lost could you expand on this statement a little more?

No. More words won’t help. How many sheeple do you know that put on a “stand on their own” image while doing a social line-dance? Who led them? Start with the faux hippies of the 70’s and don’t forget to look to the right now and then.

Ok, I understand now. You can't articulate this in a form that other people will actually understand, so you rely on platitudes or parables that leave the meaning unclear trying to appear sage.

Master Po: "Old man, how is it you can hear such things?" Student Caine: "Young man, how is it you cannot?"

There are better ways to do what Swartz apparently wanted to accomplish. The "computer fraud" laws are pretty sucky, but there are reasons that they're that way. It's standard practice to charge criminals with the most serious possible interpretation of their actions. It's supposed to elicit plea-bargains instead of trials. Maybe Swartz should paid more attention to how these things go. I don't like laws where the "method" is more illegal than the "results." But if the president of the US can be impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice WRT a non-crime, I don't see how the little guy stands a chance. The people most hurt by Swartz's actions are likely to be those who won't be able to get guest access to MIT's network, or free and easy access to the research papers, after they tighten up their security so that this can't happen again. I don't understand why Swartz wasn't in jail. I'm pretty sure if some were up against 35 years in prison, he'd be locked in a cell where means for suicide were unavailable. Just more pampering of white, white collar criminals, I guess. Usually derided by the public when the "crime" looks worse. And yeah, the law "bullies" people. No one is very sympathetic for the 'real' criminals; jokes abound about how they'll get theirs when they're raped in prison, from classes of people that really ought not be "happy" about such things.

The people most hurt by Swartz's actions are ...

Everyone gets hurt by Swartz's actions, including Swartz's himself. If everyone, or even a meaningful portion of the society takes laws into their own hand (aka "gone Stage 6"), many of us, including Swartz, wouldn't have survived this long.

Those "Stage 6" geniuses can afford to disobey the law only because there is law and order.

westfw: There are better ways to do what Swartz apparently wanted to accomplish. The "computer fraud" laws are pretty sucky, but there are reasons that they're that way. It's standard practice to charge criminals with the most serious possible interpretation of their actions. It's supposed to elicit plea-bargains instead of trials. Maybe Swartz should paid more attention to how these things go. I don't like laws where the "method" is more illegal than the "results." But if the president of the US can be impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice WRT a non-crime, I don't see how the little guy stands a chance. The people most hurt by Swartz's actions are likely to be those who won't be able to get guest access to MIT's network, or free and easy access to the research papers, after they tighten up their security so that this can't happen again. I don't understand why Swartz wasn't in jail. I'm pretty sure if some were up against 35 years in prison, he'd be locked in a cell where means for suicide were unavailable. Just more pampering of white, white collar criminals, I guess. Usually derided by the public when the "crime" looks worse. And yeah, the law "bullies" people. No one is very sympathetic for the 'real' criminals; jokes abound about how they'll get theirs when they're raped in prison, from classes of people that really ought not be "happy" about such things.

Actually, JSTOR's response was to expand a program called "register and read" to allow anyone up to three articles for free over a two week period. This includes the articles that you normally have to pay for, everyone already had free access to the public domain articles.

It's not against the law to put up hurdles to access what was given to be free.

It's not against the law to raise the levels of HYPE to where people start killing and committing suicide either yet to yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater is.

Swartz committing suicide is another symptom of the right wing hate and fear insanity, same as the latest with a cop at the trigger this time.

I watched in the 90's as bible-radio whipped up hysteria until one "Christian" murdered an abortion doctor with a shotgun.

It's a proven formula. Push hard enough and the members of society who are close will jump over the edge and carry out the mandate. When Moslems do it it is terrorism, when Christians do it it is righteousness, when political groups do it it is Business As Usual.

Holding people accountable for calls to violence or lies to create panic will do more than all the background checks and weapon limitations currently being called for.

by calling left wingers names?

You would be wrong in doing that.

Left wingers, by definition, have the moral high ground and are always right, and should never be challenged.

Right wingers, in comparison, are always stupid, mentally and intellectually challenged and wrong by definition. They don't even deserve to exist in the same universe as the left wingers.

That's how the world works, in the mind of the left wingers.

well you know what, i took my post down, because im not here to argue that, i want to enjoy my arduino, and not associate it with political arguing. i am here to ultimately build the Evilduino™ the most awesome arduino controlled robot anyone has ever seen. i think anyone who kills an innocent person in this country should burn, whether it be christian killer, right winger killer, or leftwinger killer. i have served my country over 10 yrs in 3 different combat zones, and i will continue to protect my neighbors and countrymen as best i could, from deranged gun toting morons. thats all im gonna say about that. the evilduino™ cannot come to fruition without this forum, so im backing down on this one. peace.

so im backing down on this one. peace.

That's why you can never be a liberal: every liberal I know is genuinely and extremely tolerant of others, as long as those others agree with the liberal's point of view.