alt Hacker NewsIf you write an operating system and distribute it (an act of speech) you are forced to do this or else you risk $7500/child/day in fines from the California AG. The law makes no distinction between Terry Davis and Microsoft. (In fact, you could say TempleOS is protected religious speech...!)
I don't know what's wrong with you, honestly, that you would so vivaciously defend this impractical, immoral and completely nonsensical law so vivaciously.
It is seriously disturbing.
Replies
> I don't know what's wrong with you, honestly, that you would so vivaciously defend this impractical, immoral and completely nonsensical law so vivaciously.
I don’t know what’s wrong with you that you are reacting to arguments that exist only in your own mind. I'm not defending the law. (Nor—while I am very much opposed to the law—have I been opposing it here. I haven’t made a normative argument in either direction.)
Also, I don't think “vivaciously” means what you think it means.
> I don't know what's wrong with you, honestly, that you would so vivaciously defend this impractical, immoral and completely nonsensical law so vivaciously.
I do, these people are entryists and they have evil goals in mind.
Do not hire people like this, and block them from working on your projects.
The law can be bad and a specific legal argument against it can be wrong at the same time. Would you logically accept (as opposed to mere political convenience) every potential argument whose conclusion is that this law is invalid? If not, does that mean there is something “wrong with you”?
On the object level: giving medical advice is a form of (literal) speech. If you want to practice medicine and give medical advice as part of that practice, there are tons of constraints on what you can say to patients. The argument you’re laying out here is clearly too general.