Another source of light pollution

On Sunday, 28 January 2018 02:05:11 UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 16:38:50 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 27 January 2018 10:05:55 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 19:37:56 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Paris has rules against shop lights from 1-5am to deal with light pollution and energy waste. So of course, someone had to try to go around the rules.

http://www.glowee.eu/

Lighting in cities is generally a good thing.

Circadian rhythm disruption. 90% of people in the civilized world live in cities and most don't use pitch-black window blinds or curtains.

It is bad design if people are unable to have darkness where they
sleep. Good lighting design fixes that.

A city without lights would be terrible.

It is not the light itself, but the vulgar, violent and completely inappropriate manner in which it is provided. It is not the absence of light but the excess of the same in completely the wrong place and time.

City street lighting may well be the sole reason we have not been contacted by aliens. We are considered far too dim to warrant their interest. They are patiently waiting until we fit proximity sensors and impose a global ban on the use of artificial light for advertising.

Product promotion, light trespass is a vile crime against humanity and should be the subject of the strongest sanctions available! We teach our children not to lie. Then subject them to constant corporate lies from blinding birth to a slow and lingering death. Once infected by advertising we have no way to treat the symptoms. There is no inoculation against the lifelong harm to innocence and an unfettered, free choice.

Carpet bombing children and civilians is considered a crime against humanity. So why not ban all advertising? It is far more damaging to a far greater number of innocent people.

Just look at self-harming behaviours which riddle our society! Chronically advertised, obese zombies stalk our streets looking for another abusive meal between meals. Or search for another toxic sugar bomb dealer.

Desperate children approach complete strangers on street corners. Each trying to buy a hideously disfiguring iPhoney just to satiate their greed for anything with functioning batteries. We could end spinal curvature right here and right now if they just banned iRottenApple's false advertising!

This isn't just affecting a few foreigners cowering in some rubble-strewn hell under bombardment by some evil despot like Pootin. It is happening right here and right now to our very own children, ourselves and our own parents! Let's end this once and for all!

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 00:18:22 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B"
wrote:

Carpet bombing children and civilians is considered a crime against humanity. So why not ban all advertising? It is far more damaging to a far greater number of innocent people.

If we value free expression, there are limits on the degree to which
we can ban advertising. But we could certainly ban it in many public
spaces.

On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 9:07:41 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

If we value free expression, there are limits on the degree to which
we can ban advertising. But we could certainly ban it in many public
spaces.

What we value is free and open political debate. Advertising is not a human
right, and thus if other countries aren't in line with the Supreme Court's
interpretation of the First Amendment, that doesn't mean they're not
democracies.

John Savard

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:03:44 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 9:07:41 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

If we value free expression, there are limits on the degree to which
we can ban advertising. But we could certainly ban it in many public
spaces.

What we value is free and open political debate. Advertising is not a human
right, and thus if other countries aren't in line with the Supreme Court's
interpretation of the First Amendment, that doesn't mean they're not
democracies.

Indeed. In the U.S., however, we grant rights to non-human entities.

(I don't really recognize the concept of a "human right". I think
rights should only be granted to human individuals.)

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 18:06:50 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
(I don't really recognize the concept of a "human right". I think
rights should only be granted to human individuals.)

Human rights are rights granted to all humans. For instance the right
to not be killed.

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 12:46:20 PM UTC-8, Paul Schlyter wrote:

Human rights are rights granted to all humans. For instance the right
to not be killed.

Tell that to the grizzly bear you surprise on a hike.

Tell that to the residents of certain villages in the middle east.

Just exactly who is it who grants this 'right not to be killed'?

Paul Schlyter:
Human rights are rights granted to all humans. For instance the right
to not be killed.

A lot of people don't get that human rights are not granted; they just
are. That's because it is so easy to deny a person their rights, right
up to the right to life itself.

palsing:
Tell that to the grizzly bear you surprise on a hike.

Tell that to the residents of certain villages in the middle east.

Just exactly who is it who grants this 'right not to be killed'?

I repeat, they just are. Try to think of it this way: you may easily
violate the anti-litter laws, but the laws exist whether you violate
them or not. It's a civilization thing.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 2:14:15 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 12:46:20 PM UTC-8, Paul Schlyter wrote:

Human rights are rights granted to all humans. For instance the right
to not be killed.

Tell that to the grizzly bear you surprise on a hike.

Tell that to the residents of certain villages in the middle east.

Just exactly who is it who grants this 'right not to be killed'?

Human rights are not granted. Human rights are properties of all humans,
just as electric charge, angular momentum, and mass are properties of an
electron.

However, a human right not to be killed unjustly is not a guarantee that
one will not be killed unjustly. It just means that if one _is_ killed
unjustly without compelling reason by a being that is a moral agent, that
being has done something that is _wrong_.

Which makes it licit to use force against that being, either to prevent a
wrong action or to deter other wrong actions by avenging a past wrong, or
to compel the being to undergo rehabilitative therapy and so on.

It is because of human rights being inherent in humans that it is
meaningful to say that Negro slavery and the Holocaust, for example, were
wrong, despite both being authorized by the governments in power at the
time. Human rights mean that governments, while they define the laws we
must obey to avoid being punished by the agents of those governments, do
not define right and wrong; right and wrong are not defined or altered in
the least by governments or any other human creation, but are as
unalterable as the laws of mathematics and physics.

John Savard

On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:14:11 -0800 (PST), palsing
wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 12:46:20 PM UTC-8, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


Human rights are rights granted to all humans. For instance the
right
to not be killed.


Tell that to the grizzly bear you surprise on a hike.


Tell that to the residents of certain villages in the middle east.


Just exactly who is it who grants this 'right not to be killed'?

The legal system, who else?

Of course no legal system is 100% effective. Someone may violate your
rights, but that doesn't mean you don't have those rights.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 21:46:16 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 18:06:50 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
(I don't really recognize the concept of a "human right". I think
rights should only be granted to human individuals.)

Human rights are rights granted to all humans. For instance the right
to not be killed.

Sure. Or as I call them, "rights".