I just read the most extraordinary bit of trash on smh.com this morning. Our esteemed Attorney General - Phillip Ruddock, trying to explain to us luddites why we shouldn’t want a bill of rights. His argument is so appalling - so transparently thin, that I had to comment. If you want to read his piece you can do so here, but I will summarise as I go.
The reason for the censoring is apparently security related, with many criticising microsoft for choosing to prevent user behaviour as opposed to just fixing the root problem. You’ll notice how in the post it’s mentioned how it never used to be the case that you would receive an error message at all, but that at least now you do.
Well - that’s not a particularly kind paraphrase of what is known as Meinongian position. In their own words they would say not that non-existent objects exist. They want to stay true to the reasonably common sense position that non-existent objects don’t exist. However, they will claim that while they categorically don’t exist, nevertheless it is true to say that in some sense there are non-existent objects