Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Video Sends Guatemala Into Crisis
Several have sent word that a YouTube video of recently assassinated lawyer Rodrigo Rosenberg has sent Guatemala into a tailspin. The video of Rosenberg claims that if you are watching, he has been murdered by President Alvaro Colom with help from presidential secretary Gustavo Alejos. "The video spread across the Internet after family members handed it out during Rosenberg's funeral on Monday. In the 18-minute tape, a seemingly calm Rosenberg, sitting behind a desk and microphone, alleges that Colom, the First Lady and two associates were involved in murder, corruption and money laundering. The group, he says, filtered public funds through a state-owned bank for personal gain and to finance drug traffickers. Rosenberg then claims that after Khalil Musa, a prominent businessman and bank board member, had learned of the Coloms' scheme, Musa and his daughter were shot to death in front of a shopping center in April. Rosenberg says the President signed off on the killings."
Where are all the people clambering for censorship when the internet is used for something good?
... well, there is one more thing ... they may have mailed a copy to the United States or a press outlet here. ... paid for by the people, of course!
... see ... about that. Um, they kind of put it on the internet. ... ... we ... need to ... torture everyone?
Pre-Internet:
President Alvaro Colom: They passed out a tape at his funeral? Quick get me a list of everyone at the funeral, I want them all in custody and tortured until we have every single one of those tapes!
Gustavo Alejos: Yes, sir
President Alvaro Colom: Ahahahh, Gustavo, so naive. I suppose I'll have to make a phone call to the director of our postal system. He'll be quite cooperative with a little bonus this year
Post-Internet:
President Alvaro Colom: They passed out a tape at his funeral? Quick get me a list of everyone at the funeral, I want them all in custody and tortured until we have every single one of those tapes!
Gustavo Alejos: Yeah
President Alvaro Colom: The internet?
Gustavo Alejos: Yeah
President Alvaro Colom: Very well, torture them until they take it down!
Gustavo Alejos: Uh, it's on YouTube. Everyone's seen it.
President Alvaro Colom: So
*Gustavo Alejos shakes his head back and forth*
Gustavo Alejos: No, I think the order you are looking for right now is 'Prepare my escape helicopter and fake passport for Colombia.' The noise outside right now with the thousands of people yelling for your death is bad.
President Alvaro Colom: What did I do wrong, I was only trying to live up to Oscar Humberto Mejia's legacy!
How can you argue against something that makes it more difficult for asshat dictators to remain in power?
My work here is dung.
its not a rickroll?
It could mean some serious doo-doo for el presidente.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
I did what was intended, exposing corruption and murder.
"Wouldn't the word have gotten out just the same if it had been televised instead?"
Not as quickly or widely. A TV station broadcasts a video once or, in some cases a few times. A video can hit the internet within minutes of being shot.
On the internet it can be saved, forwarded, and dispersed beyond the ability of any central or commercial authority to stop it.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Plus the guys dead, so no need for residuals right? Or is it to soon, marketing might take a hit from the whole "disrespectful thing".
In all seriousness, weird. Straight out of some thriller/suspense movie/book. Anyone want to bet Dan Brown will take advantage of it?
The fact that it was out and available all over the world as soon as someone posted it is important. It means the content can't be stopped by torture, mail inspection, border patrols, or a well-planned plane crash. The medium made the message possible to an extent that we could never have imagined a decade ago. THAT is the reason this story is here on /.
-1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
Good luck to the average citizen trying to get an anti-government tape to be broadcast on what is probably a government run station...
Anyone can (And did) upload to youtube, which is the tech side of this story. A few years ago, this wouldn't have been able to happen.
The medium may not be the message; but without the medium, the message is going nowhere.
I'm guessing that el presidente might have just a teensy bit of "editorial discretion"(even if its only the killing people kind) over major news outlets in the country.
Youtube is nothing special in terms of broadcasting, except that everyone and his brother can use it, with relatively little control(if this poor lawyer had used a copyrighted soundtrack, this probably never would have come to light).
"Wouldn't the word have gotten out just the same if it had been televised instead?"
Not if the tv station is stormed by military types in the name of "national security."
YouTube is full of videos that show how the American government is owned by central bankers, how our elected leaders are just puppets of monied interests, and how our votes really don't matter... yet there isn't a revolution taking place in this country. I guess YouTube isn't the political pancea that it's hyped to be.
So the fact that this was posted on youtube makes it relevant to slashdot now?
In any event, what some political shit happens in Guatemala is of very little relevance to anybody outside that country. This stuff is not news for nerds, and doesn't belong on slashdot.
The point is that it would not have been televised; the government would have mauled the channel
Maybe we should all ask ourselves why and more importantly HOW they managed to keep those "inside".
What's the over-under on Youtube taking this video down? I _think_ they'll keep it up, despite any demands to the contrary.
Now, if it was China...
I rather think this is "stuff that matters", and would likely not be as widely viewed if computers weren't involved, hence the fact that they were is the "news for nerds" part.
In Liberty, Rene
> A video can hit the internet within minutes of being shot.
If that pun was intentional, you get the prize for making it look unintentional....
http://www.mediafire.com/?dvt2dknzjkz
In 2050, this would not be a "computer story" anymore. Just like we don't consider it as a "camcording story" - while in 1930 it would have been, because video was a novelty.
(except that that it was not exactly camcording/video, but you get the idea)
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
Has anyone considered the possibility that he was killed by someone other than the Guatemalan president? Like, say, a family member with an axe to grind?
Quite arguably yes, though its not posted as a "computer" story, but as a "Politics" story. That it is, in fact, accurately labeled as a "Politics" story I think is pretty clear, whether or not one agrees that it is a "computer" story.
J. Random Citizen can't post a video to "television" and get it global exposure, particularly if they live in a country where the government has its thumb on the press. While there are certainly also governments that try very hard to control what goes on on the internet, it takes a lot less hardware to put something on the internet than to broadcast it on TV, making it much hardware for governments to control. So, yeah, if it had been televised around the world rather than being carried around the world on YouTube, word would have gotten out just the same -- its just a lot less likely that it would have successfully been televised around the world before the government threatened by it managed to sweep the message (and the people trying to distribute it) under the rug, permanently.
from the most liberal dutchman to the most conservative saudi
censoring child pornography is nothing remotely like censoring political speech
and if country A censors child pornography, while country B censors political speech, they are not anywhere near comparable
and yet you see people all the time, especially on slashdot, actually saying "country A censors child porn so how can it criticize another country for censoring political opinion?"
they can, and they should, and they are perfectly entitled too
as yes there actually ARE some things, like child porn, that SHOULD be censored, according to ANY ideology
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is how it is when the people are in control of their government! Bring on the pain!
You just mark my words how corrupt every country has become when evidence is treated as a mere deposit in a corporation's revenue library. This'll surely be the subject of a disclosed secret law transparently enacted in an attempt to "disclose the customer's address" if not the patron that did his charity.
(sarcasm)
We need to prosecute these illegal prosecutors plaguing corporations with off-topic offensive matterial and spam! YouTube moves to supress this notion and vacate this and that for lack of disclosure; First Amendment only secures evidence of known and Verified Statements in the Civil Procedure, not random testimony of unknown endorsement from instruments that have not any certified calibration to their accuracy.
(/sarcasm)
You must have missed Slashdot's tagline of "news for nerds, stuff that matters." Contrast with "computer stories."
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
By which I do not mean remove it from YouTube.
I mean, download it, copy it, ensure that it continues to survive even if YouTube is persuaded somehow to remove it. Help personally ensure that this is impossible to suppress by taking individual action right now to back it up.
Does the fact that YouTube was involved make this a computer story somehow? Wouldn't the word have gotten out just the same if it had been televised instead?
I honestly can't believe that in the time it took you to type that there wasn't a single brain cell in your frontal lobe firing to tell you how stupid what you were typing was.
That's an appropriate byline for a story about allegations of extrajudicial killings of political enemies by a politician who was shot dead?
Really?
Edith Keeler Must Die
If it was in France, Sarkozy gets a big say in what stories run in the media (see TF1 story previously in Slashdot). Berlusconi owns the main media outlets in Italy. Ruperty Murdoch dictates much of the media in the UK, and even the BBC has their own bias these days. In the USA I hear that Fox news has their own agenda of which stories they run. And that is in the most liberal countries. Many other countries only run state-owned media outlets. Don't underestimate the democratising power of the Internet.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
the intent to censor child pornography is spotless
the schemes thought so far are atrocious, and drift far from that purpose
but don't think my words endorse any particular poorly thought out scheme that strays far form the effort of filtering child porn
but if someone soemday DOES devise a scheme that hits JUST child porn, how could you argue with that?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Any student of Latin American history automatically thinks of the CIA whenever a leftist leader is being taken down. Especially since the last leftist leader of Guatemala was ousted by a CIA coup in 1954 in Operation PBFORTUNE, which is now declassified.
According to Kate Doyle, director of the Mexico Project of National Security Archives and a regular contributor to Americas Program of the Interhemispheric Resource Center, most historians now agree that the military coup in 1954 was the definitive blow to Guatemala's young democracy. Over the next four decades, the succession of military rulers would wage counter-insurgency warfare, destabilizing Guatemalan society. The violence caused the deaths and disappearances of more than 140,000 Guatemalans, and some human rights activists put the death toll as high as 250,000.[15] At the later stages of this conflict the CIA tried with some success to lessen the human rights violations and in 1993 stopped a coup and helped restore the democratic government.
Prepare for some hilarious hypocrisy in the US media. When an enemy of US interests is on the chopping block, outlandish conspiracies are taken at face value. When US allies are accused of such crimes, there are calls for calm and due process. An investigation, a trial, and a fair sentencing are vitally important, at least when it's convenient for us. He may or may not be guilty of these crimes, but the only way to find out is to have a trial. I'll bet I can count on one hand how many news pundits ask for a trial.
It's the magic of propaganda. Saddam never shredded anyone (though he did use American biological weapons to kill Kurds). Iraqi troops never placed babies on the hospital floor during their invasion of Kuwait. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But to someone who just watches the news, these are all accepted as fact.
Go / yourself! Oh wait...
Such is the challenge of too much information these days, it's often hard knowing what to believe.
Was he killed by the president as the video purports?
Was he killed by a random mugger?
Was he killed by political opponent that knew this evidence would likely bring down the presidency?
Don't get me wrong, in line with Occam's Razor I'll go where there's smoke here, there's fire.
All the same, we live in confusing times.
You stereotypers are all the same...
you honestly wish to assert to me, that because there exist grey areas in this world that are difficult to agree upon, that we can't define some things as truly evil?
ok, i grant you that there are depictions that some call child porn that are really harmless
now, in the interest of intellectual honesty, you grant to me to that there are some depictions of children in sexual situations in this world which are nothing but the act of psychological damaging of a child
with me?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What part of 'stuff that matters' do you morons have a hard time wrapping your tiny minds around? Jesus fuck, you trolls are thick today.
are fed by the desire to consume them by viewing them
in other words, child pornogrpahy is not created as static images that are just randomly found objects. those who seek to view them are what drives their creation. you do admit that obvious observation, right?
they are created for the explicit purpose of someone else viewing them. you are being intellectually dishonest by attempting to separate the viewing of child porn from the creation of child porn, when child porn is made for the explicit purpose of viewing children being abused
the act of seeking the pictures out contributes to their creation, creates the market for them, creates the impetus to create the pictures
be intellectually honest
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The UN typically pushes for due process. America typically avoids it, at least in international situations.
Plus, murder is a relative term. Every president since WWII has ordered military strikes that have killed innocent people, including Obama. Is that murder? Or do you prefer the term "collateral damage"? It's a stupefying moral perspective when killing one innocent man is murder, but killing tens of thousands is not.
Well, it started on twitter, now it's just moved to youtube. That's what makes this 'a computer story', not the fact it was posted to youtube.
As far as being televised, it depends on how much control the gov't. has over TV broadcasting. YMMV.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
obvious answer: the desire to view child pornography creates a marketplace for the creation of child porn
child porn just doesn't happen by accident, and people just happen to see it by accident. which is how you describe the situation, which is of course 100% bullshit
someone seeks out the images on purpose, and someone else fulfills this need because there is demand for it
this really should be pretty obvious
the viewing of child pornography is a desire that contributes to the creation of it, and is therefore a desire which is criminally culpable for the act of creating child pornography
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot. no, censorship of something like child porn is not anything remotely like censoring political speech, yet it is a common line of thought here on slashdot. its fucking retarded and outright 100% logically, philosophically, and morally wrong. and commonly found in comments here
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/12/0012255
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/23/1846207
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/01/1436237
anything else i can help you with?
censoring something like child porn is NOT comparable to censoring political speech
get it in your thick heads slashdot
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Indeed, did you notice how many different copies of the same material were in the side bar??? Try taking down all of that and you are going to busy for longer than you had ever anticipated.
-Oz
because you might shoot an innocent person and not just a criminal?
so you are against stem cell research?
because you might clone a person instead of cure paralysis?
you are against nuclear tech?
because you might build a bomb instead of power a city with soemthign cleaner than coal?
are you against penises?
because you might rape a woman instead of love her?
all retarded lines of thought. which what you just wrote matches perfectly: "because we might do something bad with [x], regardless of our intent, we can't do [x] at all"
you're a luddite. you fear technology
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you basically restated my premise back at me and phrased it as if it were in contrast to what i was saying
of course someone can be raped/ abused. that's what i was talking about
which is what is happening with child porn: the desire to consume child porn by viewing it is DRIVING the rape and abuse of children
do you understand that? it's rather straightforward and obvious
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They should just say it wasn't murder it was an enhanced censorship technique. They could claim they ran it by their attorney general and he thought it was legal. Then they could form a truth commission to get to the bottom of it and have a long political circus until something else (Maybe some sort of donkey flu) came along to catch the public's attention.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"hey, look: i have a list of gray areas. because gray areas exist, i forbid you from going after the truly vile"
the world is complicated, there are lots of gray areas. so what? this means we can't go after the obviously wrong? the existence of grey areas is no rationale for ceasing the punishment of prosecution of people who are truly vile, who CREATE the marketplace for child porn by purposely seeking it out. you censor and punish the consumers of child porn just as much as the creators, because both supply and demand is the problem, not one or the other
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
so we shouldn't go after murderers
rape is never going away
so we shouldn't go after rapists
My ideology doesn't demand that child porn be censored.
Oh I'm sorry, when you said "ANY" I didn't realize you meant "ANY that agree with my own ideology regarding the issue of censoring child porn."
sorry, my bad: i should have prefaced the word ideology with logically coherent ideology
what you call your ideology isn't an ideology, its a teenager's half-assed half-thought. because if you take what you just stated as your ideology to its logical conclusion, you don't have a coherent social policy which effectively serves simple human nature and simple human behavior
fact: the desire to consume child porn in the form of images drives its creation. therefore, you fight child porn by going after its consumers as well as its creators. and yes, you will never stop child porn, you are 100% correct. just like you will never stop murder, or rape. as if this is a logical reason to stop punishing crimes in the name of justice and a human conscience. pfffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
AND the marketplace. going after just supply, or going after just demand, is ineffective and half-assed. ineffective at what? at minimizing the damage of child porn. you will never stop child porn 100%, i'm not a utopianist idealist, but you have a moral obligation to go after child porn vigorously, which includes pnishing those who seek out child pron, thereby creating the demand for the creation fo child porn. without over stepping your bounds into the grey areas of course. i'm talking about the obvious, no grey area, abuse of children for the consumption of pictures on computer monitors
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you have a responsibility for free trade coffee, the stopping of blood diamonds, and the lowering of carbon dioxide levels
were you trying to agree with parent or are you really that stupid?
"By your own logic, your continued existence on this planet is inherently harmful to others. Please cease and desist."
yes, your existence puts a contraint on society and the planet. but you don't commit suicide, you just act responsibly, and insist that others do the same. like: if you support the creation of child porn by seeking it out, you will be punished. duh
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Not possible to spin control when you don't control the media anymore.
censorship is just a tool, and perfectly valid in the case of child porn
are you honestly trying to assert that when and if child porn is found, it shouldn't be stricken?
aka: censored
if some fool puts child porn on a webpage, what do you do? leave it up there? no, you take it down. that's censorship. duh
these valid censroship activities has no bearing on your other observations about criminal prosecutions of creators and consumers. my observations on censorship in the realm of child porn stand separate and supplementary to the regular criminal proceedings you refer to
nowhere did i say or infer that censorship was a replacement for regular criminal prosecutions. this is bizarre assertion on your part that has no meaning or logical coherence
you are creating a false dichotomy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It will be tweeted and youtubed ! and perhaps friended if you're in the 25-32 age group that still uses facebook and myspace.
and not in any way a refutation of anything i said. so now you are just changing the subject
grey areas exist about what is child porn and what is not. duh
so now you are saying that just because grey areas exist in this world, that means there is no such thing as obviously vile and disgusting dark areas? that everyone agrees is wrong and should be punished?
say: an 8 year old in guatemala lured into a car with candy, and locked in a basement room and repeatedly abused. does this happen in this world or not? should it be punished in your mind or not? why did it happen? because a bunch of pedophiles desired this content be created for their consumption on their monitors? is this connection between demand and supply real or not?
wake up
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In related news, Guatemalan police arrested a twitter user, after he put a message telling people to withdraw their funds from Banrural -the bank involved in the corruption scandal- as a way to protest against these acts. The authorities charged him of "intent to incite financial panic", a crime recently created in order to protect financial institutions from unfounded rumors.
or are you really that stupid?
you honestly wish to assert that the creation and consumption of child pornography is a myth
you really wish to put that out there as a statement you believe in
hilarious or pathetic, i can't decide
or: congratulations troll, you got me. that someone would actually believe what you just wrote definitely blows my mind. that people can be that blind and retarded
and... that censoring child porn is worse than sanctioning someone just for speaking their political opinion!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
ignorance is a truly bottomless pit. just when you think you've heard something truly bottom of the barrel ignorant, someone else says something even more fucking retarded
you either laugh or you cry
you sir are comic relief, and a grade A moron
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Putting something on youtube so that anyone in the world can watch is a pretty simple procedure. How can you do a similar thing on television? Do you have the CNN editor's phone? Can you give me that number so I can send them my video?
well, stop
see, you'll never stop creating trash. you're never going to win the war on trash. its always going to accumulate, no matter what you do. so you should let the trash sit in your room and fester, and live in it
going after hardcore addictive drugs (not marijuana, that should be legal), or going after child porn, or going after terrorists, are not wars that ever will be won, ever. its simply a maintenance function, like taking ou the trash every week
there will always exist child porn, highly addictive drugs, and terrorists. but you fight these things anyway, simply to MINIMIZE their existence and the damage they do, and simply because you have a human conscience and a sense of simple human justice that innocent human lives are being destroyed by these things (or, rather, you SHOULD have that human conscience)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"I happen to choose to differentiate that from censorship"
no, you purposefully colluded the act of censorship with the act of criminal prosecution, as if it were an either/ or choice. you created a false dichotomy, and a straw man's argument. you reacted to what i was saying as if i am somehow arguing for censorship RATHER THAN criminal prosecution. no, censorship is a valid tool to be used along side criminal prosecution in the realm of child porn
" I might choose to differentiate prosecuting a black man for murder from a policy of imprisoning all men of color."
what the fuck?
my head asplode
i can't begin to understand how that is germaine or allegorical to anything having to do with censoring child pornography
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
but i don't think its fair to compare him with a leader in guatemala who outright murders his opponents
furthermore, brown hasn't a tenth of the charismatic demagoguery of a chavez or a putin. he's more bumbling frankenstein than dextrous devil
when push comes to shove, brown will fade away easily. he will not be rewriting the constitution or appointing lackeys like medvedev to run the government while he sits in shadow rule
so thank the stars for brown. if he's the worse the uk can foist to the top, the uk is doing spectacular
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
like: child porn is a myth
ok, ok... when pressed, it exists, but its not a big deal
pffffft
dude, you're ignorant. no, you really are ignorant. your words define you as a willfully ignorant person. your words are as close to the concept of ignorance as can ever be understood
you need education
here, start your education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography#Child_sexual_abuse_in_production_and_distribution
next, i want you to go to google, type in the obvious search terms on the subject (i'll give you some benefit of the doubt, that you possess the intelle
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Banana Republic
maybe the guy knew someone else was gunning for him and decided to pin it on some politicians he didn't like just for the hell of it
...will be podcast.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
absorb reality.
I can't, as that is a crime in the case of childporn, so I have to base my knowledge on third party accounts.
right now, your thoughts have nothing to do with reality
Really? How come then that while there have been a ton of raids due to childporn material, not once have I heard the story of children being freed in those raids from their porn producing molesters? When there are a million of children molested as that Wikipedia article claims, it shouldn't be to hard to free a handful of them, yet that never seems to happen in reality. Yet, I hear storys of Wikileaks getting raided, a contra-censorship politician stepping down due to child porn accusations and of course children themselves being treated as sex offenders because they took pictures from themselves for their girl/boyfriends all the time. And on top of all that there is that "weird" little fact that the server on the censorship lists actually stay up and running, even so they are perfectly within reach of juristic. It took a third party all of two days to mail the provider to shut down half the domains on the list. Why hasn't the police done that? Why do we need a huge censorship infrastructure instead? Make no sense at all.
And when it actually comes to prosecuting those childporn owners, nothing shows up that points to a childporn industry. How do you explain that? (Hint: Reality ain't what politicians want you to believe.)
As far as I can tell the truth of the matter is very simple. Child abuse is a very real problem and something should be done about it, but it happens in the families themselves, not in the Internet and not for money. Any witch hunting for the childporn industry is doomed to failure, as it doesn't exist and is just distraction from the actual child abuse.
PS: Most links are in German, apply http://translate.google.com/ when needed.
From the YouTube comments:
The US Federal Government wants us to know that they surveil ordinary citizens. And they want us to know that they torture. How many of us would be so brave?
"Child abuse is a very real problem and something should be done about it, but it happens in the families themselves, not in the Internet and not for money"
this is willful ignorance
how do you argue with someone who bases their statements in direct contradiction to reality?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Rather, the already existing demand for child pornography leads to people raping children so that they can cash in on that demand. By outlawing it, the demand is greatly reduced.
...Just like how we outlawed drugs, and that pretty much put an end to the demand for them?
I am pretty sure that the laws of supply and demand back me when I say that by outlawing child pornography, you have just made it MORE profitable to produce it, by reducing competition. The demand is going to be pretty constant in either case.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Internet_proliferation
READ retard
LEARN
then open your ignorant mouth
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
like dead man's switch
85% of Chinese reportedly desire it [slashdot.org].
%100 of North Korea thinks the United States of America should be wiped off the face of the earth.
Now, for the mindfuck: how much of the United States population, if surveyed, do you think would say that North Korean leadership needs to be removed from power?
Interesting, eh?
Please help metamoderate.
I'm probably going to get flamed to hades for saying this, but so much for the conservatives that want the internet to be a "squeaky clean government educating machine." Yes, it's thrown the country into a tailspin, but look at the murders it could prevent. Now hopefully he won't be in office anymore and they can kick his backside. On the flip side of this, though, the tape could *possibly* have been rigged and/or faked. Has anyone verified its authenticity? I'm just curious. Thanks for listening.
We Americans really don't understand how the rest of the world works. We're dumb enough to think this will make a dent.
This is Guatemala we're talking about. Every friggin faction in Guatemala makes sport of screwing the other guys. Go review the case of one Rigoberta Menchu before you get too wild about believing anyone's testimony about anything in Guatemala.
Guatemalans have been jerked around so many times by both the left and the right that their default presumption is that everyone is at least embellishing, if not completely lying.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
This sounds like a interesting way of taking out an opponent. Go to some high profile person/lawyer and under some ruse make the video. Kill him and then leak it and then send it to his family. Just make sure you are in a position to take advantage of the fallout.
I think GW got some moderator points..
And while it is long winded, I think the original post just reflects what many feel but are afraid to say.
The video is extremely powerful and Rodrigo should be applauded for sacrificing his life to better maybe not only his country, but the world.
As he said, how much longer will we turn a blind eye??
--thrill
You don't seem to want that, you want to restrict the right of people to live in a police state. Freedom is a bitch ain't it?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
(boggles)
I'm speechless. How can you get the above from what I requested? You make some totally weird logical leap from "Can you list an example" of how this case is like another in which "censorship" is called for.
Perhaps *YOU* can tell me how this case is like your "anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children"?
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting there should not be ANY limits on "free speech"? Should we do away with libel? Calumny? Slander? Allow people to yell "FIRE" in a theater? Because these limits on speech are NOT censorship.
Lad, I'm afraid you're naive. If you give anyone the right to control content on the Internet, then governments will take it, and whistle-blowing will be effectively prevented. Britain has in theory legislation protecting whistle blowers (the Public Interest Disclosure Orders of 1999), but even here you're likely at a minimum to lose your job and quite likely to be prosecuted. In the US, you may even be killed. It's very much in the public interest that people who blow whistles should be protected, but it's equally strongly in the interests of those in power that they should be suppressed.
Sadly, if you accept that unaccountable and secretive people have a right to control what you can see on the 'net, you have sold the bridgehead, and basic civil liberties will inevitably follow.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
I agree that movie ratings, as voluntarily enforced by private entities, are not censorship, and are indeed an aid (albeit a minor one) to good parenting.
The concern here is about putting tools in the hand of governments, not restricting private entities' ability to control to whom they disseminate information within the bounds of their own property.
Sorry, this is naive too. The the Internet Watch Foundation is an unaccountable private entity. It effectively blocks most people in Britain from seeing websites which the Internet Watch Foundation deems are unsuitable. What sites are these? We don't know. They don't say. Their claim is that these are mainly child pornography sites - but what does 'mainly' mean?
The difference between this and film ratings is that the film ratings are advisory - you are not actually prevented from seeing the films which are rated as unsuitable. Internet censorship actually prevents people from accessing the censored material, actually prevents them from forming their own judgements. We cannot know what has been censored, because we cannot see it.
How many sites critical of the Internet Watch Foundation are blocked by the Internet Watch Foundation? We don't know - there is literally no way of finding out. How many sites sites critical of the UK Government are blocked by the Internet Watch Foundation? We don't know that either.
It does not matter whether these censors are 'public' or 'private'. What matters is that we cannot challenge their judgement of what it is 'suitable' for us to see. That we cannot bypass the filter they put between us and the information which would be necessary for us to challenge their 'benevolent' governance.
Civil liberties and this sort of unaccountable censorship are completely incompatible.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Lets not also forget that it can be altered, edited and misrepresented in a equally short time. I'm not saying this is fake. But we should view these videos with the proper criticalness. These stories tend tp have a high truthiness too them. It does not make them true.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Abuse of gun ownership, nuclear bombs, rape -- all of your examples are publicly visible. If I own a gun and shoot someone, everybody knows someone was shot and someone abused their gun ownership privilege. Then it gets prosecuted. If it doesn't get prosecuted because I'm a rich guy with connections, people can publicly complain about it until something is done. Example: the article under discussion.
Nobody knows about censorship except the person being censored. And then their complaints are censored. The end result is nobody knows about the abuse that took place.
"because we might do something bad with [x], regardless of our intent, we can't do [x] at all"
By putting a variable in there, your argument is reduced to a slippery slope argument. Slippery slope arguments are almost always wrong.
Growing up a neighbor and his family had recently emigrated from Guatemala to the U.S.
Nice family, I was friends with their son Jorge. Even as a kid he told stories of what went on in Guatemala. Not nice.
Latin America in general is a shithole by U.S. design.
I am sorry but this is only news because the rest of the World got a video.
I lived in Guatemala this sort of thing goes on constantly, and for hundreds of years. The entire government, and the society for that matter, is massively corrupt and violent. In fact, it is possibly one of the most violent societies in the World, if not just in the Americas.
I would be very surprised if there is more than a handful of politicians in all of Guatemala that do not have blood on their hands. No one even pays attention to corruption. Corruption, organized crime, and government are all the same thing in Guatemala.
So stop sucked ignorant fake shock factor until you have spent some time getting to know the context.
I've lost count of how many leftist governments USA has helped overthrow only to be replaced with corrupt right wing dictators. Do any americans here know how many it stands as today?
I mean, download it, copy it, ensure that it continues to survive even if YouTube is persuaded somehow to remove it. Help personally ensure that this is impossible to suppress by taking individual action right now to back it up.
There is an option to save a streaming YouTube video in the AcetoneISO program.
In January 2009, a Sri Lankan newspaper editor and journalist, Lasantha Wickramatunga, had an essay posthumously published in his paper. It accused the government and prime minister (a friend of 25 years) of being involved in his assassination.
Context and original essay included in this New Yorker article.
No. Because television does not provide investigative reporting.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
you keep changing the subject
'The definition of "underage" being whatever arbitrary fucking number people come up with.'
17 is fine by my standards too
8 is not
what about 14?
i don't know
its a grey area
but because 14 is a grey area that means YOU CAN'T TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE 8 YEAR OLD HAVING SEX ON FILM?!
furthermore, what if the 8 year old agreed?
there is a concept, a legal, philosophical, and moral one, called "informed consent"
what this means is, just because someone agrees to something, doesn't make it ok, because obviously an 8 year old has no fucking clue what they are agreeing to, and could be agreeing out of all sorts of manipulated and just plain wrong reasons
so, again, for your intellectual growth:
'The definition of "underage" being whatever arbitrary fucking number people come up with.'
because 14 is a grey area that means YOU CAN'T TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE 8 YEAR OLD?!
again:
because 14 is a grey area that means YOU CAN'T TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE 8 YEAR OLD?!
get THAT through your thick fucking skull
the existence of grey areas does not nullify the existence of truly and obvious vile dark areas, in any moral code
you really need to wake the fuck up
your entire way of thinking about morality and logic is malformed and incomplete
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the very idea of a slippery slope is propaganda to stoke you fears, which are obviously well-stoked, since you are functioning on fear rather than logic on this subject matter
for example, here's a slippery slope on another subject matter (so you can appreciate the analogy, since the current subject matter you are stewing in fear over):
"if we legalize marijuana, next they will be legalizing methamphetamine"
100% bullshit. as if there is no pharmacological difference and people can't appreciate that difference in formulating policy
"if we allow gays to marry, next we will have to legalize bestialty and necrophilia"
again: 100% bullshit. as if people can' tell the difference
and now for your "slippery slope":
"if we use censorship on child porn, next we will use it on political speech"
100% pure bullshit. again, as if people are mindless drones who don't think about the implications of the technology they use. as if you somehow have a monopoly on this sort of insight, and everyone else around you is a robot who doesn't think about these things
god i'd hate to live in your small, fearful mind about the other people around you. it must stunt your life experience so much
again: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. the concept is pure demagoguery meant to manipulate your fear, and it apparently works
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
and admit when you lose an argument. its plain to anyone else reading this thread
you wanted me to prove my point, i proved it. now you whimper in with a "you didn't prove it enough"
i proved it enough. i am not your google link fetch boy. you want further proof? i gave you the groundwork. now you pound google and prove ME wrong. this whole notion of "you haven't worked google hard enough for my satisfaction" is intellectually dishonest and a loser's tack. now its your turn asshole. otherwise, i stand vindicated, you stand lost
buh bye
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
on how to find the links in the threads i gave you
i didnt link to specific posts because my examples were so numerous. i in fact can find many more threads proving exactly the same thing (basically every time the subject comes up) but merely chose the most recent threads out of expediency and timeliness
if, in the simple specific directions i gave you, you can find an example of where my simple specific directions do not play out exactly as i described, then please, point it out in a response and you will elicit a correction and an apology from me. otherwise, do you really need your handheld that much?
i have proven my point. kindly do the slightest bit of due diligence, and see i am correct. it is not my fault you are more capable of mindless obstinence than simple direction following
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i answered his question directly, succinctly, and completely
my answer is correct and accurate
if you would kindly follow my links and illustrate to me directly where my assertions are wrong, then please do so, and thus prove me wrong, and thus actually demonstrate some authority on the subject
otherwise, my claim stands unchallenged. your post doesn't count as a challenge. all your post does is strangely commit the exact same sins you accuse me of in the same breath. that's some nice self-referential irony, but not much of a coherent response
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You're a liar. NONE of what you linked is what you claim it is. You refuse to back these claims because you know that you can't. That's why you're trying to shift the burden of proof. You won't and can't accomplish that.
now it falls on you to show us where in my links where my claim is false
if you can't or won't do that, you are guilty of everything you accuse me of
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
which i will take as an implicit admission of defeat, and obvious moronic stubbornness
some intellectual charity for you:
when i replied to the original commentator with a series of links, i was refuting his assertion with actual proof. i was working to make a point. the only way to now defeat me is to do the same: refute my assertion with actual proof on your end. you need to work to make your point. i don't have to do any more work, my work is done, unless you actually provide me with a link that shows some effort on your part. if you can't or won't do that, the argument is over and i have won
so now its your turn. thats the way an argument happens. you don't win the argument by demanding i provide yet more proof. i have already done that. now it is your job in the argument to do your own work to provide your own argument. it is not my job to make your argument for you, and it is not proof i have lost an argument because i won't fetch links for you
you lose sucker
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"prove it with links"
my response:
links
please to be showing problem in that exchange
k thx bye
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it means haggling over a pointless little issue and thinking great decisive factors are involved, when actually nothing but pointless sturm und drang is involved. a tempest in a teapot about nothing of import
that's you and your entire point
for example, i gave 3 links, and i wrote:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1234861&threshold=3&commentsort=1&mode=nested&cid=27974621
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe"
now i just as easily could have then gone to the 2-3 comments i am describing specifically, completely, and reasonably, and actually made those links for each thread. why didn't i? because the thread links and description i gave is just as good
"circletimessquare made a post on Slashdot admitting that he's a pedophile. You can find that post if you look in his history, and he does this all the time. What do you mean you didn't see such a post? I gave you the link, just look for it! I'm not your personal secretary, I don't have to do everything for you! I already proved he's a pedophile, so there! I win!"
if you had said: "in the link i am providing you it is the fourth comment down," you would have a valid analogy, and you would have proven completely that i was a pedophile
anything else i can help you with today dear small minded pedant?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
i'm beginning to think i'm merely falling for an elaborate troll. i find it hard to believe anyone can be this willfully ignorant. its not stubbornness i'm up against, its a committed troll. please, for the sake of humanity, let it not be you are this woefully retarded
so, here i humor you, troll, or retard, however the case may be:
1. from thread http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/12/0012255
current comment #1 out of top 5 comments above 3 threshold:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1229763&cid=27920577
paranoid schizophrenic #987,654 on slashdot who can't tell emperor palpatine and agent smith from reality
current comment #2 out of top 5 comments above 3 threshold:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1229763&cid=27918937
omg! england is teh nazis! my panties are bunched up!
current comment #4 out of top 5 comments above 3 threshold:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1229763&cid=27918533
omg! there are people i don't like in government! it's just fascism!
2. from thread http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/23/1846207
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1209673&cid=27694199
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
because the moron can't follow simple directions?
please note my reply, satisfying the requirements of my simple directions completely
what the hell is wrong with your retards?
it is clear morons who believe censoring kiddie porn is the same as censoring political speech are all over this site
i've proven it
what do you think you gain by denying that?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
the theme of every single one of the comments i portrayed
a constant theme across slashdot whenever this topic comes up
as i originally described: "one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe"
as this entire moronic thread, on your behalf, has illicited furious effort, and not one tiny dent in my original comment, above
you have 3 tons of stubborn shrill pedantry, and not a single fucking brain cell
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
this is my original statement. which you have maintained a shrill constant attack on across many comments now. and you haven't put a dent in it
perhaps you should try a different tack. or, in your moronic stubbornness, continue butting heads agains that which has defeated you multliple times. your choice. not that i expect a wise choice from you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it's also a sign you can't challenge me on the merits of what i say
what i say about the comments i link to clearly describes their attitude. if i am wrong in any way about this, please find a link and contrast it with my description of that link's attitude
otherwise, thanks for the humor
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you've won over the surrealists, but you've just moved the argument into farce, and proved nothing of coherence
congrats on being meaningless!
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
to screw in a lightbulb?
answer: fish
there, i've completely demolished the merits of your argument, you lose, and i am now the emperor of france
huzzah!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that it is a common moronic refrain on slashdot that censoring something as obviously vile as child porn in the west is the same as what china and iran do to political dissidents
some dude challenged me on this to prove that
so i picked 3 recent threads, said 2-3 of the top 5 comments rated 3 or above say exactly such pantytwisting attitudes
i can extend this to more threads and more comments if you like. because what i say is absolutely true: a lot of morons on slashdot believe censorship of something vile like child porn in the west is the SAME THING as censoring political dissidents in china or egypt, or iran. and these cretinous dolts are modded insightful to boot (showing the idiotic groupthink is self-reinforcing)
i have proven my point, and can find lots more proof. its rock solid
meanwhile, you somehow think that my proof is refuted by your absurdist approach: that i can say anything about anyone and provide any random links. but that's not the same thing as what i am doing. the links i provided actually adhere to my claim. yours do not- which is precisely your point, that they don't adhere to what you are claiming. you are saying i am doing the same thing: my links don't support my claim
but you're wrong. would like to analyze a link of mine? show it does not support my claim? i am open to the challenge (which you won't take on, because you know you will lose). the links i provide actually have to do with what i am claiming. you, in a sarcastic roundabout way, are trying to sever the connection between my claim and my links, but this fails on your part
zzz
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
0-8 years old is bullet in the brainpan for rapists/pedos category,
9-13 is 20-life category,
14-15 is 1-5yrs category,
16-17 is 0-1 years.
So an exponential scale inverse to the minor's age.
You include zero. So... where should sex with a pregnant woman fall in the punishment scale? Is it broken down by trimester? Does the woman being pregnant with one's own child or someone else's make it better, worse, or about the same? What if it is a pregnant teenager over 18 who was impregnated while under 18? by someone younger than her?
What about an emancipated genius minor with progeria half the adult's chronological age but twice his/her IQ? How about everything the same including relative IQ but the minor is not a genius? In or out of Texas?
What if the adult was physically restrained while asleep (drugged?) and raped by the minor? What if the adult, while consistently spurning the minor's advances, once uttered such a scenario, not as a suggestion but as a hyperbolic hypothetical "NO!"? What if the act was completed without the adult waking up? With conception?
Now, everything again, with or without a visual record? An audible record? Forensic record? Posed only as a hypothetical?
Is a child conceived by a minor itself child pornography or only in the context of knowledge of the age of its parent(s) and its birth date? If so, which parent would be guilty of its production? with abortion as an option (or is that destruction of evidence)? blind adoption? ward of the state? What if a child is conceived by adult parents but adopted by someone under the age of 18.75? If the court demands the child's age be falsified (made younger), what happens if the child participates in sports with a physical age advantage? has adult-minor sex thinking it was legal minor-minor sex?
These are just some of many cases where only considering age could result in a miscarriage of justice.
the first link proves the guy can't follow simple directions
the second link is no refutation at all
this is my assertion:
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
i proved it with a multitude of links. obviously. your pedantry aside, the evidence is obvious a depdendable multitude o typical attitudes in any thread about censorship. its ridiculously ovious
i will now expand my assertion and say that any discussion on slashdot about censorship will involve a critical mass of morons who believe censorship of anything vile in the west is the same as censoring simple political speech in the most authoritarian countries, modded up in groupthink. i have been posting and reading on slashdot for a long time, i know this to be true and obvious
is it your assertion that this is not true? ;-)
go ahead, say it: none of this happens on slashdot to any degree
go ahead, say that: say to me in a discussion on slashdot about censorship, one finds no trends, no groupthink, no simplistic "all censorship mad, all censorship the same, censorship of vile things in the liberal west the same as censorship of simple political dissent in authoritarian countries, we're all under fascism already, oh noes the fallacy of the slippery slope.. etc..."
go ahead and tell me this does not happen
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
pedantry. pure and simple. small little shrill mind
this is my assertion:
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
i proved it with a multitude of links. obviously. your pedantry aside, the evidence is obvious a depdendable multitude of typical attitudes in any thread about censorship. its ridiculously obvious. you think you've proven my assertion wrong?
i will now expand my assertion and say that any discussion on slashdot about censorship will involve a critical mass of morons who believe censorship of anything vile in the west is the same as censoring simple political speech in the most authoritarian countries, modded up in groupthink. i have been posting and reading on slashdot for a long time, i know this to be true and obvious
is it your assertion that this is not true? ;-)
go ahead, say it: none of this happens on slashdot to any degree
go ahead, say that: say to me in a discussion on slashdot about censorship, one finds no trends, no groupthink, no simplistic "all censorship mad, all censorship the same, censorship of vile things in the liberal west the same as censorship of simple political dissent in authoritarian countries, we're all under fascism already, oh noes the fallacy of the slippery slope.. etc..."
go ahead and tell me this does not happen here
otherwise, i am correct
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if i assert that in most threads on slashdot about microsoft there is a negativity, according to your standards, i need to find that 90% of the comments in threads about microsoft say "i find my opinion of microsoft to be negative"
it has to be 90%
and it has to be pendantically aping my words
all of which is bullshit
surely you don't assert there is positive love for microsoft on this site, right?
then surely you wouldn't hold me to the retarded standards you are in this thread to maintain that
i have given you plenty of links, to plenty of threads, that assert exactly what i am saying to anyone who is intellectually honest enough to admit the fucking obvious. you can find any fucking thread on this site on the subject of censorship, and you will find plenty of fucking morons who believe censorship of ANYTHING in the west, even the most vile, is grounds for the west to be the same as the worst authoritarian regimes on the planet in terms of political dissent, etc. modded up to boot, in perfect groupthink masturbation
take ANY of the quotes i have given you, stack it up agains that assertion, and prove me wrong
go ahead, put you rmoney where your mouth is, i have
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
as if it were incredibly easy for a western democracy to suddenly turn into iran
which is exactly the notion i am communicating: that a lot of retards here think we are a heartbeat away from outright authoritarian statehood, because we censor child porn
this is exactly the notion i am getting at here
i await your bloviating about why this isn't EXACTLY the subtle nuance i am getting at
what a fucking intellectually dishonest asshole you are
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
on slashdot towards microsoft"
please provide to me your standards, oh great bloviating asshole, whereby someone might be able to say this is true, or not
in YOUR mind: is there a negative attitude towards microsoft on slashdot? yes or no?
answer that question
then answer this question: what is criteria for you to say your opinion, yes or no?
now, asshole: there is an obvious slashdot groupthink that censorship in the west of vile material is but a hearbeat away from the most authoritarian countries with the most vile restrictions on political and personal expression
multiple comments, modded up in groupthink, in every thread on the subject on censorship, reveals this to be mother. fucking. obvious
to anyone whose brain isn't buried in pedantic mediocrity
please, bloviate on. i can go in any thread on censorship on slashdot. i can find many comments, modded up in groupthink, directly alluding to the pantytwisting attitude that the west is heartbeat away from fascist mind control. its fucking. retarded. its fucking all over this site. its plain as day
please: tell me the sky is pink, tell me the water is dry. tell me the fucking obvious isn't obvious
fucking pedantic little shrew
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
as it painfully obvious to anyone intellectually honest that the atttitude of the quote in question is exactly what i'm fucking talking about, and cut to the chase:
"Do you really disagree with the notion that having a system in place to censor one kind of speech makes it easier for a government to censor another kind?"
yes. i disagree 100%
just like i disagree that making gay marriage legal means we are a heartbeat away from making bestiality or necrophilia legal. which some fear-addled morons believe
just like i disagree that marijuana legalization means we are going to legalize meth or coke. which some fear-addled morons believe
anyone who believes censoring kiddie porn means OH NOES TEH HITLER IS ALMOST HERE is a fucking fear addled moron
there is no such thing as a slippery slope. repeat: there is no such fucking thing as a slippery slope. a slippery slope is an appeal to emotion, not reason. its a propaganda tool used by demagogues
why? because you do not have a monopoly on reason. other people can actually fucking tell the difference between censoring kiddie porn and censoring political speech. yah really. just like they can tell the difference betwen gay marriage and bestiality. yah really. just like they can tell the difference between marijuana and cocaine. yah really
get your ignorant fear-addled panties out of a bunch you bloviating intellectually dishonest asshole
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
anyone intellectually honest sees a connection between the attitude i described and the attitude in every comment cited
of course you don't have to agree
but you're just being a stubborn tool, you're not arguing in good faith
as for microsoft, its just proof there is groupthink at slashdot, and it is rampant. censorship of kiddie porn=OH NOES HERE COME HITLER* is just a classic retarded slashdot meme you encounter in every censorship thread on slashdot in multiple variants all the time
please, disagree with me. even after overwhelming repeating evidence. who fucking cares? the world is full fo stubborn and stupid tools. no reason why you shouldn't be one more
meanwhile, its fucking obvious to anyone honest who reads the threads
please note: i did not use the exact same verbiage this time around to describe the attitude in question! this subtle variation in my theme can only mean one thing: the attitude i am talking about doesn't exist at all on slashdot! this pedantic splitting of hairs is a complete victory for my mediocre mind! LOL
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"how could the poster have displayed that attitude towards child porn when he never mentioned child porn at all, even implicitly?"
you mean as opposed to mentioning it explicitly? gee, i dunno how someone can NOT allude to something WITHOUT mentioning it ?! LOL
"That's not pedantry. It's the truth. The sentiment was not expressed any more than the exact literal words were."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hey, fucking moron, how do you define pedantry? here's a fucking good definition: a mind that can't look beyond the narrow exact literal words on the page in front of him
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hey, tool, maybe the inability to look beyond exact literal words is a LIMIT OF YOUR LITTLE MIND?
maybe this is the TRUTH:
ANY FUCKING MEANING ANYONE COULD EVER COMMUNICATE EVER involves thinking and making connections and looking beyond the literla meaning as written
maybe, asswipe?
so, as i already said, you are
1. intellectually dishonest (you are capable of making the obvious fucking connections, but you are willfully holding back out of cowardly stubbornness), or
2. a genuinely asperger's syndrome level narrow shrill pendant
fucking. hilarious. the comment above sums it all up
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
aka: an intellectually honest attempt at making dead obvious connections between word and meaning
you are either:
1. willfully intellectually dishonest. that is, you can see the obvious connection between the comments and the attitude i describe, but you choose not to admit what you see out of cowardly stubbornness
2. or you are a genuinely pedantic moron
you decide
but my point has been made, and is fucking obvious to any neutral party and is multiply established in all threads her eon the subject of censorship
that you can't or won't see the fucking obvious is either funny or depressing about human nature, i alternate between the two impressions
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it