Yes -- that's why i didn't laugh at you or mock you. You haven't said anything funny, nor have you said anything worthy of even mockery. It's all just shit smeared on a web page.
> Schools teach tons of values. With a particular emphasis on Multiculturalism, Drug free living, and soforth.
True, although I don't believe it's their place to push those values either. They are there to teach the kids facts & the most common interpretations of those facts. It's not there to hold a drug rally. Multiculturalism should automatically arise through knowledge.
They can't be taken seriously because they aren't generally known. They aren't generally known because the media ignores them and the Reps/Dems keep making laws to make it even harder for the Libertarians to become known. They also make shit up about all of their opponents instead of acting liek civilized people. But of course, why would we want a civilized president when we can have one of those two whackjobs.
> Christianity is not about forcfully imposing morality on others.
Then why can I not purchase alcohol on Sundays?
> It sounds like what your after is anarchy.
Not exactly, but compared to what we have now, anarchy is closer.
> I cannot believe that society is better off with Pornography and as such I will support Politions who wish to ban it. That is my right in a democracy and if such a Government get's into power that is it's right as a Government.
Not when it is DIRECT VIOLATION of the FIRST CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CREATED IN THIS COUNTRY! (The First Amendment, in case you didn't know what I was referring to). If the government suddenly wanted to ban the KKK & Nazis from speaking, would you support that too because you also agree that they are fuqhwads? What happened to "I disagree with what you are saying but will fight to the death for your right to say it?" The only reason they can get away with this is that hardly anyone will stand up for someone who looks at child pornography because people like you will assume they are child molesters & shoot them in the back or burn their fucking houses down. Not fair? If you believe that free speech is optional just because you don't like what was said, you are just as crazy (and wrong) as abortion-doctor murderers.
People get this crazy notion that as long as a lot of people agree about something, regardless of what it is or what constitutional amendments it shits on, that it is a fine law. That is not so. If it were, the KKK would be underground (as well as under-hood, tee hee).
> I think the more important question, that everyone is failing to ask, is "what kind of stupid name is Peekarah"?
As trollish as it sounds, you are absolutely right. That's just like wearing a "kick me" sign that can't be removed (until you're 18 & can change your name legally).
> If a person obeys all laws, police officers can do nothing to him or her.
Unless you are falsely accused of a crime, remotely suspected, or the victim of a corrupt bureaucrat. Then they can seize everything you own never to be seen again & put you in jail for at least a full night. Granted, that isn't as comman as many self-annointed victims would like you to believe, but it happens.
A half-funny/half-sad response from the other side, yet supporting...
I've never been one to play action games -- give me Tetris over GTA any day. Although I bought my first action game, GTAVC coincidentally, about a month ago. I've always wanted to see gruesome stuff & wanted to kill people. I just didn't (still don't) have the guts to do it. That whole "life in jail" thing works as a pretty good deterrent for me. I act very properly, but inside, I'm very evil. I have the traditional Ma & Pa upbringing, never saw them fight, all that happy shit.
I don't give a shit about the people who died on 9/11. I honestly don't feel sorry for their families. I realize I'm expected to cry for them, but I can't bring myself to. Even though it's an extremely unfortunate circumstance for them to be in, I never met any of them, nor would I have if it hadn't happened. It just didn't affect me, except for how the government responded.
I used to love rotten.com, but I just don't bother any more. I don't get shocked by it, I just look and say "okay, there's another dismembered leg; whoop-de-doo."
I became "born-again" in high school because I thought that would help. It didn't, I still had all those evil thoughts. I believe that some people are just inherently bad. Unless I have some really fucked up blocked memories, environment (except maybe schoolmates & teachers), parentage, video games, eating habits have not affected me in that regard. It's become less drastic over time, but still there.
I agree that it's not the video games that are the problem, there's something else. Maybe it is something that either can't or shouldn't be fixed, but blaming everyone they can doesn't change a thing.
> [Killing a cop is] no more evil than killing anyone else
Absolutely. Just like killing someone of another race should be no "more illegal" than killing someone of the same race. Getting higher sentencing for "hate crimes" is B.S., just as it is for being a "cop killer."
Killing is completely wrong regardless of what age, race, profession the victim (or murderer -- soldiers count most of the time, IMO) is. The only thing that should affect judgement is how many they killed & if they've done it (or other violent crimes) before.
> its a darned shame that VALUES are not taught in American public schools
Thankfully, you are not in charge. "Values" is completely subjective & I would sue any public school district that tried to force my children to think there is a definitive set of values that are right & wrong.
> I would like some FREE and EASY to use way to use the internet that I am paying for and NEVER have to see porn
You know what's on the Internet. If you don't want it, don't subscribe. Better yet, learn how to use a proxy. Start a Christian (or something else if you prefer) organization that offers a free proxy service that blocks out objectional material. Better yet, use one that already exists. I'm sure there's at least one out there.
Freedom comes at a cost: in this case, freedom for me to view porn (or more generally, to say what I want to say) is at the cost of you not having the right to never be offended unless you try (by not interacting with anything potentially offensive). Sorry, that's the way it is and IMO the way it should be.
> It is not just about individual people it's also about what's best for society as a whole.
Doesn't that just sum up the differences between Democracy and Socialism? I live in the U.S., a represenative republic passed off as a democracy. So individuals' freedoms are supposed to take precedent over socialist ideals. Before you claim that that statement legitimizes murder, the victim has his right to freedom as well -- free to live, to live without being physically attacked.
You even have the right to never be offended, but to exercise it, you must never interact with anyone in any way. But if you choose to go out into the world, you do not have the right to remain unoffended -- I have the right to call your notion of morality wacky and heavyhanded. You have the right to call me a godless sinner condemned to hell. You don't have the right to tell me what I can & cannot do, unless it directly harms another person.
Claiming that pornography affects you mentally & can cause you to lash out at someone or get divorced is complete baloney. If someone is married & still feels the need to look at porn 24/7, they had other problems to begin with & probably weren't ready for marriage.
I live in a democracy so that my personal rights come first. If I wanted everyone else to worry about me & make laws based on what politicians think at the moment would benefit society, I would move to a socialist state. I don't want that. Some do. Good for them.
> I'm certain your not interested in my crazy Christian notions about morality
If your opinion is that your decision of what constitutes morality should be forcefully imposed on me, then no, I don't. That's the craziest thing of all. Absolute morality does not exist in any form other than your God. I believe God is fiction, and therefore does not exist at all. I have to live and let you live with the belief that there is. What gives you the right to say that I can't live without? I know you didn't claim that directly, but that's generally the idea behind "crazy Christian notions about morality" and trying to make them law.
No, actually, you are not an accomplice if you see the results years after it happened. You can't make a statement as a fact of law accusing someone of being an accomplice to a crime and then follow it up with "IMO." It's just your opinion of what you think should be. It does not reflect on reality, just yourself.
> My word, that's why we *have* laws -- to tell people what we (society) will not accept certain behavior.
Yes, that's what laws do... well, to tell people what POLITICIANS don't want you doing, but arguably it's the same thing. However, the parent poster said:
> it's not my job to tell other people what's right and wrong.
Laws are not necessarily about right & wrong. I can say it's wrong to steal peoples' money by claiming you'll go to hell if you don't cough it up. In fact, I believe that. However, it is other people making their own decisions and I do not have the right to tell them not to do that.
Murder, theft, etc. are wrong because they infringe on another person's life. That is why making child porn is illegal in the U.S. However, participating an act and witnessing an act are two entirely different things. As much as I dislike rotten.com, they show results of some illegal activities & they have the right to. Same goes for those beheading movies. They are videos of illegal acts, so you are claiming I am implicit in the murder if I watch a video of it (I haven't, but I have the right to if I so wished)? Rotten.com is implicit in all of those cases because they distribute pictures? Where do you draw the line? Just when it involves children? You can probably find pictures of murdered children on the Internet. Are the people hosting the images criminals?
I also liked the other reply to your post: if the action is animated, even if 100% lifelike, no one was hurt in any conceivable way by making it. Should it be illegal to watch?
> Companies such as Monsato experiment with techniques such as splicing genes between species, such as inserting fish genes into tomatos. [...] How exactly these organisms affect human beings and the ecosystem is completely unknown,
Do you know why we don't know that? BECAUSE NO ONE EATS THEM. These "Frankenfoods," as you so disingenuously put it (maybe inadvertently), are not the same ones that are sold. The glowing flounder-gene-in-strawberries thing was a LAB EXPERIMENT. The foods that end up eaten have no animal DNA in them.
> This is just another case of businesses using fear and bad science as a marketing strategy to claim that the world can't possibly work without their products.
And this is another case of individuals pushing political agendas (whether you know you are or not) using fear & NO science as a campaign to prove that big companies are inherently evil. This has little to do with Genetically modified crops, and more to do with peoples' opinions of the companies.
There is SO MUCH you can hate these companies for: aggressive patent use ending up in starvation, making their plants unable to seed causing what amounts to "vendor lock-in," just about anything done by a pharmaceuticals company... But repeating incorrect Enviro-FUD doesn't help solve anything, and hurts the environmental movement in general -- that's why a lot of people equate environmentalists with "whackos," which is a very sad thing, because many of them are in it for the right reasons and use real, verified information to convince others of the truth.
> What kind of agriculture results in genes from fish or insects being inserted into a plant's DNA?
None. Nor do any released GMO plants. THERE ARE NO ANIMAL GENES IN DISTRIBUTED GMO CROPS! The glowing flounder genes & stuff you heard about are LABORATORY ONLY -- to understand the genes, not to distribute the crops. The FDA regulates GMO very heavily (not that they are known for accuracy or making sense). Try knowing your subject before ranting about it.
Interesting. I would have thought that similar model #s would be made in the same factory, or at least the same country. I guess that's what serial #s are for...
Hehe, too true. Although it turns out that even though they are the same model, they were made in different places. Another person reported that his (same model #) said "made in Thailand."
Wierd. My company has bought about 30 GX260s, but only one's HD has died. Two Motherboards and 1 DDR RAM stick. The rest have worked fine. Maybe we're just REALLY lucky.
> Taiwanese capacitor companies poorly copied an electrolyte solution from Japanese capacitor companies
Is this the same as the motherboard problems with Gigabyte, et al? Wasn't the problem there that someone stole the "formula" and left out a critical chemical? Maybe I'm remembering something else.
Slashdot Mirror
> Cancer cells are broken cells
Then I can just say that certain parts of society "don't count" because they are damaged, psychologically unstable.
Yes -- that's why i didn't laugh at you or mock you. You haven't said anything funny, nor have you said anything worthy of even mockery. It's all just shit smeared on a web page.
> Schools teach tons of values. With a particular emphasis on Multiculturalism, Drug free living, and soforth.
True, although I don't believe it's their place to push those values either. They are there to teach the kids facts & the most common interpretations of those facts. It's not there to hold a drug rally. Multiculturalism should automatically arise through knowledge.
They can't be taken seriously because they aren't generally known. They aren't generally known because the media ignores them and the Reps/Dems keep making laws to make it even harder for the Libertarians to become known. They also make shit up about all of their opponents instead of acting liek civilized people. But of course, why would we want a civilized president when we can have one of those two whackjobs.
> Christianity is not about forcfully imposing morality on others.
Then why can I not purchase alcohol on Sundays?
> It sounds like what your after is anarchy.
Not exactly, but compared to what we have now, anarchy is closer.
> I cannot believe that society is better off with Pornography and as such I will support Politions who wish to ban it. That is my right in a democracy and if such a Government get's into power that is it's right as a Government.
Not when it is DIRECT VIOLATION of the FIRST CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CREATED IN THIS COUNTRY! (The First Amendment, in case you didn't know what I was referring to). If the government suddenly wanted to ban the KKK & Nazis from speaking, would you support that too because you also agree that they are fuqhwads? What happened to "I disagree with what you are saying but will fight to the death for your right to say it?" The only reason they can get away with this is that hardly anyone will stand up for someone who looks at child pornography because people like you will assume they are child molesters & shoot them in the back or burn their fucking houses down. Not fair? If you believe that free speech is optional just because you don't like what was said, you are just as crazy (and wrong) as abortion-doctor murderers.
People get this crazy notion that as long as a lot of people agree about something, regardless of what it is or what constitutional amendments it shits on, that it is a fine law. That is not so. If it were, the KKK would be underground (as well as under-hood, tee hee).
> I think the more important question, that everyone is failing to ask, is "what kind of stupid name is Peekarah"?
As trollish as it sounds, you are absolutely right. That's just like wearing a "kick me" sign that can't be removed (until you're 18 & can change your name legally).
> If a person obeys all laws, police officers can do nothing to him or her.
Unless you are falsely accused of a crime, remotely suspected, or the victim of a corrupt bureaucrat. Then they can seize everything you own never to be seen again & put you in jail for at least a full night. Granted, that isn't as comman as many self-annointed victims would like you to believe, but it happens.
A half-funny/half-sad response from the other side, yet supporting...
I've never been one to play action games -- give me Tetris over GTA any day. Although I bought my first action game, GTAVC coincidentally, about a month ago. I've always wanted to see gruesome stuff & wanted to kill people. I just didn't (still don't) have the guts to do it. That whole "life in jail" thing works as a pretty good deterrent for me. I act very properly, but inside, I'm very evil. I have the traditional Ma & Pa upbringing, never saw them fight, all that happy shit.
I don't give a shit about the people who died on 9/11. I honestly don't feel sorry for their families. I realize I'm expected to cry for them, but I can't bring myself to. Even though it's an extremely unfortunate circumstance for them to be in, I never met any of them, nor would I have if it hadn't happened. It just didn't affect me, except for how the government responded.
I used to love rotten.com, but I just don't bother any more. I don't get shocked by it, I just look and say "okay, there's another dismembered leg; whoop-de-doo."
I became "born-again" in high school because I thought that would help. It didn't, I still had all those evil thoughts. I believe that some people are just inherently bad. Unless I have some really fucked up blocked memories, environment (except maybe schoolmates & teachers), parentage, video games, eating habits have not affected me in that regard. It's become less drastic over time, but still there.
I agree that it's not the video games that are the problem, there's something else. Maybe it is something that either can't or shouldn't be fixed, but blaming everyone they can doesn't change a thing.
> [Killing a cop is] no more evil than killing anyone else
Absolutely. Just like killing someone of another race should be no "more illegal" than killing someone of the same race. Getting higher sentencing for "hate crimes" is B.S., just as it is for being a "cop killer."
Killing is completely wrong regardless of what age, race, profession the victim (or murderer -- soldiers count most of the time, IMO) is. The only thing that should affect judgement is how many they killed & if they've done it (or other violent crimes) before.
Sorry for ranting offtopic.
> Communism is a religion
Riiiight... I'll admit that as soon as you admit that Christianity is nothing more than a political structure.
> its a darned shame that VALUES are not taught in American public schools
Thankfully, you are not in charge. "Values" is completely subjective & I would sue any public school district that tried to force my children to think there is a definitive set of values that are right & wrong.
> n a living organism, the cells all work together selflessly to form the organism and for the benefit of the organism.
You have inactive (and maybe active) cancerous cells in you right now. So cancer is actually a benefit? Who knew...
> I would like some FREE and EASY to use way to use the internet that I am paying for and NEVER have to see porn
You know what's on the Internet. If you don't want it, don't subscribe. Better yet, learn how to use a proxy. Start a Christian (or something else if you prefer) organization that offers a free proxy service that blocks out objectional material. Better yet, use one that already exists. I'm sure there's at least one out there.
Freedom comes at a cost: in this case, freedom for me to view porn (or more generally, to say what I want to say) is at the cost of you not having the right to never be offended unless you try (by not interacting with anything potentially offensive). Sorry, that's the way it is and IMO the way it should be.
> It is not just about individual people it's also about what's best for society as a whole.
Doesn't that just sum up the differences between Democracy and Socialism? I live in the U.S., a represenative republic passed off as a democracy. So individuals' freedoms are supposed to take precedent over socialist ideals. Before you claim that that statement legitimizes murder, the victim has his right to freedom as well -- free to live, to live without being physically attacked.
You even have the right to never be offended, but to exercise it, you must never interact with anyone in any way. But if you choose to go out into the world, you do not have the right to remain unoffended -- I have the right to call your notion of morality wacky and heavyhanded. You have the right to call me a godless sinner condemned to hell. You don't have the right to tell me what I can & cannot do, unless it directly harms another person.
Claiming that pornography affects you mentally & can cause you to lash out at someone or get divorced is complete baloney. If someone is married & still feels the need to look at porn 24/7, they had other problems to begin with & probably weren't ready for marriage.
I live in a democracy so that my personal rights come first. If I wanted everyone else to worry about me & make laws based on what politicians think at the moment would benefit society, I would move to a socialist state. I don't want that. Some do. Good for them.
> I'm certain your not interested in my crazy Christian notions about morality
If your opinion is that your decision of what constitutes morality should be forcefully imposed on me, then no, I don't. That's the craziest thing of all. Absolute morality does not exist in any form other than your God. I believe God is fiction, and therefore does not exist at all. I have to live and let you live with the belief that there is. What gives you the right to say that I can't live without? I know you didn't claim that directly, but that's generally the idea behind "crazy Christian notions about morality" and trying to make them law.
> in all cases you're an accomplice (IMO, IANAL
No, actually, you are not an accomplice if you see the results years after it happened. You can't make a statement as a fact of law accusing someone of being an accomplice to a crime and then follow it up with "IMO." It's just your opinion of what you think should be. It does not reflect on reality, just yourself.
> My word, that's why we *have* laws -- to tell people what we (society) will not accept certain behavior.
Yes, that's what laws do... well, to tell people what POLITICIANS don't want you doing, but arguably it's the same thing. However, the parent poster said:
> it's not my job to tell other people what's right and wrong.
Laws are not necessarily about right & wrong. I can say it's wrong to steal peoples' money by claiming you'll go to hell if you don't cough it up. In fact, I believe that. However, it is other people making their own decisions and I do not have the right to tell them not to do that.
Murder, theft, etc. are wrong because they infringe on another person's life. That is why making child porn is illegal in the U.S. However, participating an act and witnessing an act are two entirely different things. As much as I dislike rotten.com, they show results of some illegal activities & they have the right to. Same goes for those beheading movies. They are videos of illegal acts, so you are claiming I am implicit in the murder if I watch a video of it (I haven't, but I have the right to if I so wished)? Rotten.com is implicit in all of those cases because they distribute pictures? Where do you draw the line? Just when it involves children? You can probably find pictures of murdered children on the Internet. Are the people hosting the images criminals?
I also liked the other reply to your post: if the action is animated, even if 100% lifelike, no one was hurt in any conceivable way by making it. Should it be illegal to watch?
> Companies such as Monsato experiment with techniques such as splicing genes between species, such as inserting fish genes into tomatos. [...] How exactly these organisms affect human beings and the ecosystem is completely unknown,
Do you know why we don't know that? BECAUSE NO ONE EATS THEM. These "Frankenfoods," as you so disingenuously put it (maybe inadvertently), are not the same ones that are sold. The glowing flounder-gene-in-strawberries thing was a LAB EXPERIMENT. The foods that end up eaten have no animal DNA in them.
> This is just another case of businesses using fear and bad science as a marketing strategy to claim that the world can't possibly work without their products.
And this is another case of individuals pushing political agendas (whether you know you are or not) using fear & NO science as a campaign to prove that big companies are inherently evil. This has little to do with Genetically modified crops, and more to do with peoples' opinions of the companies.
There is SO MUCH you can hate these companies for: aggressive patent use ending up in starvation, making their plants unable to seed causing what amounts to "vendor lock-in," just about anything done by a pharmaceuticals company... But repeating incorrect Enviro-FUD doesn't help solve anything, and hurts the environmental movement in general -- that's why a lot of people equate environmentalists with "whackos," which is a very sad thing, because many of them are in it for the right reasons and use real, verified information to convince others of the truth.
> What kind of agriculture results in genes from fish or insects being inserted into a plant's DNA?
None. Nor do any released GMO plants. THERE ARE NO ANIMAL GENES IN DISTRIBUTED GMO CROPS! The glowing flounder genes & stuff you heard about are LABORATORY ONLY -- to understand the genes, not to distribute the crops. The FDA regulates GMO very heavily (not that they are known for accuracy or making sense). Try knowing your subject before ranting about it.
> I can destroy your argument with 3 tiny letters B-S-E
You are a fool, BSE has nothing to do with GMO.
Interesting. I would have thought that similar model #s would be made in the same factory, or at least the same country. I guess that's what serial #s are for...
Hehe, too true. Although it turns out that even though they are the same model, they were made in different places. Another person reported that his (same model #) said "made in Thailand."
> you don't look quite so incompetent when you reply to them
Calm... I was making a joke, not trying to contradict/correct you.
Wierd. My company has bought about 30 GX260s, but only one's HD has died. Two Motherboards and 1 DDR RAM stick. The rest have worked fine. Maybe we're just REALLY lucky.
> That would be true, if they were made in China. Check your facts gain next time, they were made in Vietnam
The 9364U I have in front of me says "Made in China." Could be mislabelled, of course.
Mine says "Made in China" printed on it which would be a good reason to think they were made in China.
9364U
> Taiwanese capacitor companies poorly copied an electrolyte solution from Japanese capacitor companies
Is this the same as the motherboard problems with Gigabyte, et al? Wasn't the problem there that someone stole the "formula" and left out a critical chemical? Maybe I'm remembering something else.