Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Two things -
- Prevent the act... we've been discussing that
- Prevent the terror from spreading:
Terrorism works by instilling fear. The more emotional and primal the reaction the better... keep people from thinking- get them to respond on the emotional level- create the mob mentality.
The true act of terror is done, but now the victims and those who have witnessed the act become the terrorists.
Terrorism is a faceless crime, it is human nature to need to put a face to it. So we paint pictures with broad strokes, not pausing to think- except to think of who fits the profile, the image we've created for the enemy.
Its easy to respond to a group we don't know- don't belong to, don't understand.
Timothy McVeigh claimed to be a Christian, but his actions proved otherwise. No one blamed Christianity for his actions, because they knew that it was not a Christian act.
But because we've already decided that the attackers were Arab, they therefore must be Muslim, and therefore all Muslims are guilty...
These acts were against the true teachings of Islam. To say that all Muslims are guilty or responsible or capable of these acts because of those who were responsible for this act of terrorism, is as foolish as saying that all Christians are responsible or capable of these acts because Timoth McVeigh was (supposedly) a Christian.
What about the Atrocities carried out by Hitler, he was Christian... or so he claimed. I will not accept that he was a true Christian... I cannot- and most people don't. Why? Because they know...
To turn on people now because of their beliefs... because you don't understand... because you are hurt and you need to make someone pay... that is how terrorism works. Those who strike back blindly, now become the terrorists and it only spreads from there.
The weapon against Terrorism is Thought. Think, don't react, don't let them win. THINK. If you don't understand what's happening- talk to people who do. Knowledge and thought are now are greatest weapons in this war.
Save your anger and retribution for those responsible... they will be found, they will be punished- but do not take it out on the innocent. That is the terrorist's work, and if you take over their work, if you become what they want... they've won.
What I'm hearing is that CD's cost too much. And file sharing allows people to increase their spending power and allows them to get more music.
Freedom of the press and all that...
Well, newsflash... Yes people profit off of those CD's, if they didn't, they wouldn't be making them and then we'd all be forced to go to concerts if we want to enjoy the music.
Boycotting CD's in protest of the 'big companies' profiting off of you is rediculous. We think nothing of paying sports stars millions of dollars, and yet, since this is coming directly out of our pockets we complain about it...
And the worst part is, the muscicians, the real talent get a pitance of the money from each CD sold. In a society where you can hit a metoric rise on the charts and then be a has been a week later-- every little bit you can get helps.
You're preaching the rights of the masses to share the music, when what you're doing is wanting people to perform for you for free.
Yeah, sure stars make lots of money-- when they're stars... when people actually buy their music... but if we take away the money-- will they play for us while they're starving? While the people complain about thier rights to listen to the result of their LABOR and give them nothing in return?
Would you work for free!?
Its an interwoven relationship. You want my opinion... (well you're getting it)
Artists are appreciated because of their work. We pay them to do their work by buying their recordings and going to their concerts.
If we don't like them... we don't pay them.. they move on and do something else.
you want music to cost less?
USE the technology of file sharing... not to steal from the mouths of the people you claim to like... but to give them the money directly... They get more, you pay less... no middle men...
BUT... there are a lot of people who make a living in the middle...
Try to do something, but don't sit there and whine because you want these people to work for nothing and they complain about it.
No matter how you slice it-- If you aren't paying for the music you're stealing from them. Great way to show appreciation huh?
Jose may have a point, but his way of doing it was wrong.
You make it sound like vandalism and the destruction of private property is all right, if you have a reason.
It's not.
Especially if this was the protest of McDonalds where someone was killed. If it wasn't, its still not the way to go about doing things.
Violent demonstrations draw a lot of attention, but its the wrong kind of attention. People are watching to see what happens next, not because they're drawn to the cause.
You're glorifying vandalism.
If you destroy public or private property in the name of a cause-- its still vandalism and worse-- it keeps the real message from being accepted.
I don't know how many times I've been turned off by this tirade of "American yada yada yada."
America allows protests... but it allows "PEACEFUL" protests. Because of the radical anti world economy VANDALISM in Seattle-- when the organizations in question met in DC the reasonable voices couldn't be heard because idiots were using the conference as a reason to wreak havoc...
(why else would you carry molotov coctails in your backpack? These are not the tools of reason!)
It's grandstanding and it doesn't allow the real message to get through.
Take a page for American history... The Boston Tea party-- A rather destructive protest of the English Tea tax where tea was dumped in the harbor... It didn't stop the tax. You know what did? People switching to coffee.
If you want to see real, and lasting results, take a page from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Peaceful, civil disobedience. It takes more time but fewer people get hurt. He was a real hero.
The only problem with that theory... is the fact that the government is using our money to run that library for us.
We forget-- we are the governement, or should be. They're saying you must use filtering software... the problem is... who decides what is allowable and what's not. Who controls the information?
Historically... the person controlling the information... controls the people.
From what I have seen, the people with legitimate complaints aren't arguing for porn in the library... the problem is to get rid of one threat, we have to take a hit elsewhere.
There are companies that actually sit down and review content as to what is allowable and what isn't... but they don't go through all the 'free providers' like Angelfire, or Tripod, saying there's too much content-- so you're left with the option of blocking them all or blocking none of them.
Some of my favorite testing sites are on free sites. This means when I'm out of town... I might not be able to hit them. Its an annoyance, but a point.
As for point four... I've gotten highjacked on occation, where I was going to a friend's GEOCITIES site...(Shadowrun fiction).. And ended up someplace completely different. I admit, I did not like where I ended up.
The problem is one of balance. A balance of responsibile use (something I think were forgetting to use these days)... and responsible content. Filtering is just... a way to make it look like you're doing something...
Your English is fine. Your concerns...well, most of the time, at least in my experience the... discussions we have aren't real hate... but then again, I haven't been here all that long.
I think the big problem is that, not having an opionion on the immediate problem, its easier to get into calling each other names. And once that starts... nothing is sacred.
I've read some of the comments and pretty much gave up. We weren't talking about security or rights online anymore-- we were talking about history... and after we (Humanity) started using gunpowder-- I kinda lost interest.
Back on topic-- Is this a case of Government supported industrial espionage or just good old fashioned industrial espianoge? Inquiring minds would like to know
On a personal note... my only problem with the French dates back to 1066 and the battle of Hastings and it's more aboutlanguage then conquest. I have enough trouble spelling and the addition of French to the language makes my life interesting. (not that the germanic based 'Olde English' would have been any easier mind you)
By displaying pornography in libraries, you and the other radical liberals are forcing children to view it. Period. End of story. It's that simple. The only reason why you have chosen libraries as porn outlets is because that's where the children are.
SIGH
This discussion was about how filter software doesn't work. You keep bringing it back to porn...and attempts to destroy children. While I respect your desire to protect the innocent, you're going about it all wrong.
I'm not 'For porn in the library'... I'm for responsible use of the internet.
Gee... now I'm a radical liberal... have to remember to put that on my resume.
Most of those subjects are unsuitable for children. Most, in fact, involve sexual diseases which are brought about by uncontrolled promiscuity. It is certainly not necessary to waste my tax dollars providing you with information about how to fix the damage you've done to yourself with your own immoral behavior. Try taking responsibility for a change, if your rigid liberal orthodoxy will permit it.
All the diseases I've mentioned are ones that have absolutely nothing to do with STD's.
As for being unsuitable for children... children get cancer too. I was 9 when I had to face that reality. And I would have given just about anything to know more about what was going on instead of being kept in the dark while I was poked and prodded and 'treated'. I'd have given even more just to know that I wasn't alone.
And CPR? Children have saved lives of Mothers, Fathers, Brothers, Sisters... friends... and you would keep it away from them deeming it...'unsuitable'.
I want to protect all the children, both born and unborn, regardless of who their parents are. Your children are not your property. They are human beings, souls, with the same right to a decent upbringing as my children have. My children are able to exercise that right. Yours are not. And that is a great tragedy.
I watch what my children see. I pay attention. I listen to them-- I know them and I know what is appropriate for them as individauls and I respect that. Do you?
From the looks of things... My children will be the one's giving you CPR when you lose it.
It filters out information with anything that's flaged as a 'bad' thing... for example... Set the filter to not allow anything with the word breast
in it. The following would be supressed: Articles on Breast Cancer Articles on cooking chicken or turkey Articles on Dieting (Breast meat being lower in fat)
As soon as anyone starts discussing censoring/filtering they should be aware as to why it doesn't work.
If you don't want people looking at porn in public that's fine, because, as the saying goes, 'Your right to swing your fist, ends where my face begins.'
But you need to be aware of the fact that the software just plain doesn't work.
It is about whether or not to force children to view sexually sadistic pornography. The liberals believe that we should commit these crimes against children. I disagree.
There is no forcing someone to view information... There is no organized attempt to force people into anything...
-The idea of protecting people by limiting their access to information was practiced by the Nazis, South Africa...
You're exactly right. Those are the nations that the liberals have taken as their model, and the results are plain to see all around you. Censorship always results in terrible crimes. This is why the liberals and pornographers must be stopped, and why their insane political-sexual religion of sadism and hate must be outlawed.
The censorship was done by the CONSERVATIVE government. In the name of "Protecting people" from the dangers of free thought about things like Human rights and what was considered an 'insane plot' to control the world based on nothing more than a person's religious beliefs or the color of their skin.
Is that the sort of plot you're talking about?
-the filtering software we have availble doesn't work. It only limits access by deleteing anything that might have something 'naughty' in it.
That is the intent of the software. You are telling me that it works. Thank you for supporting my argument.
No, you missed the word might.
The one that means that articles about breast cancer, cervical cancer, prostrate cancer, diseases, research into prevention of diseases, medical treatments, even pages on how to adminster CPR would be blocked because they contain the suspicious, possibly naughty words.
The key is watch what your children are doing and not force everyone to pay for it. You say its about protecting our children... You want to protect your children... be a part of their lives and don't expect the rest of the world to babysit... or to have to pay for the sitter while you're out getting your nails polished, or your golf balls embossed.
From what I gather... according to you... Liberals have created the need for censorship?
If not, then you have managed to agrue everyside of this coin without making one lick of sense.
The whole thread here has been about censorship and you've turned it into child abuse.
There are laws against child pornography that is where it should be handled... not by blocking everything that we think might even vaguely be construed as wrong.
The idea of protecting people by limiting their access to information was practiced by the Nazis, South Africa... (both of whom, I believe viewed themselves as conservatives)...ultimately they failed.
And if YOU bothered to read my arguments... the filtering software we have availble doesn't work. It only limits access by deleteing anything that might have something 'naughty' in it. Its programmed to look for words... and some... to just filter out entire domains on the basis of 'There's just too much to process.'
Only thing is... you want to make this into something it isn't. And I for one haven't got the foggiest where you're coming from any more.
That is exactly correct. We are not just fighting to stop the liberals from coercively imposing pornography and sexual abuse on children. We are also fighting to put a stop to the plague of censorship that the liberals have unleashed on this nation. One day, free speech by honest men will once again be allowed without arbitrary limitations of any kind. Only then will we finally be able to halt permanently the flood of pornography that you so treasure. In the meantime, however, we carry on the fight as best we can.
So... everybody who dissagrees with you is evil and trying to undermind everything you feel is important?
Have you paid attention to anything that's been discussed here or are you just trying to get a rise out of otherwise rational people to prove your pointless point... which seems to be that those who don't agree with you are evil?
You seem to believe that it's okay to destroy children's lives, if that's what it takes to share recipes. The important thing here is that CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS lost out. And the children won.
I'd love to see where you came up with that one...
And first of let me say this... children are sacred. They should be protected... but you know what... the real threat to children isn't the internet... most children are hurt by people close to them, family members and friends of the family... people they trust. I know... Cause I've seen too many kids I care about messed up by people they should have been able to trust-- people who *should* have been protecting them.
Its a parent's job to protect their kids, and that's done by taking care of them, and paying attention to them... not by pointing your finger at everybody else and saying that if you're against me you're the problem.
You seem ready to sling insults and accusations.. but you give no real support only attitude...
Your assertions are quite clearly the product of a disordered mind. Not to pry, but you do have a long list of criminal convictions on your record, don't you? Heh heh. How did I guess, you ask? It's obvious from your mentally imbalanced outlook. I'll wager that at least two thirds of your convctions are for violent sexual offenses, some of them certainly against children. You wouldn't be fighting to preserve the gay-agenda right to rape children if you didn't have a personal interest in it.
Okay, now I know you're trolling-- Because what you're saying is just so... irrational I can only assume you're low on lithuim.
Just so you know... I'm:
a) Hopelessly Hetero b) Conservative c) Christian.
I really am curious where you got your information that anyone against censorship is for doing things so vile and disgusting that it doesn't bear repeating...
This is what I meant by Sane and rational. Something its looking like you are incapably of...
Look at the facts before you start another rant, we'll all thank you for it.
The whole question isn't one of right vs. left and Feminism vs. anything... its about censorship. We can't filter out the enitre world because we don't agree with it. The key is to make educated descions. You don't want your children to see things... please... don't let them see it... be responsible and teach them to be responsible. Carte blanche censorship which never works. The big complaints as I see them are: a) Who decides what's acceptable? b) How is it enforced? Filtering software doesn't work... plain and simple. It limits what is seen based on user set criteria... Ask AOL when it filtered out anything that had the word 'breast' in it. Breast Cancer survivors and cooks lost out. But hey... we all know what those nastly cook types are up to don't we? You can't make everybody happy-- but the key is to remain sane and rational. In the imortal words of Tom Leher - "When properly viewed... everything is lewd"
I don't think that its they're not 'worthy' of a show... I just don't think they can carry a show without changing the characters and that would ruin it in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Two things -
- Prevent the act... we've been discussing that
- Prevent the terror from spreading:
Terrorism works by instilling fear. The more emotional and primal the reaction the better... keep people from thinking- get them to respond on the emotional level- create the mob mentality.
The true act of terror is done, but now the victims and those who have witnessed the act become the terrorists.
Terrorism is a faceless crime, it is human nature to need to put a face to it. So we paint pictures with broad strokes, not pausing to think- except to think of who fits the profile, the image we've created for the enemy.
Its easy to respond to a group we don't know- don't belong to, don't understand.
Timothy McVeigh claimed to be a Christian, but his actions proved otherwise. No one blamed Christianity for his actions, because they knew that it was not a Christian act.
But because we've already decided that the attackers were Arab, they therefore must be Muslim, and therefore all Muslims are guilty...
These acts were against the true teachings of Islam. To say that all Muslims are guilty or responsible or capable of these acts because of those who were responsible for this act of terrorism, is as foolish as saying that all Christians are responsible or capable of these acts because Timoth McVeigh was (supposedly) a Christian.
What about the Atrocities carried out by Hitler, he was Christian... or so he claimed. I will not accept that he was a true Christian... I cannot- and most people don't. Why? Because they know...
To turn on people now because of their beliefs... because you don't understand... because you are hurt and you need to make someone pay... that is how terrorism works. Those who strike back blindly, now become the terrorists and it only spreads from there.
The weapon against Terrorism is Thought. Think, don't react, don't let them win. THINK. If you don't understand what's happening- talk to people who do. Knowledge and thought are now are greatest weapons in this war.
Save your anger and retribution for those responsible... they will be found, they will be punished- but do not take it out on the innocent. That is the terrorist's work, and if you take over their work, if you become what they want... they've won.
What I'm hearing is that CD's cost too much. And file sharing allows people to increase their spending power and allows them to get more music.
Freedom of the press and all that...
Well, newsflash... Yes people profit off of those CD's, if they didn't, they wouldn't be making them and then we'd all be forced to go to concerts if we want to enjoy the music.
Boycotting CD's in protest of the 'big companies' profiting off of you is rediculous. We think nothing of paying sports stars millions of dollars, and yet, since this is coming directly out of our pockets we complain about it...
And the worst part is, the muscicians, the real talent get a pitance of the money from each CD sold. In a society where you can hit a metoric rise on the charts and then be a has been a week later-- every little bit you can get helps.
You're preaching the rights of the masses to share the music, when what you're doing is wanting people to perform for you for free.
Yeah, sure stars make lots of money-- when they're stars... when people actually buy their music... but if we take away the money-- will they play for us while they're starving? While the people complain about thier rights to listen to the result of their LABOR and give them nothing in return?
Would you work for free!?
Its an interwoven relationship. You want my opinion... (well you're getting it)
Artists are appreciated because of their work. We pay them to do their work by buying their recordings and going to their concerts.
If we don't like them... we don't pay them.. they move on and do something else.
you want music to cost less?
USE the technology of file sharing... not to steal from the mouths of the people you claim to like... but to give them the money directly... They get more, you pay less... no middle men...
BUT... there are a lot of people who make a living in the middle...
Try to do something, but don't sit there and whine because you want these people to work for nothing and they complain about it.
No matter how you slice it-- If you aren't paying for the music you're stealing from them. Great way to show appreciation huh?
And way cooler toys.
As long as you're peaceful... you're allowed to speak. If you revolt... then you only get to speak if you win.
You make it sound like vandalism and the destruction of private property is all right, if you have a reason.
It's not.
Especially if this was the protest of McDonalds where someone was killed. If it wasn't, its still not the way to go about doing things.
Violent demonstrations draw a lot of attention, but its the wrong kind of attention. People are watching to see what happens next, not because they're drawn to the cause.
You're glorifying vandalism.
If you destroy public or private property in the name of a cause-- its still vandalism and worse-- it keeps the real message from being accepted.
I don't know how many times I've been turned off by this tirade of "American yada yada yada."
America allows protests... but it allows "PEACEFUL" protests. Because of the radical anti world economy VANDALISM in Seattle-- when the organizations in question met in DC the reasonable voices couldn't be heard because idiots were using the conference as a reason to wreak havoc...
(why else would you carry molotov coctails in your backpack? These are not the tools of reason!)
It's grandstanding and it doesn't allow the real message to get through.
Take a page for American history... The Boston Tea party-- A rather destructive protest of the English Tea tax where tea was dumped in the harbor... It didn't stop the tax. You know what did? People switching to coffee.
If you want to see real, and lasting results, take a page from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Peaceful, civil disobedience. It takes more time but fewer people get hurt. He was a real hero.
We forget-- we are the governement, or should be. They're saying you must use filtering software... the problem is... who decides what is allowable and what's not. Who controls the information?
Historically... the person controlling the information... controls the people.
From what I have seen, the people with legitimate complaints aren't arguing for porn in the library... the problem is to get rid of one threat, we have to take a hit elsewhere.
There are companies that actually sit down and review content as to what is allowable and what isn't... but they don't go through all the 'free providers' like Angelfire, or Tripod, saying there's too much content-- so you're left with the option of blocking them all or blocking none of them.
Some of my favorite testing sites are on free sites. This means when I'm out of town... I might not be able to hit them. Its an annoyance, but a point.
As for point four... I've gotten highjacked on occation, where I was going to a friend's GEOCITIES site...(Shadowrun fiction).. And ended up someplace completely different. I admit, I did not like where I ended up.
The problem is one of balance. A balance of responsibile use (something I think were forgetting to use these days)... and responsible content. Filtering is just... a way to make it look like you're doing something...
My two cents worth
Seriously...
Your English is fine. Your concerns...well, most of the time, at least in my experience the ... discussions we have aren't real hate... but then again, I haven't been here all that long.
I think the big problem is that, not having an opionion on the immediate problem, its easier to get into calling each other names. And once that starts... nothing is sacred.
I've read some of the comments and pretty much gave up. We weren't talking about security or rights online anymore-- we were talking about history... and after we (Humanity) started using gunpowder-- I kinda lost interest.
Back on topic-- Is this a case of Government supported industrial espionage or just good old fashioned industrial espianoge? Inquiring minds would like to know
On a personal note... my only problem with the French dates back to 1066 and the battle of Hastings and it's more aboutlanguage then conquest. I have enough trouble spelling and the addition of French to the language makes my life interesting. (not that the germanic based 'Olde English' would have been any easier mind you)
When it doubt, sling mud... er... obfiscate!
Have a good one.
Cause it's like an accident and you want to look away... but you just can't!
By displaying pornography in libraries, you and the other radical liberals are forcing children to view it. Period. End of story. It's that simple. The only reason why you have chosen libraries as porn outlets is because that's where the children are.
SIGH
This discussion was about how filter software doesn't work. You keep bringing it back to porn...and attempts to destroy children. While I respect your desire to protect the innocent, you're going about it all wrong.
I'm not 'For porn in the library'... I'm for responsible use of the internet.
Gee... now I'm a radical liberal... have to remember to put that on my resume.
Most of those subjects are unsuitable for children. Most, in fact, involve sexual diseases which are brought about by uncontrolled promiscuity. It is certainly not necessary to waste my tax dollars providing you with information about how to fix the damage you've done to yourself with your own immoral behavior. Try taking responsibility for a change, if your rigid liberal orthodoxy will permit it.
All the diseases I've mentioned are ones that have absolutely nothing to do with STD's.
As for being unsuitable for children... children get cancer too. I was 9 when I had to face that reality. And I would have given just about anything to know more about what was going on instead of being kept in the dark while I was poked and prodded and 'treated'. I'd have given even more just to know that I wasn't alone.
And CPR? Children have saved lives of Mothers, Fathers, Brothers, Sisters... friends... and you would keep it away from them deeming it...'unsuitable'.
I want to protect all the children, both born and unborn, regardless of who their parents are. Your children are not your property. They are human beings, souls, with the same right to a decent upbringing as my children have. My children are able to exercise that right. Yours are not. And that is a great tragedy.
I watch what my children see. I pay attention. I listen to them-- I know them and I know what is appropriate for them as individauls and I respect that. Do you?
From the looks of things... My children will be the one's giving you CPR when you lose it.
It filters out information with anything that's flaged as a 'bad' thing... for example... Set the filter to not allow anything with the word breast
in it. The following would be supressed:
Articles on Breast Cancer
Articles on cooking chicken or turkey
Articles on Dieting (Breast meat being lower in fat)
As soon as anyone starts discussing censoring/filtering they should be aware as to why it doesn't work.
If you don't want people looking at porn in public that's fine, because, as the saying goes, 'Your right to swing your fist, ends where my face begins.'
But you need to be aware of the fact that the software just plain doesn't work.
It is about whether or not to force children to view sexually sadistic pornography. The liberals believe that we should commit these crimes against children. I disagree.
There is no forcing someone to view information... There is no organized attempt to force people into anything...
-The idea of protecting people by limiting their access to information was practiced by the Nazis, South Africa...
You're exactly right. Those are the nations that the liberals have taken as their model, and the results are plain to see all around you. Censorship always results in terrible crimes. This is why the liberals and pornographers must be stopped, and why their insane political-sexual religion of sadism and hate must be outlawed.
The censorship was done by the CONSERVATIVE government. In the name of "Protecting people" from the dangers of free thought about things like Human rights and what was considered an 'insane plot' to control the world based on nothing more than a person's religious beliefs or the color of their skin.
Is that the sort of plot you're talking about?
-the filtering software we have availble doesn't work. It only limits access by deleteing anything that might have something 'naughty' in it.
That is the intent of the software. You are telling me that it works. Thank you for supporting my argument.
No, you missed the word might.
The one that means that articles about breast cancer, cervical cancer, prostrate cancer, diseases, research into prevention of diseases, medical treatments, even pages on how to adminster CPR would be blocked because they contain the suspicious, possibly naughty words.
The key is watch what your children are doing and not force everyone to pay for it. You say its about protecting our children... You want to protect your children... be a part of their lives and don't expect the rest of the world to babysit... or to have to pay for the sitter while you're out getting your nails polished, or your golf balls embossed.
Responsibility is a parent's job.
If not, then you have managed to agrue everyside of this coin without making one lick of sense.
The whole thread here has been about censorship and you've turned it into child abuse.
There are laws against child pornography that is where it should be handled... not by blocking everything that we think might even vaguely be construed as wrong.
The idea of protecting people by limiting their access to information was practiced by the Nazis, South Africa... (both of whom, I believe viewed themselves as conservatives)...ultimately they failed.
And if YOU bothered to read my arguments... the filtering software we have availble doesn't work. It only limits access by deleteing anything that might have something 'naughty' in it. Its programmed to look for words... and some... to just filter out entire domains on the basis of 'There's just too much to process.'
Only thing is... you want to make this into something it isn't. And I for one haven't got the foggiest where you're coming from any more.
Have we had our meds today?
That is exactly correct. We are not just fighting to stop the liberals from coercively imposing pornography and sexual abuse on children. We are also fighting to put a stop to the plague of censorship that the liberals have unleashed on this nation. One day, free speech by honest men will once again be allowed without arbitrary limitations of any kind. Only then will we finally be able to halt permanently the flood of pornography that you so treasure. In the meantime, however, we carry on the fight as best we can.
So... everybody who dissagrees with you is evil and trying to undermind everything you feel is important?
Have you paid attention to anything that's been discussed here or are you just trying to get a rise out of otherwise rational people to prove your pointless point... which seems to be that those who don't agree with you are evil?
You seem to believe that it's okay to destroy children's lives, if that's what it takes to share recipes. The important thing here is that CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS lost out. And the children won.
I'd love to see where you came up with that one...
And first of let me say this ... children are sacred. They should be protected... but you know what... the real threat to children isn't the internet... most children are hurt by people close to them, family members and friends of the family... people they trust. I know... Cause I've seen too many kids I care about messed up by people they should have been able to trust-- people who *should* have been protecting them.
Its a parent's job to protect their kids, and that's done by taking care of them, and paying attention to them... not by pointing your finger at everybody else and saying that if you're against me you're the problem.
You seem ready to sling insults and accusations.. but you give no real support only attitude...
Your assertions are quite clearly the product of a disordered mind. Not to pry, but you do have a long list of criminal convictions on your record, don't you? Heh heh. How did I guess, you ask? It's obvious from your mentally imbalanced outlook. I'll wager that at least two thirds of your convctions are for violent sexual offenses, some of them certainly against children. You wouldn't be fighting to preserve the gay-agenda right to rape children if you didn't have a personal interest in it.
Okay, now I know you're trolling-- Because what you're saying is just so... irrational I can only assume you're low on lithuim.
Just so you know... I'm:
a) Hopelessly Hetero
b) Conservative
c) Christian.
I really am curious where you got your information that anyone against censorship is for doing things so vile and disgusting that it doesn't bear repeating...
This is what I meant by Sane and rational. Something its looking like you are incapably of...
Look at the facts before you start another rant, we'll all thank you for it.
The whole question isn't one of right vs. left and Feminism vs. anything... its about censorship. We can't filter out the enitre world because we don't agree with it. The key is to make educated descions. You don't want your children to see things... please... don't let them see it... be responsible and teach them to be responsible. Carte blanche censorship which never works. The big complaints as I see them are: a) Who decides what's acceptable? b) How is it enforced? Filtering software doesn't work... plain and simple. It limits what is seen based on user set criteria... Ask AOL when it filtered out anything that had the word 'breast' in it. Breast Cancer survivors and cooks lost out. But hey... we all know what those nastly cook types are up to don't we? You can't make everybody happy-- but the key is to remain sane and rational. In the imortal words of Tom Leher - "When properly viewed... everything is lewd"
I don't think that its they're not 'worthy' of a show... I just don't think they can carry a show without changing the characters and that would ruin it in my opinion.