Right. Warrantless wiretapping, a renewed Patriot Act, annoying interference in other countries' affairs (just about every politician loves this), the continued existence of the Patriot Act, warrantless GPS tracking, the assassination of US citizens, and various other rights violations... what a great president!
Obama doesn't care about many important rights just like so many other politicians; he's not great or special at all.
Supposedly you're not talking about banning pornography, yet you've been going on and on about keeping kids safe from an imaginary threat and other such nonsense. What are you talking about, then, and why do you keep talking about people's "right to jerk off" if you're not advocating for a ban on pornography? Regardless, you have no right to not be offended, so the fact that you don't want to see something is 100% irrelevant.
Pornography is NOT protected by the First Amendment.
Except that it is. Nothing in the first amendment says that pornography is an exception, and since we recognize other types of communication and expression, pornography is no exception.
If you're talking about court cases (which are different from the first amendment), then there's always that "I know it when I see it" obscenity nonsense, but I guarantee you there would be problems if someone tried to ban all porn on the US (and indeed, there have been objections to such nonsense).
No real argument then anger sets in lol.
You've had no real argument since the very beginning, instead choosing to attack people's characters or situations.
Now stop trying to bring intelligent parents down to your level by giving the impression that all parents are as ignorant as you.
But that's not the solution, either. Just because some people might abuse something doesn't mean it (in this case, ads on porn sites) should be forbidden.
you mean cry about your freedoms to masturbate and view any content with no thought or care about anyone but yourself.
What the hell are you talking about, censorship lover?
Dude society doesn't work that way.
But it does. That's why this "save the children" nonsense hasn't quite won yet, and that's why pornography is protected by the first amendment in the US. What sort of moron advocates for censorship?
And this article IS about pornography and 1 country trying to make it safer for those who dont want to see pornography.
I wish they'd try to make the country safer by kicking out people who want to throw freedom in the trash in a misguided effort to 'save' the children. People like you. Why don't you just go get molested by the TSA, and see where your safety nonsense takes you?
"Real" how? What sort of nonsense are you playing at? Again, how would saying it to a random parent make it any more correct or incorrect? That makes zero logical sense.
Plenty to say not a stitch of experience or a clue to back anything up.
And what makes you think that? I never revealed anything about myself. Are you a parent? If you are, you're every bit as elitist as the ones I was talking about. You can't handle when someone disagrees with you about anything relating to children, so you grasp at straws and revel in irrelevancies in an effort to 'debunk' the other person.
You love your ad hominems, don't you? This is what I meant by some parents being elitists; they just can't stand it when someone dares to question their judgement, so they grasp at straws and try to find some way to avoid answering the other person's arguments. I dare say everyone knows at least a few children, and everyone knows each child has different personality traits. That combined with the fact that everyone was a child once makes your reply rather puzzling.
That has ZERO to do with what parents want they want something to make their surfing as safe as possible.
And many of the 'threats' they perceive are probably not actually threats anyway.
And i dare you to tell any mother or even father to there face your right to jerk off is far more important the trying to keep there children safe. I dare you.
I don't know where I said anything about jerking off or what that has to do with anything, but if you're telling me that freedom is less important than your "think of the children" nonsense, then you might want to go start your own non-free country, rather than make existing ones worse.
Besides, what if I did tell them that? Are you saying they'd beat me up? Were you trying to imply that might makes right? Your reply is truly a mystery.
Because you're forcing (at least it looked that way) all porn sites to use a certain business model (a paywall). Unless that's somehow not what you meant, it seems like a ridiculous idea. I still maintain that it's unnecessary regardless.
We censor until the mind is ready to consume such information.
Of course.
There is documented evidence that certain stimulus has an incredibly strong effect on a person, such as viewing pictures of people brutally killed, extremely violent pornography etc.
Right. One look at that, and their lives are ruined. It's 100% common for pictures and other such nonsense to have an "incredibly strong effect" (presumably a negative one) on a person, and because of that, it's censorship time. Who needs knowledge when you have ignorance?
I've noticed that many parents seem to be elitist, arrogant, and illogical. For instance, some resort to ad hominem attacks rather than attacking someone's arguments, and others feel that if anyone disagrees with the way they choose to raise their children, that that is evidence that the person is not a parent. It's as if idiotic parents feel insecure about themselves so they try to feel better by bringing every other parent down to their level in their own minds.
And truly know what parents are going through.
Which parents? No True Parent would fail to realize that every child is different. What works for some parents may not work for other parents, so do not conclude that someone is not a parent just because they disagree with you, and try attacking someone's arguments if you believe them to be wrong.
I dunno, maybe because it gets boys thinking that girls are just sex objects and not people.
Nonsense.
And I am CONSTANTLY reading in the news about boys gang-raping girls, and drugging and raping them, and I am pretty sure they don't get these ideas from PBS or NickKids web sites.
And yet the chances of it happening are still absolutely, positively minuscule. You think that something happens often just because the news reports on it whenever they get the opportunity? Nonsense.
If you can't SEE the problem, you ARE the problem.
Fearmongering imbeciles such as yourself are indeed part of the problem.
That's what I think too. If they can't get videos of the stuff, they have to do it themselves.
Because the only thing stopping normal people from being rapists is the fact that they can find porn and/or can get into a relationship with another normal person; both absent, we'd all be rapists. I seriously doubt it's true that a pedophile would magically become a child molester just because they can't find porn.
As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people in one easy stroke because the voices in their head told them to, and the only thing between that latent human homicidal psychosis and my safety is a porno machine, what do I care how many 3d pictures of my cock I have to give up?
That's not a very good devil's advocate because it is easily debunked. Rights are far more important than safety, and you could use that same argument to justify molesting people at random, regardless of their location. If one nut is stopped, who cares about silly old rights!?
That is extremely dangerous thinking, but I fear that most people truly believe such nonsense.
But it also wastes more of their time, which is the point. Although I'd rather people not fly at all, if they must fly, I'd rather they take the pat downs.
Slashdot Mirror
Vanish, troll.
Sorry, your attempt at saving your political side's image failed.
There's no saving anyone who engages in the left/right politics game; they're beyond hope.
Right. Warrantless wiretapping, a renewed Patriot Act, annoying interference in other countries' affairs (just about every politician loves this), the continued existence of the Patriot Act, warrantless GPS tracking, the assassination of US citizens, and various other rights violations... what a great president!
Obama doesn't care about many important rights just like so many other politicians; he's not great or special at all.
Supposedly you're not talking about banning pornography, yet you've been going on and on about keeping kids safe from an imaginary threat and other such nonsense. What are you talking about, then, and why do you keep talking about people's "right to jerk off" if you're not advocating for a ban on pornography? Regardless, you have no right to not be offended, so the fact that you don't want to see something is 100% irrelevant.
Pornography is NOT protected by the First Amendment.
Except that it is. Nothing in the first amendment says that pornography is an exception, and since we recognize other types of communication and expression, pornography is no exception.
If you're talking about court cases (which are different from the first amendment), then there's always that "I know it when I see it" obscenity nonsense, but I guarantee you there would be problems if someone tried to ban all porn on the US (and indeed, there have been objections to such nonsense).
No real argument then anger sets in lol.
You've had no real argument since the very beginning, instead choosing to attack people's characters or situations.
Now stop trying to bring intelligent parents down to your level by giving the impression that all parents are as ignorant as you.
But that's not the solution, either. Just because some people might abuse something doesn't mean it (in this case, ads on porn sites) should be forbidden.
you mean cry about your freedoms to masturbate and view any content with no thought or care about anyone but yourself.
What the hell are you talking about, censorship lover?
Dude society doesn't work that way.
But it does. That's why this "save the children" nonsense hasn't quite won yet, and that's why pornography is protected by the first amendment in the US. What sort of moron advocates for censorship?
And this article IS about pornography and 1 country trying to make it safer for those who dont want to see pornography.
I wish they'd try to make the country safer by kicking out people who want to throw freedom in the trash in a misguided effort to 'save' the children. People like you. Why don't you just go get molested by the TSA, and see where your safety nonsense takes you?
"Real" how? What sort of nonsense are you playing at? Again, how would saying it to a random parent make it any more correct or incorrect? That makes zero logical sense.
Plenty to say not a stitch of experience or a clue to back anything up.
And what makes you think that? I never revealed anything about myself. Are you a parent? If you are, you're every bit as elitist as the ones I was talking about. You can't handle when someone disagrees with you about anything relating to children, so you grasp at straws and revel in irrelevancies in an effort to 'debunk' the other person.
Judged by a non parent? lol Which parents?
Many that I've seen. Are you blind?
Again judged by a non parent?
You love your ad hominems, don't you? This is what I meant by some parents being elitists; they just can't stand it when someone dares to question their judgement, so they grasp at straws and try to find some way to avoid answering the other person's arguments. I dare say everyone knows at least a few children, and everyone knows each child has different personality traits. That combined with the fact that everyone was a child once makes your reply rather puzzling.
That has ZERO to do with what parents want they want something to make their surfing as safe as possible.
And many of the 'threats' they perceive are probably not actually threats anyway.
And i dare you to tell any mother or even father to there face your right to jerk off is far more important the trying to keep there children safe. I dare you.
I don't know where I said anything about jerking off or what that has to do with anything, but if you're telling me that freedom is less important than your "think of the children" nonsense, then you might want to go start your own non-free country, rather than make existing ones worse.
Besides, what if I did tell them that? Are you saying they'd beat me up? Were you trying to imply that might makes right? Your reply is truly a mystery.
Oh, I'm sure.
Because you're forcing (at least it looked that way) all porn sites to use a certain business model (a paywall). Unless that's somehow not what you meant, it seems like a ridiculous idea. I still maintain that it's unnecessary regardless.
We censor until the mind is ready to consume such information.
Of course.
There is documented evidence that certain stimulus has an incredibly strong effect on a person, such as viewing pictures of people brutally killed, extremely violent pornography etc.
Right. One look at that, and their lives are ruined. It's 100% common for pictures and other such nonsense to have an "incredibly strong effect" (presumably a negative one) on a person, and because of that, it's censorship time. Who needs knowledge when you have ignorance?
I've noticed that many parents seem to be elitist, arrogant, and illogical. For instance, some resort to ad hominem attacks rather than attacking someone's arguments, and others feel that if anyone disagrees with the way they choose to raise their children, that that is evidence that the person is not a parent. It's as if idiotic parents feel insecure about themselves so they try to feel better by bringing every other parent down to their level in their own minds.
And truly know what parents are going through.
Which parents? No True Parent would fail to realize that every child is different. What works for some parents may not work for other parents, so do not conclude that someone is not a parent just because they disagree with you, and try attacking someone's arguments if you believe them to be wrong.
That 'solution' just punishes everyone and is completely unnecessary.
Right, because No True Parent would believe such a thing.
How is that logical? It's garbage.
I dunno, maybe because it gets boys thinking that girls are just sex objects and not people.
Nonsense.
And I am CONSTANTLY reading in the news about boys gang-raping girls, and drugging and raping them, and I am pretty sure they don't get these ideas from PBS or NickKids web sites.
And yet the chances of it happening are still absolutely, positively minuscule. You think that something happens often just because the news reports on it whenever they get the opportunity? Nonsense.
If you can't SEE the problem, you ARE the problem.
Fearmongering imbeciles such as yourself are indeed part of the problem.
That's what I think too. If they can't get videos of the stuff, they have to do it themselves.
Because the only thing stopping normal people from being rapists is the fact that they can find porn and/or can get into a relationship with another normal person; both absent, we'd all be rapists. I seriously doubt it's true that a pedophile would magically become a child molester just because they can't find porn.
Another topic is, does looking at cp make pedophiles more likely to molest children?
No until proven otherwise. Even if it did, though, censorship is never the answer.
If people believe the former, even animated cp whose production involved no children at all is not going to be legal.
That's because so many people despise freedom.
kids brains are not done developing
Not done developing != retarded. Now vanish, censorship troll.
Why bother? I don't think it's "inappropriate" at all. That said, I do agree that it's the parents' problem.
Unfortunately, by buying the books anyway, you support the continued existence of the cancer that is DRM.
so you want to do the unprincipled thing
You may feel that downloading such things is "unprincipled," but sure enough, not everyone feels that way.
As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people in one easy stroke because the voices in their head told them to, and the only thing between that latent human homicidal psychosis and my safety is a porno machine, what do I care how many 3d pictures of my cock I have to give up?
That's not a very good devil's advocate because it is easily debunked. Rights are far more important than safety, and you could use that same argument to justify molesting people at random, regardless of their location. If one nut is stopped, who cares about silly old rights!?
That is extremely dangerous thinking, but I fear that most people truly believe such nonsense.
But it also wastes more of their time, which is the point. Although I'd rather people not fly at all, if they must fly, I'd rather they take the pat downs.