In the real world brave men do things in wartime they know to be wrong, things against their principles, so that they and others may live in peace, freedom and once again according to their principles at a future date.
Your definition of "brave" must differ from mine.
You sound like a naive sheltered fool who has no clue what bravery is, merely a Sansa-like romantic fantasy of bravery.
You sound like the sort of person who's only slightly less bad than those who support nonsense such as the TSA. It is thanks to those with your mentality (as well as apathy) that such abuses are even happening. Congratulations.
Dead people lose the capability of holding principles.
And? At least they weren't cowards until the very end. People show their true colors in discussions like these; they make it known what they truly care about, and it often isn't freedom.
I was merely responding to "It was a temporary and partial loss of freedom in order to help win a far more fundamental freedom for others." I think such a mentality is poisonous, so I replied. I don't care about semantics.
then the fact that the NSA is just another insult of everything they believe in?
Everything they claim to believe in. I have trouble believing that most people truly care about freedom when they allow it to be sacrificed in the name of preventing terrorism.
Most of the data people have are not that valuable.
Not valuable? Not valuable to you? Even data you believe is utterly worthless to you could be seen as valuable to someone looking to abuse their powers or find out more about you. Hell, someone in the government could just misinterpret what you say and then you'll be harassed for years for some joke you made.
Even if your data truly is worthless, you should still encrypt so as to provide cover those whose data isn't worthless.
They're just realists. Any population that would accept the Patriot Act, getting groped at airports, free speech zones, and other such freedom-violating nonsense without truly doing anything about it (even voting for third parties or writing en masse to representatives) should be treated as nothing more than mentally retarded preschoolers, for that is what they may as well be.
When I want a game console, what I actually want are advertisements! And the Xbox One offers interactive advertisements, no less! Sure, you could just play games to get your fill of interactive content, but why play games when you could watch ads? Who plays games, anyway? Certainly not people who buy the Xbox One; they'll be too busy with ads.
And what does it matter if some people enjoy looking at drawn children having sex? If they're also attracted to real children (which not necessarily all of them are), then it's likely they were that way from the beginning; it seems unlikely that they'd just suddenly start wanting to have sex with real children just because of the drawings.
That said, even if some people have such a desire, society is not going to fall apart. What you're speaking of is not even remotely a problem, and we shouldn't implement your disgusting censorship because of it.
and these limits usually occur at the boundary of safety and public health.
No, I will not accept censorship just because you're a coward. Likewise, I wouldn't accept the TSA even if it worked.
We (at least in the US) are not supposed to be the home of the sniveling cowards.
I'm talking about sexual dysfunction and deviant behaviour, which have always been associated with the decline of civilisations.
Oh, that's why you're talking about taking away fundamental rights? Because you're silly enough to believe that people looking at drawn children will become deviants or some other such nonsense... and that will cause the decline of civilizations? Guess what? That's nonsense. Even if it did turn people into 'deviants' (I think such a notion is absolutely absurd), I doubt there'd be much of a decline.
You're like an alarmist puritan, only you're advocating censorship 'for the children.'
To open the door to child pornography (even the animated sort) is to consent to the poisoning of one's own society. There are worse things than metered and responsible censorship.
You want censorship because you're an irrational coward. What you're saying doesn't even remotely make sense.
There is no poison. There is no problem. It's not the apocalypse.
but also arresting the guy who got the killer drunk and egged him on to do the deed.
No such thing must happen in order to acquire child porn. Given how freely data spreads around on the Internet, I can only imagine that it is perfectly possible to get the pictures/videos without actually dealing with the ones who made them.
And frankly, I'd rather we use more resources to go after the actual rapists and those involved. Attempting to catch people who merely view the material is futile and hardly an accomplishment.
The TSA (and arguably most or all real consequences of the Patriot Act) is a sham, and it's disingenuous to lump together baby formula and baby porn as being even remotely comparable on the danger scale.
What you advocate for is censorship. Freedom is speech and express are fundamental rights. And what the other guy said.
It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that when you have a bell curve or any other spectrum of dangerous behaviour, sanctioning any activity that is known or likely to push that bell curve in the direction of more dangerous activity is socially irresponsible.
I don't care for attitudes that lead to the loss of freedom for everyone.
It is sufficient to show that child pornography, in whatever form it may take, is a contributing factor to child sexual abuse.
You've shown no such thing. I don't believe for a yoctosecond that looking at porn (in this case, pictures of drawn children) will somehow make someone more likely to rape.
It is also nonsensical to suggest that people will go out and rape children if they view images of drawn children having sex or whatever other nonsense you were trying to imply.
Ah, they'll merely respond more sexually to minors. Silly me! It's the apocalypse! Run for the hills!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm sure the TSA is happy that people like you exist; you help give them a sense of legitimacy whether or not you specifically support them.
The government thanks you for your assistance.
Actually it seems you don't care about reality
That would be rather odd if I didn't. I merely have different priorities than you.
The world is not black and white, its gray.
Well, that would depend on who you ask. It would also depend on the topic.
In the real world brave men do things in wartime they know to be wrong, things against their principles, so that they and others may live in peace, freedom and once again according to their principles at a future date.
Your definition of "brave" must differ from mine.
You sound like a naive sheltered fool who has no clue what bravery is, merely a Sansa-like romantic fantasy of bravery.
You sound like the sort of person who's only slightly less bad than those who support nonsense such as the TSA. It is thanks to those with your mentality (as well as apathy) that such abuses are even happening. Congratulations.
Stimson's naivety seems alive and well.
Cowardice is as well.
Dead people lose the capability of holding principles.
And? At least they weren't cowards until the very end. People show their true colors in discussions like these; they make it known what they truly care about, and it often isn't freedom.
Hah! You're killing me.
People of your mentality are killing something much more important.
I was merely responding to "It was a temporary and partial loss of freedom in order to help win a far more fundamental freedom for others." I think such a mentality is poisonous, so I replied. I don't care about semantics.
In the case of that war, yes, it was okay.
No, it wasn't.
It was a temporary and partial loss of freedom in order to help win a far more fundamental freedom for others.
Don't harm innocent people (in this case, by taking away their freedoms) in order to defeat the bad guys; cowards do that.
Losing a war equals losing your freedom.
Fighting and losing while keeping your principles is far better than being a sniveling coward.
Most people have nothing to hide
Everyone has something to hide. Everyone needs privacy.
Everyone especially has something to hide from an abusive and/or incompetent government; one wrong word and you could be harassed for years.
then the fact that the NSA is just another insult of everything they believe in?
Everything they claim to believe in. I have trouble believing that most people truly care about freedom when they allow it to be sacrificed in the name of preventing terrorism.
Most of the data people have are not that valuable.
Not valuable? Not valuable to you? Even data you believe is utterly worthless to you could be seen as valuable to someone looking to abuse their powers or find out more about you. Hell, someone in the government could just misinterpret what you say and then you'll be harassed for years for some joke you made.
Even if your data truly is worthless, you should still encrypt so as to provide cover those whose data isn't worthless.
They're just realists. Any population that would accept the Patriot Act, getting groped at airports, free speech zones, and other such freedom-violating nonsense without truly doing anything about it (even voting for third parties or writing en masse to representatives) should be treated as nothing more than mentally retarded preschoolers, for that is what they may as well be.
I didn't say that they shouldn't be able to do so; I just think paying for something with DRM--any DRM--is harmful.
Why not? I can very well agree with it.
Well, I can't. I'm fundamentally opposed to DRM, so even if someone were to offer me a DRM-infested game at a cheap price, I would not buy it.
I buy AAA titles on steam for five bucks. At those prices, I am totally ok with the DRM.
You certainly shouldn't be.
His point was that you shouldn't pay for this garbage and then be presented with ads; that's absurd.
So whatever they can do, they will do if the market is OK with it.
And since most people seem to be morons, they'll end up doing pretty much everything.
and TODAY nobody is bad-mouthing Steam after over a decade of DRM-encumbered operation.
I am. Plenty of other people still do. So, you're wrong.
When I want a game console, what I actually want are advertisements! And the Xbox One offers interactive advertisements, no less! Sure, you could just play games to get your fill of interactive content, but why play games when you could watch ads? Who plays games, anyway? Certainly not people who buy the Xbox One; they'll be too busy with ads.
And what does it matter if some people enjoy looking at drawn children having sex? If they're also attracted to real children (which not necessarily all of them are), then it's likely they were that way from the beginning; it seems unlikely that they'd just suddenly start wanting to have sex with real children just because of the drawings.
That said, even if some people have such a desire, society is not going to fall apart. What you're speaking of is not even remotely a problem, and we shouldn't implement your disgusting censorship because of it.
and these limits usually occur at the boundary of safety and public health.
No, I will not accept censorship just because you're a coward. Likewise, I wouldn't accept the TSA even if it worked.
We (at least in the US) are not supposed to be the home of the sniveling cowards.
I'm talking about sexual dysfunction and deviant behaviour, which have always been associated with the decline of civilisations.
Oh, that's why you're talking about taking away fundamental rights? Because you're silly enough to believe that people looking at drawn children will become deviants or some other such nonsense... and that will cause the decline of civilizations? Guess what? That's nonsense. Even if it did turn people into 'deviants' (I think such a notion is absolutely absurd), I doubt there'd be much of a decline.
You're like an alarmist puritan, only you're advocating censorship 'for the children.'
To open the door to child pornography (even the animated sort) is to consent to the poisoning of one's own society. There are worse things than metered and responsible censorship.
You want censorship because you're an irrational coward. What you're saying doesn't even remotely make sense.
There is no poison. There is no problem. It's not the apocalypse.
but also arresting the guy who got the killer drunk and egged him on to do the deed.
No such thing must happen in order to acquire child porn. Given how freely data spreads around on the Internet, I can only imagine that it is perfectly possible to get the pictures/videos without actually dealing with the ones who made them.
And frankly, I'd rather we use more resources to go after the actual rapists and those involved. Attempting to catch people who merely view the material is futile and hardly an accomplishment.
The TSA (and arguably most or all real consequences of the Patriot Act) is a sham, and it's disingenuous to lump together baby formula and baby porn as being even remotely comparable on the danger scale.
What you advocate for is censorship. Freedom is speech and express are fundamental rights. And what the other guy said.
It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that when you have a bell curve or any other spectrum of dangerous behaviour, sanctioning any activity that is known or likely to push that bell curve in the direction of more dangerous activity is socially irresponsible.
I don't care for attitudes that lead to the loss of freedom for everyone.
It is sufficient to show that child pornography, in whatever form it may take, is a contributing factor to child sexual abuse.
You've shown no such thing. I don't believe for a yoctosecond that looking at porn (in this case, pictures of drawn children) will somehow make someone more likely to rape.
It is also nonsensical to suggest that people will go out and rape children if they view images of drawn children having sex or whatever other nonsense you were trying to imply.
Ah, they'll merely respond more sexually to minors. Silly me! It's the apocalypse! Run for the hills!