Then there's also the fact that our laws themselves are not necessarily just. Most people don't know about jury nullification, which is what might be needed to stop Snowden from being convicted, assuming that he'd get a fair trial at all.
He broke the law, everybody knows it.
You just said that everyone is innocent unless proven guilty. What the hell is wrong with you?
So this "he won't get a fair trial" is just garbage.
It doesn't take a psychologist to determine that someone has a mentall illness.
If your definition of "mental illness" is sufficiently broad, I suppose that's true. But that just makes it useless and vague. Then there's also the problem that a "mental illness" simply describes a certain type of behavior or a mindset; it's not inherently bad, regardless of what it is.
I can look into someones home and see that they are or are not a hoarder, for example.
And that's part of the problem. You look into their house once, and assume they are a hoarder. Have you considered there may be special circumstances, and that all the stuff is there only temporarily? Have you considered that they simply don't often clean up? There are many possible factors and explanations, and it's so easy to fall prey to bias to reach a certain conclusion.
You told the world about your mental illness in your post.
No, I didn't. The part you quoted was simply a more accurate definition of what a pedophile is. The truth = mental illness?
Do you really think that only a psychologists can see it?
I think that psychologists are mostly pseudoscientists, and yet still put a lot more work into their jobs than your no-thought-put-into-it assessments.
If so, you can add severe delusion to your list of symptoms.
You seem to have a number of delusions, yourself. Maybe it's the sign of a mental illness? Definitely so. I can look into someone's home and see that they are or are not a hoarder, so I can also say with certainty that you, a random person on the Internet, has a mental disorder. Don't try to logic your way around it; you told the world about your mental illness in your post! I'm simply repeating what you yourself revealed to all of us!
Great, so you agree that closed source is a better solution, since "viewing source code" is really irrelevant to its value, and doesn't encourage production of more. Right?
The ability to view and modify open source code supports the production of more in many cases, because that's what those freedoms allow people to do. It's inherent. It's encouraged.
Assuming it does, of course. Now, what does looking at images have to do with being able to look at source codes to spot back doors, bugs, vulnerabilities, etc.? Nothing. You're just a moron. But also, merely *looking* at the code does not produce more code; that's absurd.
Viewing *encourages* production for exactly the same reason that children will continue doing something obnoxious when they realize it's producing a response in someone else.
Unless you have overwhelming, unbiased scientific evidence of your stupid claim, I suggest you stop making it. But you "for the children" idiots don't even know what science is, I bet.
And even if you had such evidence, it would be irrelevant to whether or not child porn should be banned.
Yes, exactly. Do you have a problem with that definition?
I have bad news for you, but you have a serious mental illness.
I have bad news for you, but you're not even part of the already dubious pseudoscience club. How can you scientifically diagnose random people over the Internet as having mental illnesses simply because they disagree with you? That's quite an interesting ability you have there. Even in the pseudoscience club, a lot of work goes into diagnosing people using certain criteria. Would you care to inform them of your amazing scientific shortcut?
You seem very upset that I dispute your claims - I wonder why?
I could say the exact same thing as you. Your problem seems to be that you're under the delusion that someone must be upset if they disagree with you or insult you; that is simply not so.
Or are you going to deny that as well?
Yes. But even if it were true, what is your point in making such a comment? Does it have some deeper meaning?
Snowden leaked a ton of information on the methods NSA uses to do the job we want them to do.
Who is "we"? I know I don't want them to keep exploits in the dark, thereby making everyone less safe (without good reason) just so they can exploit some so-called "terrorists." Fuck that. And to say these things wouldn't be used for other nasty purposes is just naive.
No, it's an important point. By saying you prefer freedom over safety in general (which isn't a false dichotomy, by the way), you make it clear that the issue isn't about safety, but about freedom. That is, even if their programs were *proven* to keep us safe, you would still oppose them out of principle, as people who want to live in a free country should do.
While it's sometimes important to point out when the programs don't actually do what they say they do (whether it be the NSA's surveillance, DUI checkpoints, the TSA, etc.), I feel that it's much more important to let it be known that these things aren't okay under any circumstances.
Which leads to the question, Why doesn't Snowden serve his cause and get his butt home to the USA and willingly stand trial? If his motive is to expose the misdeeds of his employer, this would serve his purpose much better than getting buried in Russia to be used as a pawn by a government with NO boundaries, legal, moral or otherwise.
Because he's not a masochist, a martyr, or any number of other things you might think are righteous. Given the US government's shady activities, there's no reason to think there would be a free trial, that the jury would not turn against him, or that some other horrible outcome wouldn't happen.
IMHO, he's not really interested in the "cause" except that it brings him fame and feeds his ego.
Yeah, because fame and ego is worth having to constantly worry what your future holds because you've pissed off the most powerful government in the world. Right.
In reality he is a coward who dropped and ran when the going got tough.
No one who releases documents that prove the government violated the highest law of the land and basic ethics is a coward. He's done much more good than you, PTA moron.
My definition of "valid" differs from yours, government worshiper. For instance, I think everyone has rights, and that we shouldn't spy on allies or spy on people en masse period. There should be standards even when you go to spy on foreigners.
Beside the name calling thing, it is not true he needs to leak that much information to make his point.
Yes, it is, and I explained why. Without knowing the full extent of the program, it becomes more difficult to defend oneself until it stops, and it also becomes more difficult to stop it from happening again by having the right protections in the right places. Besides that, The People need to know how, exactly, the government is violating the constitution.
For the freedom, it seems obvious to me Snowden has given up on his freedom since he is locked in Russia for an undetermined time in exchange of his security.
You are confusing surrendering everyone's freedoms to the government with going to Russia because your own government will likely strip you of your freedoms if you do not. There is a difference between someone choosing to go to Russia and the government violating people's freedoms. Try to keep up.
Talking coward here...
You or I have done nothing even close to what Snowden has, and likely never will. He's not the coward here.
Why do you show up to support people that break the law and put this country at risk?
It's not Snowden that's putting the country at risk, but people who attack those who reveal the government's wrongdoings under the guise of wanting to enforce the law, without even realizing that not all laws are just and our government is horribly corrupt. People like you.
Snowden didn't need to leak that much information to make his point.
Yes, he did. We deserve to know exactly what how our government is violating the highest law of the land, and that includes details of the program. Both so we can better defend ourselves against this (if only be being aware of it) and so we can see what needs to be done to prevent it from happening again. Knowing all the details lets us make better informed decisions.
You are a coward.
And it seems as well Snowden is prefering safety over freedom.
Alright, what freedoms is Snowden saying that we should sacrifice to the government in exchange for safety? You're a moron.
More importantly, I don't think that something should be banned merely because some people find it offensive, child porn or not. Everything in the world would be banned using that subjective standard.
The knowledge that someone is viewing porn made of you as a child frequently causes psychological stress to child-porn victims throughout their lives.
Well, they're going to have to get over it, because censorship does not work. They will *never* erase all the content. And not only does it not work, but I don't think it's right to prohibit content just because someone is offended by it, and that doesn't change just because the content shows someone being raped (or murdered, etc.). Yes, prohibiting rape is just fine with me, but people looking at/sharing images? No way.
I can't understand people's obsession with children. What about normal rape porn? Content depicting real murder? Why is so much focus on the children? Irrational nonsense.
I think it sounds pretty silly, because it seems to suppose that all pedophiles are rapists are heart and will, in the absence of porn, rape children. *Maybe* this is true for an elite few, but I don't see pedophiles as fundamentally different from the rest of us, except in the sense that they're attracted to prepubescent children. So, then, I ask you: Would you go out and rape people if you couldn't find a sexual partner or did not have porn? I wouldn't.
You're just trying to sell the myth that being pedophile is really just innocent, nothing to worry about.
No, I'm correcting people because they have no idea what "pedophile" means, but you seem to have no problem spreading around myths.
But that trivialises the problem to the extent that in fact, most people are 'pedophiles' because they can see the attraction in innocent beauty - what we call pedophilism is a much more sinister and harmful condition
Correcting an improper use of the term "pedophile" trivializes the problem?
I don't get it. Are you saying that all pedophiles rape? What *are* you saying?
pedophiles are made, not born.
A lot of people argue the same thing about gays. But it doesn't matter, because unless you can present credible, unbiased scientific proof that is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community that this is true 100% of the time (as your statement implies), then it doesn't matter what you believe. This is a matter of science, not of opinion, so get to presenting some science to back up that huge generalization you just made.
But even if it is true, it is *still* irrelevant to the topic at hand.
the bottom line is that pedophiles harm children
No, rapists harm children. Get it right, imbecile. A rapist might be a pedophile, but that doesn't mean all pedophiles are rapists. If you're going to refer to something specific, then at least use the right term.
Playing the 'Evil Govt' card is just your form of voodoo.
No, it isn't, and that doesn't even make sense. I'm saying I oppose government censorship.
It is astonishing, the amount of power people can imagine "The Government" has
The fact is, right now, the government engages in censorship. Do you disagree with this? Because that's what I was saying. Here are some examples: Copyright and the prohibition of child porn. Your move.
That's because the possible harm outweighs the harm of censorship.
Nope. There is no harm.
Even though you obviously disagree, the public, for it's own protection has decreed child porn images illegal. This censorship is held to be in the best interest of society.
Even though it doesn't matter as much as protecting free speech, there is no credible scientific evidence that prohibitions on the content itself does any good.
My own political leanings border on anarchy but in this I have to support censorship as well.
Some free speech defender you are. Do you claim to be a supporter of individual liberties? Do you have any hard scientific evidence that it even protects anyone, or are you part of the mindless "for the children" crowd that gets all riled up and emotional whenever a child is mentioned?
That would be the red scare where numerous innocent people were harassed or had their lives ruined merely because there were some communists around. Just like now with terrorism, where innocent people are having their rights violated in the name of stopping terrorism, and to hell with the constitution and 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.'
Well, I guess you have a fundamental disagreement with society in general.
Yes. I disagree with the society of the past that allowed slavery, Jim Crow laws, and a number of other horrible abominations. If you're trying to appeal to society here to defeat me, it's not going to work; popularity does not affect the validity of my arguments.
However, if you truly believe that free speech trumps all, you would have to be willing to accept that anyone could follow you around (in public spaces at least) telling everyone how many child porn images you have plastered on your walls and how many 8 year olds you have raped, slaughtered and eaten.
Yes, I would. That's part of free speech. Who does the real harm? People who believe baseless accusations and take against you.
You not not complain if someone repeatedly sent emails of all this to your employers.
Now in this case they could be harmful people to society (way more so than a junkie) so having a system to handle them is needed.
Actually, no. Looking at or sharing the images should be completely legal. Anything else is a violation of the first amendment and is nothing more than government censorship.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course Snowden behaved immorally by revealing state secrets regarding our foreign spying
No, he didn't. Foreigners have rights too, and spying on them haphazardly is wrong.
The fly in your ointment here is that like it or not our legal system is fair, especially in criminal cases.
Oh, really? And that's just one example.
Then there's also the fact that our laws themselves are not necessarily just. Most people don't know about jury nullification, which is what might be needed to stop Snowden from being convicted, assuming that he'd get a fair trial at all.
He broke the law, everybody knows it.
You just said that everyone is innocent unless proven guilty. What the hell is wrong with you?
So this "he won't get a fair trial" is just garbage.
Only if you ignore history.
It doesn't take a psychologist to determine that someone has a mentall illness.
If your definition of "mental illness" is sufficiently broad, I suppose that's true. But that just makes it useless and vague. Then there's also the problem that a "mental illness" simply describes a certain type of behavior or a mindset; it's not inherently bad, regardless of what it is.
I can look into someones home and see that they are or are not a hoarder, for example.
And that's part of the problem. You look into their house once, and assume they are a hoarder. Have you considered there may be special circumstances, and that all the stuff is there only temporarily? Have you considered that they simply don't often clean up? There are many possible factors and explanations, and it's so easy to fall prey to bias to reach a certain conclusion.
You told the world about your mental illness in your post.
No, I didn't. The part you quoted was simply a more accurate definition of what a pedophile is. The truth = mental illness?
Do you really think that only a psychologists can see it?
I think that psychologists are mostly pseudoscientists, and yet still put a lot more work into their jobs than your no-thought-put-into-it assessments.
If so, you can add severe delusion to your list of symptoms.
You seem to have a number of delusions, yourself. Maybe it's the sign of a mental illness? Definitely so. I can look into someone's home and see that they are or are not a hoarder, so I can also say with certainty that you, a random person on the Internet, has a mental disorder. Don't try to logic your way around it; you told the world about your mental illness in your post! I'm simply repeating what you yourself revealed to all of us!
Great, so you agree that closed source is a better solution, since "viewing source code" is really irrelevant to its value, and doesn't encourage production of more. Right?
The ability to view and modify open source code supports the production of more in many cases, because that's what those freedoms allow people to do. It's inherent. It's encouraged.
Assuming it does, of course. Now, what does looking at images have to do with being able to look at source codes to spot back doors, bugs, vulnerabilities, etc.? Nothing. You're just a moron. But also, merely *looking* at the code does not produce more code; that's absurd.
Viewing *encourages* production for exactly the same reason that children will continue doing something obnoxious when they realize it's producing a response in someone else.
Unless you have overwhelming, unbiased scientific evidence of your stupid claim, I suggest you stop making it. But you "for the children" idiots don't even know what science is, I bet.
And even if you had such evidence, it would be irrelevant to whether or not child porn should be banned.
Yeah. That's all. Nothing more than that!
Yes, exactly. Do you have a problem with that definition?
I have bad news for you, but you have a serious mental illness.
I have bad news for you, but you're not even part of the already dubious pseudoscience club. How can you scientifically diagnose random people over the Internet as having mental illnesses simply because they disagree with you? That's quite an interesting ability you have there. Even in the pseudoscience club, a lot of work goes into diagnosing people using certain criteria. Would you care to inform them of your amazing scientific shortcut?
You seem very upset that I dispute your claims - I wonder why?
I could say the exact same thing as you. Your problem seems to be that you're under the delusion that someone must be upset if they disagree with you or insult you; that is simply not so.
Or are you going to deny that as well?
Yes. But even if it were true, what is your point in making such a comment? Does it have some deeper meaning?
Snowden leaked a ton of information on the methods NSA uses to do the job we want them to do.
Who is "we"? I know I don't want them to keep exploits in the dark, thereby making everyone less safe (without good reason) just so they can exploit some so-called "terrorists." Fuck that. And to say these things wouldn't be used for other nasty purposes is just naive.
That's a false dichotomy that needs to die.
No, it's an important point. By saying you prefer freedom over safety in general (which isn't a false dichotomy, by the way), you make it clear that the issue isn't about safety, but about freedom. That is, even if their programs were *proven* to keep us safe, you would still oppose them out of principle, as people who want to live in a free country should do.
While it's sometimes important to point out when the programs don't actually do what they say they do (whether it be the NSA's surveillance, DUI checkpoints, the TSA, etc.), I feel that it's much more important to let it be known that these things aren't okay under any circumstances.
Which leads to the question, Why doesn't Snowden serve his cause and get his butt home to the USA and willingly stand trial? If his motive is to expose the misdeeds of his employer, this would serve his purpose much better than getting buried in Russia to be used as a pawn by a government with NO boundaries, legal, moral or otherwise.
Because he's not a masochist, a martyr, or any number of other things you might think are righteous. Given the US government's shady activities, there's no reason to think there would be a free trial, that the jury would not turn against him, or that some other horrible outcome wouldn't happen.
IMHO, he's not really interested in the "cause" except that it brings him fame and feeds his ego.
Yeah, because fame and ego is worth having to constantly worry what your future holds because you've pissed off the most powerful government in the world. Right.
In reality he is a coward who dropped and ran when the going got tough.
No one who releases documents that prove the government violated the highest law of the land and basic ethics is a coward. He's done much more good than you, PTA moron.
No, I don't think so. Free speech trumps any such 'right.' Copyright is garbage, and so is what you're proposing.
My definition of "valid" differs from yours, government worshiper. For instance, I think everyone has rights, and that we shouldn't spy on allies or spy on people en masse period. There should be standards even when you go to spy on foreigners.
Beside the name calling thing, it is not true he needs to leak that much information to make his point.
Yes, it is, and I explained why. Without knowing the full extent of the program, it becomes more difficult to defend oneself until it stops, and it also becomes more difficult to stop it from happening again by having the right protections in the right places. Besides that, The People need to know how, exactly, the government is violating the constitution.
For the freedom, it seems obvious to me Snowden has given up on his freedom since he is locked in Russia for an undetermined time in exchange of his security.
You are confusing surrendering everyone's freedoms to the government with going to Russia because your own government will likely strip you of your freedoms if you do not. There is a difference between someone choosing to go to Russia and the government violating people's freedoms. Try to keep up.
Talking coward here...
You or I have done nothing even close to what Snowden has, and likely never will. He's not the coward here.
Your absolute freedom?
Our constitutional and fundamental freedoms. You know, the things that the government is violating.
Then you go on to list a bunch of irrelevancies that have nothing to do with Snowden, other than the fact that he's... currently in Russia, I guess?
You Snowden lovers are finding it tougher and tougher to defend his crimes.
It's as easy as ever, because law does not equate to morality, even assuming he did break laws. The sooner you fools learn that, the better.
Why do you show up to support people that break the law and put this country at risk?
It's not Snowden that's putting the country at risk, but people who attack those who reveal the government's wrongdoings under the guise of wanting to enforce the law, without even realizing that not all laws are just and our government is horribly corrupt. People like you.
Not doing that makes a mockery of our laws.
Our laws make a mockery of themselves.
This would be a good time to use jury nullification, if the opportunity presents itself.
Snowden didn't need to leak that much information to make his point.
Yes, he did. We deserve to know exactly what how our government is violating the highest law of the land, and that includes details of the program. Both so we can better defend ourselves against this (if only be being aware of it) and so we can see what needs to be done to prevent it from happening again. Knowing all the details lets us make better informed decisions.
You are a coward.
And it seems as well Snowden is prefering safety over freedom.
Alright, what freedoms is Snowden saying that we should sacrifice to the government in exchange for safety? You're a moron.
What, if anything, can a dead person feel?
More importantly, I don't think that something should be banned merely because some people find it offensive, child porn or not. Everything in the world would be banned using that subjective standard.
The knowledge that someone is viewing porn made of you as a child frequently causes psychological stress to child-porn victims throughout their lives.
Well, they're going to have to get over it, because censorship does not work. They will *never* erase all the content. And not only does it not work, but I don't think it's right to prohibit content just because someone is offended by it, and that doesn't change just because the content shows someone being raped (or murdered, etc.). Yes, prohibiting rape is just fine with me, but people looking at/sharing images? No way.
I can't understand people's obsession with children. What about normal rape porn? Content depicting real murder? Why is so much focus on the children? Irrational nonsense.
I think it sounds pretty silly, because it seems to suppose that all pedophiles are rapists are heart and will, in the absence of porn, rape children. *Maybe* this is true for an elite few, but I don't see pedophiles as fundamentally different from the rest of us, except in the sense that they're attracted to prepubescent children. So, then, I ask you: Would you go out and rape people if you couldn't find a sexual partner or did not have porn? I wouldn't.
You're just trying to sell the myth that being pedophile is really just innocent, nothing to worry about.
No, I'm correcting people because they have no idea what "pedophile" means, but you seem to have no problem spreading around myths.
But that trivialises the problem to the extent that in fact, most people are 'pedophiles' because they can see the attraction in innocent beauty - what we call pedophilism is a much more sinister and harmful condition
Correcting an improper use of the term "pedophile" trivializes the problem?
I don't get it. Are you saying that all pedophiles rape? What *are* you saying?
pedophiles are made, not born.
A lot of people argue the same thing about gays. But it doesn't matter, because unless you can present credible, unbiased scientific proof that is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community that this is true 100% of the time (as your statement implies), then it doesn't matter what you believe. This is a matter of science, not of opinion, so get to presenting some science to back up that huge generalization you just made.
But even if it is true, it is *still* irrelevant to the topic at hand.
the bottom line is that pedophiles harm children
No, rapists harm children. Get it right, imbecile. A rapist might be a pedophile, but that doesn't mean all pedophiles are rapists. If you're going to refer to something specific, then at least use the right term.
Playing the 'Evil Govt' card is just your form of voodoo.
No, it isn't, and that doesn't even make sense. I'm saying I oppose government censorship.
It is astonishing, the amount of power people can imagine "The Government" has
The fact is, right now, the government engages in censorship. Do you disagree with this? Because that's what I was saying. Here are some examples: Copyright and the prohibition of child porn. Your move.
To specifically state on a proxy service that you can access sites blocked in the same country as that service is a little dim though.
It's simply the truth. Is truth illegal?
You know, there is an exception to everything.
That's the current reality, which I seek to change in at least a few cases.
You can't legally scream "FIRE" in a crowded public place as a joke.
*yawn*
That's because the possible harm outweighs the harm of censorship.
Nope. There is no harm.
Even though you obviously disagree, the public, for it's own protection has decreed child porn images illegal. This censorship is held to be in the best interest of society.
Even though it doesn't matter as much as protecting free speech, there is no credible scientific evidence that prohibitions on the content itself does any good.
My own political leanings border on anarchy but in this I have to support censorship as well.
Some free speech defender you are. Do you claim to be a supporter of individual liberties? Do you have any hard scientific evidence that it even protects anyone, or are you part of the mindless "for the children" crowd that gets all riled up and emotional whenever a child is mentioned?
That would be the red scare where numerous innocent people were harassed or had their lives ruined merely because there were some communists around. Just like now with terrorism, where innocent people are having their rights violated in the name of stopping terrorism, and to hell with the constitution and 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.'
Well, I guess you have a fundamental disagreement with society in general.
Yes. I disagree with the society of the past that allowed slavery, Jim Crow laws, and a number of other horrible abominations. If you're trying to appeal to society here to defeat me, it's not going to work; popularity does not affect the validity of my arguments.
However, if you truly believe that free speech trumps all, you would have to be willing to accept that anyone could follow you around (in public spaces at least) telling everyone how many child porn images you have plastered on your walls and how many 8 year olds you have raped, slaughtered and eaten.
Yes, I would. That's part of free speech. Who does the real harm? People who believe baseless accusations and take against you.
You not not complain if someone repeatedly sent emails of all this to your employers.
Wrong. I can *complain*; that's free speech too.
Is that a society you are willing to live in?
Yes.
Now in this case they could be harmful people to society (way more so than a junkie) so having a system to handle them is needed.
Actually, no. Looking at or sharing the images should be completely legal. Anything else is a violation of the first amendment and is nothing more than government censorship.