as if it were incredibly easy for a western democracy to suddenly turn into iran
which is exactly the notion i am communicating: that a lot of retards here think we are a heartbeat away from outright authoritarian statehood, because we censor child porn
this is exactly the notion i am getting at here
i await your bloviating about why this isn't EXACTLY the subtle nuance i am getting at
what a fucking intellectually dishonest asshole you are
if i assert that in most threads on slashdot about microsoft there is a negativity, according to your standards, i need to find that 90% of the comments in threads about microsoft say "i find my opinion of microsoft to be negative"
it has to be 90%
and it has to be pendantically aping my words
all of which is bullshit
surely you don't assert there is positive love for microsoft on this site, right?
then surely you wouldn't hold me to the retarded standards you are in this thread to maintain that
i have given you plenty of links, to plenty of threads, that assert exactly what i am saying to anyone who is intellectually honest enough to admit the fucking obvious. you can find any fucking thread on this site on the subject of censorship, and you will find plenty of fucking morons who believe censorship of ANYTHING in the west, even the most vile, is grounds for the west to be the same as the worst authoritarian regimes on the planet in terms of political dissent, etc. modded up to boot, in perfect groupthink masturbation
take ANY of the quotes i have given you, stack it up agains that assertion, and prove me wrong
go ahead, put you rmoney where your mouth is, i have
pedantry. pure and simple. small little shrill mind
this is my assertion:
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
i proved it with a multitude of links. obviously. your pedantry aside, the evidence is obvious a depdendable multitude of typical attitudes in any thread about censorship. its ridiculously obvious. you think you've proven my assertion wrong?
i will now expand my assertion and say that any discussion on slashdot about censorship will involve a critical mass of morons who believe censorship of anything vile in the west is the same as censoring simple political speech in the most authoritarian countries, modded up in groupthink. i have been posting and reading on slashdot for a long time, i know this to be true and obvious
is it your assertion that this is not true?;-)
go ahead, say it: none of this happens on slashdot to any degree
go ahead, say that: say to me in a discussion on slashdot about censorship, one finds no trends, no groupthink, no simplistic "all censorship mad, all censorship the same, censorship of vile things in the liberal west the same as censorship of simple political dissent in authoritarian countries, we're all under fascism already, oh noes the fallacy of the slippery slope.. etc..."
the first link proves the guy can't follow simple directions
the second link is no refutation at all
this is my assertion:
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
i proved it with a multitude of links. obviously. your pedantry aside, the evidence is obvious a depdendable multitude o typical attitudes in any thread about censorship. its ridiculously ovious
i will now expand my assertion and say that any discussion on slashdot about censorship will involve a critical mass of morons who believe censorship of anything vile in the west is the same as censoring simple political speech in the most authoritarian countries, modded up in groupthink. i have been posting and reading on slashdot for a long time, i know this to be true and obvious
is it your assertion that this is not true?;-)
go ahead, say it: none of this happens on slashdot to any degree
go ahead, say that: say to me in a discussion on slashdot about censorship, one finds no trends, no groupthink, no simplistic "all censorship mad, all censorship the same, censorship of vile things in the liberal west the same as censorship of simple political dissent in authoritarian countries, we're all under fascism already, oh noes the fallacy of the slippery slope.. etc..."
i am saying that a different drug should have a different legal attitude
that the same policy on all drugs is illogical, simply because it ignores different effects of different drugs. most importantly: addiction. additionally: inebriation
so, for example, nicotine is highly addictive, but it doesn't inebriate. so you can handle a job/ relationship: legal
lsd is highly inebriating, but not addictive: legal
i support the legalization of marijuana. hell, i even think magic mushrooms and lsd should be legal, if they are used in a controlled environment. because, while they are extremely reality-altering, they are not addictive
but some chemicals, like pcp and meth, are literally life destroyers: they are powerfully chemically addictive and habituating. this means you can't use them for awhile and walk away. they take over your life. where before you had a relationship and a job, now you just have a habit to feed. no, sorry, human willpower is not stronger than these chemical forces
so some drugs must be fought, forever, regardless of the fact the war is never won and regardless of the fact that prohibition feeds organized crime and other social ills. simply because legalization of SOME highly addictive drugs create WORSE negative effects on society than prohibtion of them does. i am all for novel approaches for users: healthcare treatments, for example, rather than stone cold jail. but an addict is an addict is an addict: they need some sort of limits on their freedom, because an addict just uses their freedom to get more drugs
most ironically of all, if you want to get right down to the issue of personal freedoms, guess what: addictive drugs are the most personal freedom destroying force in the world. no harsh fascist intrusive government in the wildest imagination can destroy more personal freedom than an addiction to something like meth can (well, actually, such a government could be that evil by forcefully addicting its citizens to something like meth, but this only further proves my point about some drugs)
alcohol, marijuana, nicotine, lsd... legalize
pcp, oxycodone, methamphetamine... no, sorry, never. these are freedom destorying chemically addicting and habituating monsters that enslave and zombify worse than any government, real or imaginary, ever could. these drugd remain illegal IN THE NAME OF personal freedom
that it is a common moronic refrain on slashdot that censoring something as obviously vile as child porn in the west is the same as what china and iran do to political dissidents
some dude challenged me on this to prove that
so i picked 3 recent threads, said 2-3 of the top 5 comments rated 3 or above say exactly such pantytwisting attitudes
i can extend this to more threads and more comments if you like. because what i say is absolutely true: a lot of morons on slashdot believe censorship of something vile like child porn in the west is the SAME THING as censoring political dissidents in china or egypt, or iran. and these cretinous dolts are modded insightful to boot (showing the idiotic groupthink is self-reinforcing)
i have proven my point, and can find lots more proof. its rock solid
meanwhile, you somehow think that my proof is refuted by your absurdist approach: that i can say anything about anyone and provide any random links. but that's not the same thing as what i am doing. the links i provided actually adhere to my claim. yours do not- which is precisely your point, that they don't adhere to what you are claiming. you are saying i am doing the same thing: my links don't support my claim
but you're wrong. would like to analyze a link of mine? show it does not support my claim? i am open to the challenge (which you won't take on, because you know you will lose). the links i provide actually have to do with what i am claiming. you, in a sarcastic roundabout way, are trying to sever the connection between my claim and my links, but this fails on your part
intellectual property is a house of cards built on higher and higher imaginary concepts and baseless arrogant demands on otherwise normal behavior, ignored outside of the western world, which supposedly champions freedom, but provides carte blanche to corporate entities to claim rights and priveledges over your cultural inheritance. i applaud the creativity of variosu lawyers as they extend the tentacles of what can be owned into higher and higher levels of cognitive output, but it means nothing more than shit, because its all founded on a flawed imoral premise that any of this output can be controlled and owned in the online world in the first place
fuck it all. fuck the entire house of cards that is intellectual property. i'm beyond ignoring it, i'm outright hostile to the notion of intellectual property nowadays. we need some sort of outright sabotage on these fuckers. by which i mean: not real world violence, but outright purposeful disobedience to any of these notions of "i control this" when applied to material which can disseminated and consumed in digital, online form
fuck this western corporate arrogance called intellectual property. its an immoral sham, and kind of a joke, that nayone expects you can control any of this
it's also a sign you can't challenge me on the merits of what i say
what i say about the comments i link to clearly describes their attitude. if i am wrong in any way about this, please find a link and contrast it with my description of that link's attitude
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
the theme of every single one of the comments i portrayed
a constant theme across slashdot whenever this topic comes up
as i originally described: "one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe"
as this entire moronic thread, on your behalf, has illicited furious effort, and not one tiny dent in my original comment, above
you have 3 tons of stubborn shrill pedantry, and not a single fucking brain cell
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
this is my original statement. which you have maintained a shrill constant attack on across many comments now. and you haven't put a dent in it
perhaps you should try a different tack. or, in your moronic stubbornness, continue butting heads agains that which has defeated you multliple times. your choice. not that i expect a wise choice from you
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
i'm beginning to think i'm merely falling for an elaborate troll. i find it hard to believe anyone can be this willfully ignorant. its not stubbornness i'm up against, its a committed troll. please, for the sake of humanity, let it not be you are this woefully retarded
so, here i humor you, troll, or retard, however the case may be:
Anyone familure with the courts already know. If 100% of the population demanded jury trials the system would collapse. The only way they're able to hold it together is that +90% plea to "lessor" charges. The courts are already like the Airline industry as in hurdling cattle. When the population doubles even this stop gap measure won't be enough.
This automation of state control is evidence to me that either the politicians aren't as stupid as the face they put forward or there is a group behind the scenes running the show that do understand exponents.
paranoid schizophrenic #987,654 on slashdot who can't tell emperor palpatine and agent smith from reality
current comment #2 out of top 5 comments above 3 threshold:
What has happened is that a genuinely democratic party, elected admittedly on a flawed and not particularly representative electoral system with a minority of the vote, one which consists of pleasant and well meaning people, has gradually without realizing what it is doing, passed legislation which would enable the British National Party, should it ever take power, to be as unrestrained by legislative limits on its powers as the Nazi Party in Germany 1933.
At the moment what stands between the English and either left or right authoritarianism is tradition, an independent judiciary, and the goodwill of the ruling party. We are effectively Weimar, with all the legal framework any future government will need to turn us at will either into Nazi Germany or the GDR.
omg! england is teh nazis! my panties are bunched up!
current comment #4 out of top 5 comments above 3 threshold:
As a person who has recently (over the past couple of months) done some review and a lot of reading into Nazi Germany, I can see the same types of Authoritarian trends and psychological tendencies to dismiss the worst case scenarios in "Democratic" countries (I scary-quote the word "Democratic" because there appears to be a cultural assumption that Democracy is necessarily equated with Freedom and justice, which, at the most is an accident. Democracy only assumes voting power (to an extant, for the majority of people), and not Freedom from oppression.
omg! there are people i don't like in government! it's just fascism!
if you try to impose your revolutionary concept of what platform the crew should be using. even if it is technically superior. you want to choose the platform they are comfortable and familiar with. beginning and ending of criteria. no, really
let some other guy be the iron fist of the future who imposes the IT juggernaut of tomorrow on an unwitting guinea pig of a film crew. i don't think you are in the position to be that person, unless your employment has some sort of nepotistic infallible guarantee of employment, like: you are the producer's son
it means haggling over a pointless little issue and thinking great decisive factors are involved, when actually nothing but pointless sturm und drang is involved. a tempest in a teapot about nothing of import
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe"
now i just as easily could have then gone to the 2-3 comments i am describing specifically, completely, and reasonably, and actually made those links for each thread. why didn't i? because the thread links and description i gave is just as good
"circletimessquare made a post on Slashdot admitting that he's a pedophile. You can find that post if you look in his history, and he does this all the time. What do you mean you didn't see such a post? I gave you the link, just look for it! I'm not your personal secretary, I don't have to do everything for you! I already proved he's a pedophile, so there! I win!"
if you had said: "in the link i am providing you it is the fourth comment down," you would have a valid analogy, and you would have proven completely that i was a pedophile
anything else i can help you with today dear small minded pedant?
which i will take as an implicit admission of defeat, and obvious moronic stubbornness
some intellectual charity for you:
when i replied to the original commentator with a series of links, i was refuting his assertion with actual proof. i was working to make a point. the only way to now defeat me is to do the same: refute my assertion with actual proof on your end. you need to work to make your point. i don't have to do any more work, my work is done, unless you actually provide me with a link that shows some effort on your part. if you can't or won't do that, the argument is over and i have won
so now its your turn. thats the way an argument happens. you don't win the argument by demanding i provide yet more proof. i have already done that. now it is your job in the argument to do your own work to provide your own argument. it is not my job to make your argument for you, and it is not proof i have lost an argument because i won't fetch links for you
i answered his question directly, succinctly, and completely
my answer is correct and accurate
if you would kindly follow my links and illustrate to me directly where my assertions are wrong, then please do so, and thus prove me wrong, and thus actually demonstrate some authority on the subject
otherwise, my claim stands unchallenged. your post doesn't count as a challenge. all your post does is strangely commit the exact same sins you accuse me of in the same breath. that's some nice self-referential irony, but not much of a coherent response
on how to find the links in the threads i gave you
i didnt link to specific posts because my examples were so numerous. i in fact can find many more threads proving exactly the same thing (basically every time the subject comes up) but merely chose the most recent threads out of expediency and timeliness
if, in the simple specific directions i gave you, you can find an example of where my simple specific directions do not play out exactly as i described, then please, point it out in a response and you will elicit a correction and an apology from me. otherwise, do you really need your handheld that much?
i have proven my point. kindly do the slightest bit of due diligence, and see i am correct. it is not my fault you are more capable of mindless obstinence than simple direction following
and admit when you lose an argument. its plain to anyone else reading this thread
you wanted me to prove my point, i proved it. now you whimper in with a "you didn't prove it enough"
i proved it enough. i am not your google link fetch boy. you want further proof? i gave you the groundwork. now you pound google and prove ME wrong. this whole notion of "you haven't worked google hard enough for my satisfaction" is intellectually dishonest and a loser's tack. now its your turn asshole. otherwise, i stand vindicated, you stand lost
the very idea of a slippery slope is propaganda to stoke you fears, which are obviously well-stoked, since you are functioning on fear rather than logic on this subject matter
for example, here's a slippery slope on another subject matter (so you can appreciate the analogy, since the current subject matter you are stewing in fear over):
"if we legalize marijuana, next they will be legalizing methamphetamine"
100% bullshit. as if there is no pharmacological difference and people can't appreciate that difference in formulating policy
"if we allow gays to marry, next we will have to legalize bestialty and necrophilia"
again: 100% bullshit. as if people can' tell the difference
and now for your "slippery slope":
"if we use censorship on child porn, next we will use it on political speech"
100% pure bullshit. again, as if people are mindless drones who don't think about the implications of the technology they use. as if you somehow have a monopoly on this sort of insight, and everyone else around you is a robot who doesn't think about these things
god i'd hate to live in your small, fearful mind about the other people around you. it must stunt your life experience so much
again: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. the concept is pure demagoguery meant to manipulate your fear, and it apparently works
'The definition of "underage" being whatever arbitrary fucking number people come up with.'
17 is fine by my standards too
8 is not
what about 14?
i don't know
its a grey area
but because 14 is a grey area that means YOU CAN'T TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE 8 YEAR OLD HAVING SEX ON FILM?!
furthermore, what if the 8 year old agreed?
there is a concept, a legal, philosophical, and moral one, called "informed consent"
what this means is, just because someone agrees to something, doesn't make it ok, because obviously an 8 year old has no fucking clue what they are agreeing to, and could be agreeing out of all sorts of manipulated and just plain wrong reasons
so, again, for your intellectual growth:
'The definition of "underage" being whatever arbitrary fucking number people come up with.'
because 14 is a grey area that means YOU CAN'T TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE 8 YEAR OLD?!
again:
because 14 is a grey area that means YOU CAN'T TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE 8 YEAR OLD?!
get THAT through your thick fucking skull
the existence of grey areas does not nullify the existence of truly and obvious vile dark areas, in any moral code
you really need to wake the fuck up
your entire way of thinking about morality and logic is malformed and incomplete
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
moron:
alcohol isn't nearly addictive as meth
its a simple pharmacological fact
so there's a legal difference
does that radical concept have any meaning to you?
as if it were incredibly easy for a western democracy to suddenly turn into iran
which is exactly the notion i am communicating: that a lot of retards here think we are a heartbeat away from outright authoritarian statehood, because we censor child porn
this is exactly the notion i am getting at here
i await your bloviating about why this isn't EXACTLY the subtle nuance i am getting at
what a fucking intellectually dishonest asshole you are
if i assert that in most threads on slashdot about microsoft there is a negativity, according to your standards, i need to find that 90% of the comments in threads about microsoft say "i find my opinion of microsoft to be negative"
it has to be 90%
and it has to be pendantically aping my words
all of which is bullshit
surely you don't assert there is positive love for microsoft on this site, right?
then surely you wouldn't hold me to the retarded standards you are in this thread to maintain that
i have given you plenty of links, to plenty of threads, that assert exactly what i am saying to anyone who is intellectually honest enough to admit the fucking obvious. you can find any fucking thread on this site on the subject of censorship, and you will find plenty of fucking morons who believe censorship of ANYTHING in the west, even the most vile, is grounds for the west to be the same as the worst authoritarian regimes on the planet in terms of political dissent, etc. modded up to boot, in perfect groupthink masturbation
take ANY of the quotes i have given you, stack it up agains that assertion, and prove me wrong
go ahead, put you rmoney where your mouth is, i have
pedantry. pure and simple. small little shrill mind
this is my assertion:
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
i proved it with a multitude of links. obviously. your pedantry aside, the evidence is obvious a depdendable multitude of typical attitudes in any thread about censorship. its ridiculously obvious. you think you've proven my assertion wrong?
i will now expand my assertion and say that any discussion on slashdot about censorship will involve a critical mass of morons who believe censorship of anything vile in the west is the same as censoring simple political speech in the most authoritarian countries, modded up in groupthink. i have been posting and reading on slashdot for a long time, i know this to be true and obvious
is it your assertion that this is not true? ;-)
go ahead, say it: none of this happens on slashdot to any degree
go ahead, say that: say to me in a discussion on slashdot about censorship, one finds no trends, no groupthink, no simplistic "all censorship mad, all censorship the same, censorship of vile things in the liberal west the same as censorship of simple political dissent in authoritarian countries, we're all under fascism already, oh noes the fallacy of the slippery slope.. etc..."
go ahead and tell me this does not happen here
otherwise, i am correct
the first link proves the guy can't follow simple directions
the second link is no refutation at all
this is my assertion:
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
i proved it with a multitude of links. obviously. your pedantry aside, the evidence is obvious a depdendable multitude o typical attitudes in any thread about censorship. its ridiculously ovious
i will now expand my assertion and say that any discussion on slashdot about censorship will involve a critical mass of morons who believe censorship of anything vile in the west is the same as censoring simple political speech in the most authoritarian countries, modded up in groupthink. i have been posting and reading on slashdot for a long time, i know this to be true and obvious
is it your assertion that this is not true? ;-)
go ahead, say it: none of this happens on slashdot to any degree
go ahead, say that: say to me in a discussion on slashdot about censorship, one finds no trends, no groupthink, no simplistic "all censorship mad, all censorship the same, censorship of vile things in the liberal west the same as censorship of simple political dissent in authoritarian countries, we're all under fascism already, oh noes the fallacy of the slippery slope.. etc..."
go ahead and tell me this does not happen
i am saying that a different drug should have a different legal attitude
that the same policy on all drugs is illogical, simply because it ignores different effects of different drugs. most importantly: addiction. additionally: inebriation
so, for example, nicotine is highly addictive, but it doesn't inebriate. so you can handle a job/ relationship: legal
lsd is highly inebriating, but not addictive: legal
alcohol, marijuana: weakly, moderately addictive/ inebriating
but meth? heroin?: highly addictive, highly inebriating: illegal
understand me now?
i support the legalization of marijuana. hell, i even think magic mushrooms and lsd should be legal, if they are used in a controlled environment. because, while they are extremely reality-altering, they are not addictive
but some chemicals, like pcp and meth, are literally life destroyers: they are powerfully chemically addictive and habituating. this means you can't use them for awhile and walk away. they take over your life. where before you had a relationship and a job, now you just have a habit to feed. no, sorry, human willpower is not stronger than these chemical forces
so some drugs must be fought, forever, regardless of the fact the war is never won and regardless of the fact that prohibition feeds organized crime and other social ills. simply because legalization of SOME highly addictive drugs create WORSE negative effects on society than prohibtion of them does. i am all for novel approaches for users: healthcare treatments, for example, rather than stone cold jail. but an addict is an addict is an addict: they need some sort of limits on their freedom, because an addict just uses their freedom to get more drugs
most ironically of all, if you want to get right down to the issue of personal freedoms, guess what: addictive drugs are the most personal freedom destroying force in the world. no harsh fascist intrusive government in the wildest imagination can destroy more personal freedom than an addiction to something like meth can (well, actually, such a government could be that evil by forcefully addicting its citizens to something like meth, but this only further proves my point about some drugs)
alcohol, marijuana, nicotine, lsd... legalize
pcp, oxycodone, methamphetamine... no, sorry, never. these are freedom destorying chemically addicting and habituating monsters that enslave and zombify worse than any government, real or imaginary, ever could. these drugd remain illegal IN THE NAME OF personal freedom
that it is a common moronic refrain on slashdot that censoring something as obviously vile as child porn in the west is the same as what china and iran do to political dissidents
some dude challenged me on this to prove that
so i picked 3 recent threads, said 2-3 of the top 5 comments rated 3 or above say exactly such pantytwisting attitudes
i can extend this to more threads and more comments if you like. because what i say is absolutely true: a lot of morons on slashdot believe censorship of something vile like child porn in the west is the SAME THING as censoring political dissidents in china or egypt, or iran. and these cretinous dolts are modded insightful to boot (showing the idiotic groupthink is self-reinforcing)
i have proven my point, and can find lots more proof. its rock solid
meanwhile, you somehow think that my proof is refuted by your absurdist approach: that i can say anything about anyone and provide any random links. but that's not the same thing as what i am doing. the links i provided actually adhere to my claim. yours do not- which is precisely your point, that they don't adhere to what you are claiming. you are saying i am doing the same thing: my links don't support my claim
but you're wrong. would like to analyze a link of mine? show it does not support my claim? i am open to the challenge (which you won't take on, because you know you will lose). the links i provide actually have to do with what i am claiming. you, in a sarcastic roundabout way, are trying to sever the connection between my claim and my links, but this fails on your part
zzz
to screw in a lightbulb?
answer: fish
there, i've completely demolished the merits of your argument, you lose, and i am now the emperor of france
huzzah!
you've won over the surrealists, but you've just moved the argument into farce, and proved nothing of coherence
congrats on being meaningless!
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
intellectual property is a house of cards built on higher and higher imaginary concepts and baseless arrogant demands on otherwise normal behavior, ignored outside of the western world, which supposedly champions freedom, but provides carte blanche to corporate entities to claim rights and priveledges over your cultural inheritance. i applaud the creativity of variosu lawyers as they extend the tentacles of what can be owned into higher and higher levels of cognitive output, but it means nothing more than shit, because its all founded on a flawed imoral premise that any of this output can be controlled and owned in the online world in the first place
fuck it all. fuck the entire house of cards that is intellectual property. i'm beyond ignoring it, i'm outright hostile to the notion of intellectual property nowadays. we need some sort of outright sabotage on these fuckers. by which i mean: not real world violence, but outright purposeful disobedience to any of these notions of "i control this" when applied to material which can disseminated and consumed in digital, online form
fuck this western corporate arrogance called intellectual property. its an immoral sham, and kind of a joke, that nayone expects you can control any of this
it's also a sign you can't challenge me on the merits of what i say
what i say about the comments i link to clearly describes their attitude. if i am wrong in any way about this, please find a link and contrast it with my description of that link's attitude
otherwise, thanks for the humor
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
the theme of every single one of the comments i portrayed
a constant theme across slashdot whenever this topic comes up
as i originally described: "one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe"
as this entire moronic thread, on your behalf, has illicited furious effort, and not one tiny dent in my original comment, above
you have 3 tons of stubborn shrill pedantry, and not a single fucking brain cell
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
this is my original statement. which you have maintained a shrill constant attack on across many comments now. and you haven't put a dent in it
perhaps you should try a different tack. or, in your moronic stubbornness, continue butting heads agains that which has defeated you multliple times. your choice. not that i expect a wise choice from you
because the moron can't follow simple directions?
please note my reply, satisfying the requirements of my simple directions completely
what the hell is wrong with your retards?
it is clear morons who believe censoring kiddie porn is the same as censoring political speech are all over this site
i've proven it
what do you think you gain by denying that?
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot"
i'm beginning to think i'm merely falling for an elaborate troll. i find it hard to believe anyone can be this willfully ignorant. its not stubbornness i'm up against, its a committed troll. please, for the sake of humanity, let it not be you are this woefully retarded
so, here i humor you, troll, or retard, however the case may be:
1. from thread http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/12/0012255
current comment #1 out of top 5 comments above 3 threshold:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1229763&cid=27920577
paranoid schizophrenic #987,654 on slashdot who can't tell emperor palpatine and agent smith from reality
current comment #2 out of top 5 comments above 3 threshold:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1229763&cid=27918937
omg! england is teh nazis! my panties are bunched up!
current comment #4 out of top 5 comments above 3 threshold:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1229763&cid=27918533
omg! there are people i don't like in government! it's just fascism!
2. from thread http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/23/1846207
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1209673&cid=27694199
if you try to impose your revolutionary concept of what platform the crew should be using. even if it is technically superior. you want to choose the platform they are comfortable and familiar with. beginning and ending of criteria. no, really
let some other guy be the iron fist of the future who imposes the IT juggernaut of tomorrow on an unwitting guinea pig of a film crew. i don't think you are in the position to be that person, unless your employment has some sort of nepotistic infallible guarantee of employment, like: you are the producer's son
it means haggling over a pointless little issue and thinking great decisive factors are involved, when actually nothing but pointless sturm und drang is involved. a tempest in a teapot about nothing of import
that's you and your entire point
for example, i gave 3 links, and i wrote:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1234861&threshold=3&commentsort=1&mode=nested&cid=27974621
"just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe"
now i just as easily could have then gone to the 2-3 comments i am describing specifically, completely, and reasonably, and actually made those links for each thread. why didn't i? because the thread links and description i gave is just as good
"circletimessquare made a post on Slashdot admitting that he's a pedophile. You can find that post if you look in his history, and he does this all the time. What do you mean you didn't see such a post? I gave you the link, just look for it! I'm not your personal secretary, I don't have to do everything for you! I already proved he's a pedophile, so there! I win!"
if you had said: "in the link i am providing you it is the fourth comment down," you would have a valid analogy, and you would have proven completely that i was a pedophile
anything else i can help you with today dear small minded pedant?
"prove it with links"
my response:
links
please to be showing problem in that exchange
k thx bye
which i will take as an implicit admission of defeat, and obvious moronic stubbornness
some intellectual charity for you:
when i replied to the original commentator with a series of links, i was refuting his assertion with actual proof. i was working to make a point. the only way to now defeat me is to do the same: refute my assertion with actual proof on your end. you need to work to make your point. i don't have to do any more work, my work is done, unless you actually provide me with a link that shows some effort on your part. if you can't or won't do that, the argument is over and i have won
so now its your turn. thats the way an argument happens. you don't win the argument by demanding i provide yet more proof. i have already done that. now it is your job in the argument to do your own work to provide your own argument. it is not my job to make your argument for you, and it is not proof i have lost an argument because i won't fetch links for you
you lose sucker
now it falls on you to show us where in my links where my claim is false
if you can't or won't do that, you are guilty of everything you accuse me of
i answered his question directly, succinctly, and completely
my answer is correct and accurate
if you would kindly follow my links and illustrate to me directly where my assertions are wrong, then please do so, and thus prove me wrong, and thus actually demonstrate some authority on the subject
otherwise, my claim stands unchallenged. your post doesn't count as a challenge. all your post does is strangely commit the exact same sins you accuse me of in the same breath. that's some nice self-referential irony, but not much of a coherent response
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
on how to find the links in the threads i gave you
i didnt link to specific posts because my examples were so numerous. i in fact can find many more threads proving exactly the same thing (basically every time the subject comes up) but merely chose the most recent threads out of expediency and timeliness
if, in the simple specific directions i gave you, you can find an example of where my simple specific directions do not play out exactly as i described, then please, point it out in a response and you will elicit a correction and an apology from me. otherwise, do you really need your handheld that much?
i have proven my point. kindly do the slightest bit of due diligence, and see i am correct. it is not my fault you are more capable of mindless obstinence than simple direction following
and admit when you lose an argument. its plain to anyone else reading this thread
you wanted me to prove my point, i proved it. now you whimper in with a "you didn't prove it enough"
i proved it enough. i am not your google link fetch boy. you want further proof? i gave you the groundwork. now you pound google and prove ME wrong. this whole notion of "you haven't worked google hard enough for my satisfaction" is intellectually dishonest and a loser's tack. now its your turn asshole. otherwise, i stand vindicated, you stand lost
buh bye
the very idea of a slippery slope is propaganda to stoke you fears, which are obviously well-stoked, since you are functioning on fear rather than logic on this subject matter
for example, here's a slippery slope on another subject matter (so you can appreciate the analogy, since the current subject matter you are stewing in fear over):
"if we legalize marijuana, next they will be legalizing methamphetamine"
100% bullshit. as if there is no pharmacological difference and people can't appreciate that difference in formulating policy
"if we allow gays to marry, next we will have to legalize bestialty and necrophilia"
again: 100% bullshit. as if people can' tell the difference
and now for your "slippery slope":
"if we use censorship on child porn, next we will use it on political speech"
100% pure bullshit. again, as if people are mindless drones who don't think about the implications of the technology they use. as if you somehow have a monopoly on this sort of insight, and everyone else around you is a robot who doesn't think about these things
god i'd hate to live in your small, fearful mind about the other people around you. it must stunt your life experience so much
again: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. the concept is pure demagoguery meant to manipulate your fear, and it apparently works
you keep changing the subject
'The definition of "underage" being whatever arbitrary fucking number people come up with.'
17 is fine by my standards too
8 is not
what about 14?
i don't know
its a grey area
but because 14 is a grey area that means YOU CAN'T TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE 8 YEAR OLD HAVING SEX ON FILM?!
furthermore, what if the 8 year old agreed?
there is a concept, a legal, philosophical, and moral one, called "informed consent"
what this means is, just because someone agrees to something, doesn't make it ok, because obviously an 8 year old has no fucking clue what they are agreeing to, and could be agreeing out of all sorts of manipulated and just plain wrong reasons
so, again, for your intellectual growth:
'The definition of "underage" being whatever arbitrary fucking number people come up with.'
because 14 is a grey area that means YOU CAN'T TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE 8 YEAR OLD?!
again:
because 14 is a grey area that means YOU CAN'T TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE 8 YEAR OLD?!
get THAT through your thick fucking skull
the existence of grey areas does not nullify the existence of truly and obvious vile dark areas, in any moral code
you really need to wake the fuck up
your entire way of thinking about morality and logic is malformed and incomplete