That wasn't flamebait, the guy was falsy accusing me of saying things I did not say. sheesh, you pseudo-christians sure like giving each other the ol' reach-around.
Look bone-head, the topic is PORNOGRAPHY! Photos and movies of adults in graphic sexual acts! That's the ADULT (XXX) CONTENT we're talking about.
You're equating imagery in literature to XXX content.
Main Entry: pornography Pronunciation: -fE Function: noun Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at FARE, CARVE 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement 3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction
What a leap that was: Parents threatning to sacrifice their own children, mass murders and genocide, daughters getting their father drunk to have sex with him and get pregnant, mods demanding to have sex with strangers offered to rape a virgin daughter instead, etc.
Web filtering HAS unintentionally blocked bible sites in the past. I didn't make a leap so much as state facts.
Whereas you leapt from a reply to "adult content" to claiming I replied to "a woman tied up and having hardcore sex with 10 guys". Utterly dishonest: You sicken me.
The law just requires the ISPs to OFFER the service.
Why can't the ISPs choose to offer the service or not? Why couldn't the law be that the service must be available? That way, if only one ISP exist, it must offer it, but if an ISP wants to take a chance and offer cheaper unfiltered internet, they can, and let capitalism decide wether or not all ISPs end up offering it?
All it says is that if your customers choose to exercise THEIR right to control what comes into THEIR home.....it's YOUR problem.
They could rely on freedom and capitalism: The ISPs that offer this would get the business from the people who want it, the rest don't. But no. Why enjoy freedom when you can have a government dictating how your business should be run?
people have become disenthralled with the ACLU ever since they seem to have adopted "freedom from religion" as a civil right.
I consider religions to be harmfull. I want to be free of them. I applaud any effort to protect me from them. People should be free to worship or not, as they choose.
The government should stop trying to force ISPs to do their job for them.
Compile configurable lists of offensive materials (with clear and simple explanations of what is considered offensive), and offer on a government website simple tools (for every OSs) and clear instructions on how to block the sites on that list on your computer. In fact, make all o that open source, so it can be configured to suit individuals, instead of having a faceless authority inporing it's own morality on the rest of the population.
No one would file suits to stop that.
They could provide the tools to the ISPs so that no hacker mormon kid can bypass it on the home cmputer, but it shouldn't be the ISP's resposibility to implement this. This is the part that is wrong: passing the buck to the businesses, and imposing a minority's obfuscated views on the rest of society.
Personally, I'd like to see a law that makes it illegal for adult context to appear on a URL unless is has a special extension, something like ".xxx". Then it'd be easy for concerned parents (and wives!) to configure the browser to block anything from that extension.
So on-line bible ressources would be forced to be under the.xxx domain? I like it!
People forget that, but there's a lot of stuff in the bible that is violent and sexual. Ban "adult content", and you ban that too.
There's no consensus on the definition of a blog, but Slashdot is not a blog in any meaningful sense of the word. Things may appear on it in chronological order, but apart from that there is little about it which is blog-esque. A blog-esque Web site consists of postings representing the views and thoughts of an individual, or tiny group. Not so with Slashdot.
Slashdot represents the views of the editors in what they consider 1)Nerdy and 2)Newsworthy. AND they add lil' comments to the articles letting us know how they feel about it.
Are you just lumping together all brown-skinned foriegners into one group? I think you are.
Pretty much. Shared hardship create kinship: "Them" are the various groups of people who are united in their resetment towards the superpower that bombs them. You could take it to mean "muslims" if you wish, they tend to have a kind of "us VS them" mentality where "us" and "them" means "muslims" and "westerners", but then westerners includes all the former colonial powers as well as their overdevolloped former colony.
2)Join the Gesta..., euh, FBI. 3)Serve said politicians a nice spoonfull of their own medicine. 4)Don't forget to videotape them. 5)Wait, while this shit is voted back out of excistance.
You got modded funny. But how do you think that the "intelligence community" gets to make politicians give them more and more power? They know your secrets, and they'll keep them secret... for a price.
Have you tried NOT bombing them for say, one whole year? Because that hasn't happened once in my entire lifetime.
A little study of history shows us that point comes at no reasonable compromise. Furthermore, not everyone is even INTERESTED in reasonable compromise.
And you are right, many people, the U.S. government, for example, are not interrested in reasonable compromise. It's "do as we say, not as we do" while they kill with their own bombs at a ratio of 10 to 1 in reaction to a terrorist bombing.
So, let me get this straight... Having people pledge alliegence to the Country they belong to is a bad thing? That's brainwashing?
It is indoctrination.
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
AND it breaches the separation of church and state. Being a big Jefferson fan, I think that it disgusting.
It is indoctrinating children by having them accept through sheer repetition in the context of a learning instution that 1)They should obey whomever has the flag and B)Their nation is a judeo-christian construct. That is a bad thing if you believe in any of the principles that the man who wrote the declaration of independance and co-wrote the constitution, believed.
It is a good thing, though, if you want a nation filled with people who will have an emotional, irrational reaction to that flag once they've grown up. If you want a significant number of them to accept without question whatever you do in the name of that flag, yes, it is a good thing, because it works.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I see. You just want to argue semantics.
It's not my fault if you don't understand my point and you don't know the meaning of the words you use.
Though the two could be related.
That wasn't flamebait, the guy was falsy accusing me of saying things I did not say. sheesh, you pseudo-christians sure like giving each other the ol' reach-around.
Look bone-head, the topic is PORNOGRAPHY! Photos and movies of adults in graphic sexual acts! That's the ADULT (XXX) CONTENT we're talking about.
You're equating imagery in literature to XXX content.
Main Entry: pornography
Pronunciation: -fE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at FARE, CARVE
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction
Why do car companies have to put in air bags? Why not let the market decide?
Excellent question. I don't want an air bag, and I'm not even allowed to disabble the ones in my car.
Why do cell phone companies have to offer 911 service? Why not let the market decide?
Because it's life and death.
the leap from "adult content" to the Bible.
What a leap that was:
Parents threatning to sacrifice their own children, mass murders and genocide, daughters getting their father drunk to have sex with him and get pregnant, mods demanding to have sex with strangers offered to rape a virgin daughter instead, etc.
Web filtering HAS unintentionally blocked bible sites in the past. I didn't make a leap so much as state facts.
Whereas you leapt from a reply to "adult content" to claiming I replied to "a woman tied up and having hardcore sex with 10 guys". Utterly dishonest: You sicken me.
That ignorant, nonsensical strawman argument gets modded up as insightfull instead of down as troll?
Wow, your kind freaks me out.
I replied to "adult context", he claims I replied to "hardcore sex". The dishonesty level there is quite astounding.
Prohibiting religion is just as wrong as shoving it down someone's throat is.
Who's prohibiting religion?
The law just requires the ISPs to OFFER the service.
Why can't the ISPs choose to offer the service or not?
Why couldn't the law be that the service must be available? That way, if only one ISP exist, it must offer it, but if an ISP wants to take a chance and offer cheaper unfiltered internet, they can, and let capitalism decide wether or not all ISPs end up offering it?
All it says is that if your customers choose to exercise THEIR right to control what comes into THEIR home... ..it's YOUR problem.
They could rely on freedom and capitalism: The ISPs that offer this would get the business from the people who want it, the rest don't. But no. Why enjoy freedom when you can have a government dictating how your business should be run?
I'll stop ranting and take the -6000 flamebait modifiers now.
Fortunatly, you're getting moded up, not down... for now.
You also got at least one new person in your fan list with that post : )
people have become disenthralled with the ACLU ever since they seem to have adopted "freedom from religion" as a civil right.
I consider religions to be harmfull. I want to be free of them. I applaud any effort to protect me from them.
People should be free to worship or not, as they choose.
Wow, the mere suggestion that someone wants to take precautions to keep porn away from young children is making you foam at the mouth in anger.
No it's not. How incredibly stupid of you to assume so.
It says a lot that this guy thinks a 10 years old seeing a woman tied up and having hardcore sex with 10 guys is perfectly appropriate
I don't. I never said anything of the sort, quite the contrary.
Do you always put words in people's mouth like that?
The government should stop trying to force ISPs to do their job for them.
Compile configurable lists of offensive materials (with clear and simple explanations of what is considered offensive), and offer on a government website simple tools (for every OSs) and clear instructions on how to block the sites on that list on your computer. In fact, make all o that open source, so it can be configured to suit individuals, instead of having a faceless authority inporing it's own morality on the rest of the population.
No one would file suits to stop that.
They could provide the tools to the ISPs so that no hacker mormon kid can bypass it on the home cmputer, but it shouldn't be the ISP's resposibility to implement this. This is the part that is wrong: passing the buck to the businesses, and imposing a minority's obfuscated views on the rest of society.
Personally, I'd like to see a law that makes it illegal for adult context to appear on a URL unless is has a special extension, something like ".xxx". Then it'd be easy for concerned parents (and wives!) to configure the browser to block anything from that extension.
.xxx domain? I like it!
So on-line bible ressources would be forced to be under the
People forget that, but there's a lot of stuff in the bible that is violent and sexual. Ban "adult content", and you ban that too.
I'm sorry, but the earrings-on-guys-means-you're-gay thing is twenty years out of date
Don't tell me, tell mr. "I don't hire straight guys with earrings".
Ladies can have a pair, maybe two pairs of ear rings. Guys...unless you are gay, leave the ear rings at home.
Discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation.
a movie with so much promise
Someone needs to watch the Mario Brothers movie... Double Dragon, Street Fighter, Resident Evil, etc.
I wish I hadn't.
how would they be able to stop it? I must be missing something.
Yup, the ROM chip they inted to use to stop it.
Reverse ingen...wha? Oh, was that someting that was legal before the DMCA? How quaint.
these don't even seem like relevant comments any more.
;-)
Hi, you must be new here.
Just wait until you read a thread with the word "evolution" in the subject
There's no consensus on the definition of a blog, but Slashdot is not a blog in any meaningful sense of the word. Things may appear on it in chronological order, but apart from that there is little about it which is blog-esque.
A blog-esque Web site consists of postings representing the views and thoughts of an individual, or tiny group. Not so with Slashdot.
Slashdot represents the views of the editors in what they consider 1)Nerdy and 2)Newsworthy.
AND they add lil' comments to the articles letting us know how they feel about it.
P.S. Stop making up fugly words like blog-esque.
Who are "them"?
Are you just lumping together all brown-skinned foriegners into one group? I think you are.
Pretty much.
Shared hardship create kinship: "Them" are the various groups of people who are united in their resetment towards the superpower that bombs them. You could take it to mean "muslims" if you wish, they tend to have a kind of "us VS them" mentality where "us" and "them" means "muslims" and "westerners", but then westerners includes all the former colonial powers as well as their overdevolloped former colony.
2)Join the Gesta..., euh, FBI.
3)Serve said politicians a nice spoonfull of their own medicine.
4)Don't forget to videotape them.
5)Wait, while this shit is voted back out of excistance.
You got modded funny. But how do you think that the "intelligence community" gets to make politicians give them more and more power? They know your secrets, and they'll keep them secret... for a price.
At what point do they STOP being bugged?
Have you tried NOT bombing them for say, one whole year?
Because that hasn't happened once in my entire lifetime.
A little study of history shows us that point comes at no reasonable compromise.
Furthermore, not everyone is even INTERESTED in reasonable compromise.
And you are right, many people, the U.S. government, for example, are not interrested in reasonable compromise. It's "do as we say, not as we do" while they kill with their own bombs at a ratio of 10 to 1 in reaction to a terrorist bombing.
It is indoctrination.
AND it breaches the separation of church and state. Being a big Jefferson fan, I think that it disgusting.
It is indoctrinating children by having them accept through sheer repetition in the context of a learning instution that 1)They should obey whomever has the flag and B)Their nation is a judeo-christian construct. That is a bad thing if you believe in any of the principles that the man who wrote the declaration of independance and co-wrote the constitution, believed.
It is a good thing, though, if you want a nation filled with people who will have an emotional, irrational reaction to that flag once they've grown up. If you want a significant number of them to accept without question whatever you do in the name of that flag, yes, it is a good thing, because it works.
I really hope being against this type of expansion of the patriot act isn't a conservitive/liberal issue.
If this takes away rights you had, then conservatives should be against it.