This is one of the things that really pisses me off about people. They would rather stick their heads in the sand than study a problem.
I've propose here on/. that there is a problem in black America just be called a racists because I think there is. Yes there is. Anyone who doesn't think so is a fool. Why are their so many of them in prison , and why are their so many of them being shot by police? White racist say because blacks are inferior to whites. Blacks say its because the white man is keeping them down. But if you call bullshit on ether and want to study the problem with a neutral point of view your evil.
Same with medical mary jane. Goberment based on a 50 year old study say smoking pot has no medical value. They even refuse to reopen the case. Where doctors say that it has tremendous medical value but they can't use it, because the goberment doesn't want to hear it. Its evil....
Same with child porn, pedophilia, and all that shit. Are the effects that ether side say true? Can't study because to study it might bring out some truths that people don't want to hear. What if we did find out that letting pedophiles have access to child porn decreased their urge to rape? No we would rather stick our fingers in our ears and scream real loud than check out an uncomfortable subject scientifically.
Ron Perlman was great (as usual) and little details such as the rooftop conversation with the little boy changed the movie utterly from being a simplistic series of fights to something that genuinely made you laugh and get involved with the characters.
I think I can get behind that. That scene and where "father" gets its were excellent. I went to see Hellboy with the expectation of leaving my brain at the door and watching the big red monster beat up on the bad guys. Hellboy ranks up there as one of my all time favorite romantic comedies. Right next to Aliens. That would be romantic comedy as oppose to just plan romantic such as Debbie Does Dallas.
I liked most of the Blade movies. Pretty good "put your brain in neutral and enjoy the ride" type of movie. I was sort of hoping there would be another but I think we can almost safely say that it will be a while. Say.. 3 years....
Take a person who likes to play with fire (pyromaniac). Like it or not, at SOME POINT they are going to light something like a house or a forest on fire.
That is complete and utter(udder?) BullShit! I love to play with fire. I love to watch things burn, come up with creative ways to set things on fire, I even built a flame thrower when I was a kid. Hell, yeah, I'm a pyromaniac and I'm proud of it. I like to blow shit up too.
Guess what? I've never had the desire to burn down a house, well yeah I have, but only if it would have been a legal burn. Lets just say I've never lit one up. I hate people that start forest fires, what a complete waist of resources and just pure natural splendor.
Heroin is a complete different cow too. You can't compare a pyromaniac, or even a pedophile, to a heroin junky. Heroin itself causes a addiction much like nicotine only stronger. It causes physical discomfort and mental trauma if not acted on. My little fixation with liking to watch things burn causes me none of that.
I assume its the same for pedophiles. They maybe depressed they can't act on their urges but it won't kill them.
But I highly doubt that 40 year old photos of unknown origin make up more then 2% of child pornography on the internet.
Okay, then less address this. Modern pictures of naked children even in lewd or obvious sexual positions designed to stimulate sexual desires. Do they harm the child in question? I'm talking only about nude pictures, not hard core pornography. If so how?
Now I admit that I'm unconformable with this subject but I want to know what people think of this question. I'm having a hard time seeing where even this would bring the world ending harm to said child that the "protect the children" industry is running.
Well actually I'm pretty sure we left the argument of the article about 10 miles ago but I do think you just made my point for me. That point is, you don't know. You assume, and there is a good chance that you are correct but you can't assume you are correct. You have to be correct.
Emotionally I think is wrong for a bunch of grown men to sitting around jerking off to 40 year old pictures of naked children. I feel that it's disgusting, and wrong. Once I disconnect the emotion machine, intellectually I can't find anything illegal with it. Notice, I said illegal, not wrong. I don't see where these people are hurting anyone.
So if we are going to paint all people who look at naked pictures of children with the same brush lets make sure we are doing for the right reason and not simple because we don't like them. Lets make 100% sure that taking pictures of a child naked harms them.
The child in the photo was abused/hurt so that people could trade the photo.
Now lets take this to the next step. Can you prove that child was harmed in taking that photo? That picture was taken 40 years ago. Can you find the child in that picture as an adult and ask her? Now what if it wasn't a crime when that picture was taken? Should it be a crime today to look at it? What if it still isn't a crime?
Up until now we have only been talking about nude pictures not hard core pornography with a child. Can you say with 100% certainty that all children that are capable of having sex are harmed 100% of the time if you take pictures of them having sex? Lets bring Traci Lords back to the table. She was a child legally when her porn career was in full swing. Was she harmed? Should it be crime to watch one of those videos in your own home?
Exactly. Suspicion alone should never be enough to get a warrant but it should be enough to get someone watched. We'll stick to the pedophile theme here.
You get some single man with no kids who likes to go to the park and watch the children play. He'll he brings a lunch and makes a day of it. Suspicious yes, illegal no. Probable cause, no. Now if you see that same man trying to lure a child off alone, now you have probable cause. But is the man just talking to the child? That is suspicious but not enough for probable cause.
m fairly sure you can nail me as a terrorist by my google search records
That is one boat you have plenty of company in. Just the other day I did a google search on lolicon. It was a anime/magna term that I wasn't familiar with so I did what I normally do. I google it. I was treated to a bunch of links to websites feature comic books about sex with underage girls. I closed it immediately of course but its in googles records now.
When I want to know something just about the first thing I do is google it. When Mythbusters blows something up I've googled the bomb material they used. From my google records I look like a pyromainca murdering racist pedophile who wants to be a homosexual elf. What one search for online shouldn't never be used by law enforcement.
On the subject of lolicon I should have wikied instead but I read about is legal status. I understand that child porn picture are illegal because there is a real child involved. I find the subject of lolicon disgusting but should it be illegal? No child is hurt because they are all drawings.
It's also common sense that every black is a criminal and every muslm is a terrorist? You want to live in a society like that? The problem is you are trying to outlaw thought crimes. You can't make someone a criminal because of what they feel or how they think.
Personally I wonder how big this pedophile bogeyman really is. From what I read there is one under every rock. I also have to ask if some sicko's are trading 40 year old picture of naked kids online, as long as they are not actually hurting kids, who gives a fuck?
Child molesters and rapist are a different story. They can do serious harm to children.
If this had been the US government, the Constitution and years of constitutional law and judicial rulings would have required a subpoena, signed by a judge, and pertaining to specific data before Google would give up the information.
I hope you don't expect that to protect you. You see that is how its supposed to work. Here is how it really works. They already have a sympathic judge lined up when they need the subpoena. Its pretty much paperwork anyway. Then they go a trolling. Fine more evidence and get a subpoena for that. There was a time when judges where to stand between you and law enforcement. Now they are on law enforcements side.
Just changing tastes then. I used to like dilbert but it just stopped being funny to me. I don't hate it just don't like it. I still laugh at penny arcade though even though my GF thinks I'm a fucking loon.
It's not the 3.50 a gallon that drives me bonkers. I can handle gas being expensive. It just means I have to plan my trips better and be more efficient. It's the fucking instability that drives me ape shit. Stepping outside to see gas has jumped from 3.25 to 3.40 a gallon over night does it for me.
Even if all this beaker monkey's process did was keep the gas prices stable I would be happy.
Better idea. Just raise the speed limit to 90 mph. Once your average driver starts doing that the survivability of your average accident drops to about zero. After about a month the bodies will stack up like cord wood, the roads will be more free because less people are driving. Thus the consumption of gasoline drops so the environment is cleaner too. With so many less cars on the road the wildlife will benefit, fewer dead critters beside the road. Plus.. the surplus population gets decreased and it will be the good kind of decrease. People stupid enough to drive 90 fucking mph in the first place and those dumb enough to get on the road with them.
indicates that there isn't enough hydrogen in the local neighborhood
I've heard this before, this and there are many other reasons that don't make a pure Bussard ramjet possible. A few years ago I came across these guys. While I don't know how realistic their ship but one thing that did catch my eye was this.
I was especially fascinated by how they address the fuel problem. They created something called an acceleration track. The idea is that fuel is launched before the ship is in packages. The ship would over take each fuel and supply package as it left the system. I always thought that was a elegant solution to the fuel and supply problem.
Flamebait? I was expecting troll or something. When I post a good argument that is usually correct I usually get called a trolls. Ah well, fuck'em. Mod me baby. I have karma to burn
While I do admit that the non round doorknobs are better all around for every one, that is still not my point. If I was to start a business or build a building I would be required by law to have lever style door handles. I would have to set a side a certain area of my parking lot for people I may never to business with at all. It would be required of me to build entrance ramps even if I didn't want too.
If someone didn't like where my entrance ramp was or didn't think it was big enough I could get sued for it. I don't know what is required by law so I'm just going to make these numbers up to illustrate my point. Say the law was 10 out of a 100 for parking spaces. If I had a parking lot that could hold a 100 cars I would be required by law to set aside 10 of those for special needs. I would have to do that even if it was unreasonable. Say there was only handicapped person in town. By law he gets 10 parking spots up front.
Now I'm not against handicapped parking spots, entrance ramps, and non round door knobs. Doing those things is good business sense and just plain good manners. But I should do that because I want to, not because I have too. Same thing with webpages.
Enough is enough. The web is fine the way it is. We don't need to cow down to who thinks they are special an deserver special treatment. Life isn't fair. If you blind, deaf, or mute then that is the way you are.
This is the same kind of thinking that got us crap like ADA. Making it illegal to have a round door knob any more. Mandating that private business put aside special parking places and entry ramps. While all those are good for business no law should REQUIRE a private business to have them.
What happens if laws get passed that require you to have handicapped accessible webpages? Then the web will wind up getting dumbed down to and bogged down to fit a specific minority of people. Business that don't do this will be opened to lawsuits by predatory disabled lawyers and generally everyone suffers.
I'm sorry you can't do all the things I can do but I should have to be made to suffer because you can't. A line as to be drawn somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Or even worse. Instead of macs we could be using.. Amiga's.... *shutter*
Do it does.
This is one of the things that really pisses me off about people. They would rather stick their heads in the sand than study a problem.
I've propose here on /. that there is a problem in black America just be called a racists because I think there is. Yes there is. Anyone who doesn't think so is a fool. Why are their so many of them in prison , and why are their so many of them being shot by police? White racist say because blacks are inferior to whites. Blacks say its because the white man is keeping them down. But if you call bullshit on ether and want to study the problem with a neutral point of view your evil.
Same with medical mary jane. Goberment based on a 50 year old study say smoking pot has no medical value. They even refuse to reopen the case. Where doctors say that it has tremendous medical value but they can't use it, because the goberment doesn't want to hear it. Its evil....
Same with child porn, pedophilia, and all that shit. Are the effects that ether side say true? Can't study because to study it might bring out some truths that people don't want to hear. What if we did find out that letting pedophiles have access to child porn decreased their urge to rape? No we would rather stick our fingers in our ears and scream real loud than check out an uncomfortable subject scientifically.
So what your saying is that an increase in easy access porn has lead to a decrease in rape?
I think I can get behind that. That scene and where "father" gets its were excellent. I went to see Hellboy with the expectation of leaving my brain at the door and watching the big red monster beat up on the bad guys. Hellboy ranks up there as one of my all time favorite romantic comedies. Right next to Aliens. That would be romantic comedy as oppose to just plan romantic such as Debbie Does Dallas.
I liked most of the Blade movies. Pretty good "put your brain in neutral and enjoy the ride" type of movie. I was sort of hoping there would be another but I think we can almost safely say that it will be a while. Say.. 3 years....
That is complete and utter(udder?) BullShit! I love to play with fire. I love to watch things burn, come up with creative ways to set things on fire, I even built a flame thrower when I was a kid. Hell, yeah, I'm a pyromaniac and I'm proud of it. I like to blow shit up too.
Guess what? I've never had the desire to burn down a house, well yeah I have, but only if it would have been a legal burn. Lets just say I've never lit one up. I hate people that start forest fires, what a complete waist of resources and just pure natural splendor.
Heroin is a complete different cow too. You can't compare a pyromaniac, or even a pedophile, to a heroin junky. Heroin itself causes a addiction much like nicotine only stronger. It causes physical discomfort and mental trauma if not acted on. My little fixation with liking to watch things burn causes me none of that.
I assume its the same for pedophiles. They maybe depressed they can't act on their urges but it won't kill them.
Okay, then less address this. Modern pictures of naked children even in lewd or obvious sexual positions designed to stimulate sexual desires. Do they harm the child in question? I'm talking only about nude pictures, not hard core pornography. If so how?
Now I admit that I'm unconformable with this subject but I want to know what people think of this question. I'm having a hard time seeing where even this would bring the world ending harm to said child that the "protect the children" industry is running.
Well actually I'm pretty sure we left the argument of the article about 10 miles ago but I do think you just made my point for me. That point is, you don't know. You assume, and there is a good chance that you are correct but you can't assume you are correct. You have to be correct.
Emotionally I think is wrong for a bunch of grown men to sitting around jerking off to 40 year old pictures of naked children. I feel that it's disgusting, and wrong. Once I disconnect the emotion machine, intellectually I can't find anything illegal with it. Notice, I said illegal, not wrong. I don't see where these people are hurting anyone.
So if we are going to paint all people who look at naked pictures of children with the same brush lets make sure we are doing for the right reason and not simple because we don't like them. Lets make 100% sure that taking pictures of a child naked harms them.
Now lets take this to the next step. Can you prove that child was harmed in taking that photo? That picture was taken 40 years ago. Can you find the child in that picture as an adult and ask her? Now what if it wasn't a crime when that picture was taken? Should it be a crime today to look at it? What if it still isn't a crime?
Up until now we have only been talking about nude pictures not hard core pornography with a child. Can you say with 100% certainty that all children that are capable of having sex are harmed 100% of the time if you take pictures of them having sex? Lets bring Traci Lords back to the table. She was a child legally when her porn career was in full swing. Was she harmed? Should it be crime to watch one of those videos in your own home?
Has that been proven? I mean 100%, is this something that can be tested?
Exactly. Suspicion alone should never be enough to get a warrant but it should be enough to get someone watched. We'll stick to the pedophile theme here.
You get some single man with no kids who likes to go to the park and watch the children play. He'll he brings a lunch and makes a day of it. Suspicious yes, illegal no. Probable cause, no. Now if you see that same man trying to lure a child off alone, now you have probable cause. But is the man just talking to the child? That is suspicious but not enough for probable cause.
That is one boat you have plenty of company in. Just the other day I did a google search on lolicon. It was a anime/magna term that I wasn't familiar with so I did what I normally do. I google it. I was treated to a bunch of links to websites feature comic books about sex with underage girls. I closed it immediately of course but its in googles records now.
When I want to know something just about the first thing I do is google it. When Mythbusters blows something up I've googled the bomb material they used. From my google records I look like a pyromainca murdering racist pedophile who wants to be a homosexual elf. What one search for online shouldn't never be used by law enforcement.
On the subject of lolicon I should have wikied instead but I read about is legal status. I understand that child porn picture are illegal because there is a real child involved. I find the subject of lolicon disgusting but should it be illegal? No child is hurt because they are all drawings.
It's also common sense that every black is a criminal and every muslm is a terrorist? You want to live in a society like that? The problem is you are trying to outlaw thought crimes. You can't make someone a criminal because of what they feel or how they think.
Personally I wonder how big this pedophile bogeyman really is. From what I read there is one under every rock. I also have to ask if some sicko's are trading 40 year old picture of naked kids online, as long as they are not actually hurting kids, who gives a fuck?
Child molesters and rapist are a different story. They can do serious harm to children.
I hope you don't expect that to protect you. You see that is how its supposed to work. Here is how it really works. They already have a sympathic judge lined up when they need the subpoena. Its pretty much paperwork anyway. Then they go a trolling. Fine more evidence and get a subpoena for that. There was a time when judges where to stand between you and law enforcement. Now they are on law enforcements side.
Just changing tastes then. I used to like dilbert but it just stopped being funny to me. I don't hate it just don't like it. I still laugh at penny arcade though even though my GF thinks I'm a fucking loon.
It's not the 3.50 a gallon that drives me bonkers. I can handle gas being expensive. It just means I have to plan my trips better and be more efficient. It's the fucking instability that drives me ape shit. Stepping outside to see gas has jumped from 3.25 to 3.40 a gallon over night does it for me.
Even if all this beaker monkey's process did was keep the gas prices stable I would be happy.
Better idea. Just raise the speed limit to 90 mph. Once your average driver starts doing that the survivability of your average accident drops to about zero. After about a month the bodies will stack up like cord wood, the roads will be more free because less people are driving. Thus the consumption of gasoline drops so the environment is cleaner too. With so many less cars on the road the wildlife will benefit, fewer dead critters beside the road. Plus.. the surplus population gets decreased and it will be the good kind of decrease. People stupid enough to drive 90 fucking mph in the first place and those dumb enough to get on the road with them.
Yes, I'm joking..... I think...
I don't want naked picture of my ass floating around for the next fifteen hundred years....
I wish. making more money with having to do anything. Nope, it just stopped being funny.
Nothing stopped me from accessing the site in windows or in penguin mode. But then I stopped thinking Dilbert was funny a 100 years ago.
I've heard this before, this and there are many other reasons that don't make a pure Bussard ramjet possible. A few years ago I came across these guys. While I don't know how realistic their ship but one thing that did catch my eye was this.
I was especially fascinated by how they address the fuel problem. They created something called an acceleration track. The idea is that fuel is launched before the ship is in packages. The ship would over take each fuel and supply package as it left the system. I always thought that was a elegant solution to the fuel and supply problem.
If xenon is an inert gas, will any inert gas do?
Flamebait? I was expecting troll or something. When I post a good argument that is usually correct I usually get called a trolls. Ah well, fuck'em. Mod me baby. I have karma to burn
While I do admit that the non round doorknobs are better all around for every one, that is still not my point. If I was to start a business or build a building I would be required by law to have lever style door handles. I would have to set a side a certain area of my parking lot for people I may never to business with at all. It would be required of me to build entrance ramps even if I didn't want too.
If someone didn't like where my entrance ramp was or didn't think it was big enough I could get sued for it. I don't know what is required by law so I'm just going to make these numbers up to illustrate my point. Say the law was 10 out of a 100 for parking spaces. If I had a parking lot that could hold a 100 cars I would be required by law to set aside 10 of those for special needs. I would have to do that even if it was unreasonable. Say there was only handicapped person in town. By law he gets 10 parking spots up front.
Now I'm not against handicapped parking spots, entrance ramps, and non round door knobs. Doing those things is good business sense and just plain good manners. But I should do that because I want to, not because I have too. Same thing with webpages.
Enough is enough. The web is fine the way it is. We don't need to cow down to who thinks they are special an deserver special treatment. Life isn't fair. If you blind, deaf, or mute then that is the way you are.
This is the same kind of thinking that got us crap like ADA. Making it illegal to have a round door knob any more. Mandating that private business put aside special parking places and entry ramps. While all those are good for business no law should REQUIRE a private business to have them.
What happens if laws get passed that require you to have handicapped accessible webpages? Then the web will wind up getting dumbed down to and bogged down to fit a specific minority of people. Business that don't do this will be opened to lawsuits by predatory disabled lawyers and generally everyone suffers.
I'm sorry you can't do all the things I can do but I should have to be made to suffer because you can't. A line as to be drawn somewhere.