Here is a good answer to your stupid and hypocritical argument:
Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before America had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that America would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that America would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?
Oh right, Americans only enslaved and murdered the *blacks* captured from Africa... and raped their women. And we all know, for most of the "real" americans, blacks are not really "people" even as of date. How many black presidents have you had in last couple of centuries?
Kettle and black argument about who is more black?
Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before America had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that America would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that America would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?
Copyrights, patents etc. are essentially a deal between the public and companies/innovaters to provide a safer way of releasing their inventions, creations etc. to public without wasting too much time on fighting off copycats. In return, the public gets a cheaper/better deal as well. Why on earth should the public provide special protection support if they are not getting much in return? Why shouldn't the burden of protecting their idea, be on the corporations instead? Let *them* figure out how to keep their idea a secret and still make a much larger profit without worrying about copycat competitors.
If the public sees no direct benefits at all from this deal, without having to pay through the nose for all and any usage, why on earth would we be interest in helping such corporations retain their profit? Let *them* find their own solutions for protecting their idea. why should courts and governments funded by *public* tax money, help out these corporations?
It is stupid to think that without patents, no progress will happen. Steam engine and Railways did get invented. USA and many other countries stole a huge amount of such industrial inventions from Britain and used it without paying any royalties, no? And yet even in such insecure environment, companies still were doing business. Such inventors were merely making lesser profits and going to greater lengths to keep their secrets.
Corporates are just trying to force a lop-sided deal on the public. And public need not keep their end of the bargain either then.
Fine, let them win. Okay, fair use is not a consumer right!
And copyright protection is not a producer right either then.
There is zero reason why they should be given any extra protection by law then. It should be the companies' responsibility to think of the methods of protecting their idea/IP. If joe public is not allowed to have fair use, no reason why *our* tax money should go towards wasting time of courts funded by us, to help out these companies. Let them spend their own money on trying to devise methods to prevent competitors from copying off their idea.
The whole idea of copyrights and patents was for the benefit of the public, not for the companies, by encouraging invention and arts for the benefit of public. the whole deal is null and void if they want to renegade on their part.
If the joe public must pay for everything, so must they.
Actually I *would* argue the latter... that USA should *first* eliminate its own stockpile of nuclear weapons to something matching at *least* the Russian or Chinese levels, and *then* start talking about invading and sanctioning other "dangerous" countries with nukes.
One could easily make the case that they are intentionally wasting a valuable energy source by merely sitting on it and using it as a weapon. Even 1/10th of the pile has been estimated to be capable of decimating the entire planet many times, so in theory that power could have been used to help solve the energy needs of rest of the mankind. Of course, making things better for everybody else sorts of makes people more satisfied and happy, and takes away much of the need for wars. And simultaneously puts two of the the largest American industry out of business.. the weapons industry and the oil industry.
And they are not going to reduce their own stock pile in the least for the same reason. The best way to get your rivals to buy more and more weapons from you directly or indirectly, is if you keep them insecure and scared shitless with the huge pile you have got. It is just pure business.
Oh, I understand the selfish need to watch after own self-interest. It is just the kool-aid of "we are doing it for good of the world! Thank us you ingrates!" that is full of too much gall!!
It-wuz-them-terrorists apart, tell us the official word again why USA should have the biggest pile of nukes/WMDs in the world, while attacking/sanctioning/threatening other countries for possessing/trying to develop any?
Previous answers :
1) We are more RESPONSIBLE about nukes than others!(RTFA)
2) We don't share the knowledge with others(We honestly don't know where israel got those! Seriously! And okay that dictator in pakistan both has WMDs and is profilerating them, but hey... their chief scientist said "ok sorry!"... and plus they are our allies, you know? different rules so the said dictator gets away scott free for something we killed saddam for.)
3) We will never use them! They are too *dangerous* to be *ever* used! (Okay so we dropped a couple on Japanese civilians including women and infants, and we are the only country in history to ever use them... but hey it was *us*... that is different!)
Not to mention that I find it hard to blame ANYONE (not just the pope) for not standing up to the Nazi regime, as it wouldn't have accomplished a damn thing, except to get themselves killed. Martyrs are a nice symbol to rally to, perhaps, but nothing else. You can accomplish a whole hell of a lot less to help anyone at all when you're dead.
Oh yes, I mean what was that Christ guy smoking when he stood up to the high priests and elders? He should have immediately have realized the situation and denounced his personal beliefs and answered the priests and elders in a way that would have pleased them. His avowal of his messiahship didn't accomplish a damn thing, except to get him killed. Martyrs like Jesus Christ are a nice symbol to rally to, perhaps, but nothing else. He accomplished a whole hell of a lot less to help anyone at all, when he was dead.
Oh yes, I clearly see how these two situations are similar. The children in Iraq, who are stealing to get the food they need to live, are on the same moral level as priests who molest children, who need their sexual gratification to live! I tip my hat to you sir, not many would be able to see how these two situations are so similar.
But since when has religion, especially the church and Islamic clergy, have accepted any excuses or shown any willingness to accept exceptions? Gays must *not* be allowed to be married... forget that it is nowhere terribly important to Christianity *or* the bible... you *must* convert and follow our customs and worship in *our* designed structures and manner. God won't answer to any other name, or unless you bow to his depiction in form of a cross. I am mocking *your* religion. If you find such misplacement of priorities and importance reprehensible, keep in mind that that is exactly what both Christianity and Islam tend to do. It is not important that we respect our parents. It is not important that we show tolerance for others. It is okay to passively collaborate in systematic murder of those that are different from us. To hell with whatever the new testament really says. It is the old testament that is important!
But gays getting married? Priests not being celibate? Pre-marital sex? *That* we totally get worked up on! How dare they? Our religion and way of life will be destroyed if some folks were allowed to do what ever they wanted, in privacy, and if these people who are different were allowed to consider themselves to be our equal! Heaven forbid, if the old testament which Jesus was not even much concerned with, is trifled with, in any manner... because we are still secretly jews you know? How dare they preach about evolution? Jesus may have not said anything to contradict it, but hell with Jesus! Our religion is all about a guy eating an apple offered by a woman made out of a rib, who was incited to do it on advice of a snake in a garden!
"Christians" would readily vote for a government that enforces sanctions that cause the death of million of infants. That is fine... no problem! It is better that they die. It is just far more important that they don't have sex with an older person. Yeah, we know that our granddads married and had sex with 12 year old girls back in old days... but you know... these things are bad now. Okay so the age of consent in US is as low as 13 or 14 in many states... a 14 year old may have sex with a 16 year old... we don't have problem with *that*... it is terribly important that they don't do it with an older person. And those infants we won't allow medicines and drugs to be supplied to? Well they are in other countries and not of our religion... every one knows christian compassion thing is meant to be applied in case of only *christian* infants, right?
For the record, I do consider pedophilia sick. But I believe it is far more important to first fix your laws. If a kid is too young at 14 to have sex with an older person, he is just too young to have sex with anyone else as well... even in their own age group. Period! But amazingly the age of consent laws in both australia and USA are scandalous for any really civilized country!
And Christianity and Islam, dear sir, are a *joke* in their modern context! Mere cults!
Pedophiles, embezzlers, etc etc, all directly did something wrong, which (in my sole estimation, granted) is far less of a crime than failing to stand up when perhaps you should have.
So this law you have about people not standing up and volunteering info being jailed up for obstructing justice... you guys are repealing it this year and freeing anyone arrested for it? If someone doesn't answers the draft in a war he doesnt agrees with, he is not doing anything wrong and won't get jailed? Let me know, when either of those are put into practice by your fine Christian populace.
I guess letting go of someone's past is foreign to you? I'm not intimately familiar with the details of the current pope's youth, but as far as I'm aware, he didn't do anything BAD while in the Hitler Youth, he was just there. imo, that's pretty forgiveable, but I guess you don't agree.
Oh why not? Let us free all the pedophiles, embezzlers, murderers and rapists. Let us let go of all their pasts, no? Or is that foreign to you as well? Or are we being selective about what crimes to punish as per the popular opinion of the day about different terrible crimes of the day i.e. whether practicing witchcraft etc. deserves tortoue and burning alive, or not?
Pope just joined the nazi army and served in the war. He went to serve at a concentration camp, witnessed jewish captives being taken for slaughter and didn't speak out for fear of being arrested and imprisoned himself. You are right... he didn't do anything BAD... in fact he didn't do anything at ALL. He just sold his soul to the devil by not speaking out against evil and even collaborating with evil. But that is okay. We all do that nowadays.
I mean we all know, there is not much higher standard required for being the head of Christianity. It just goes to show that almost *anyone*_(nazi, rapist, and especially pedophiles... that is just a matter of time and probability... stands a chance at becoming the pope. No strength of character or sense of right or wrong is required at all.... isn't that good? It feels so nice to know that your pope is a regular guy, who is not above joining the nazi army in active service to save his skin... cause the other guy who was crucified for sticking to his guns?... who can be like that? Too unrealistic to follow as a role-model. I mean yeah, Christ would have gladly given up his own life to protest and try and stop the slaughter of jews if he was there. But let us get real, we can't follow *his* example. Too hard! So *ofcourse* we need a religious leader who is cowardly and scared like the rest of us normal guys. He makes us feel better about ourselves. Who needs a leader who is better than you and makes you feel uncomfortable and inspiring you to make better choices?
Moreover, it's basically the biggest fallacy ever that maintaining the celibacy of the priesthood perpetuates child sexual abuse. The decisions that those priests make are THEIRS, and theirs alone... not the Vatican's. Hell, I guess since I'm not getting laid, I should be going and molesting little boys, by your logic. Well, except for the fact that no one's forcing it on me, I guess, so I have no one to blame the molestation on.
I agree. Furthermore... all the starving kids in Iraq who steal because they are hungry...or because they don't have any skills or education to get work in a war-shattered country, it is still *their* choice and theirs alone to make the decision to steal or enlist in a terrorist camp for getting cash to buy food and things for their family. Stealing is a sin, even if you are starving and have no food... or even if you need cash to feed your family or for the operation of your daughter. Hell, I guess since I'm not getting food this morning, and I don't have a job, I should be going and stealing food from shops! Unthinkable! Things exist in only black and white and there are no shades of gray. It is not any government's fault for creation an unstable situation.. people are responsible for their own actions!
As someone else so succinctly points out in a thread further down the page, that isn't true at all. If you can't use birth control for religious reasons, don't have sex. It's not hard.
Yes! If tomorrow the pope declares that priests should sleep for just one hour every day, because sleep is a waste of time, since while you are asleep you are not worshipping... well ofcourse, we will deny our bodily needs and obey the pope blindly. If our prists go slight nuts from the lack of sleep and whip out an uzi at the next sunday sermon and shoot down all the chu
"After the fall of Rome, European medicine was dominated by the Church, which adopted the ancient belief that illness was punishment from God and treatable only by prayer and penance. The Church regarded the suffering caused by disease to be the will of God and as a requirement for eternal redemption. Anybody who dared to heal people, outside the authority of the Church, was accused of interfering with the will of God. Folk healers were accused of achieving their successes with the help of the Devil and were called witches. And, the cure, itself, was considered evil by the Church. For eight long centuries, from the fifth to the thirteenth, the godly, anti-science stance of the Church had stood in the way of the development of virtually everything, including medicine and any improvements in the living conditions of the peasant population. Then, in the 13th century, there was a revival of learning, touched off by the crusades which brought contact with the Arab world."
For an institution that insists on inflexibility and on authority/infallibility of an event and philosophy that is dated 2000 years back, the church can hardly escape from its action in their full scope and totality. They can hardly claim, oh that happened 1000 years back, those were different people and then proceed to shove ancient practices, rituals and beliefs down the throats of masses claiming that those are still unmodifiable and infallible.
Christianity as a religion may be a good enough philosophy, but the Church and any such "organized religion" is definitely a mere outdated cult.
And you seriously feel that such people must necessarily be trained, even if they are comfortable with the way they are and are not causing you any harm by being left-handed?
I give up. Someone who sees everyone even slightly different in the least manner, as "undesirable", and needing to be "trained" out of it, is ironically abnormal himself and in need of severe psychiatrical therapy.
Yes we get your brand of "Christianity" perfectly : "love all our brothers and sisters... except homosexuals, muslims, hindus, atheists and people with different skin-tones! The latter need training, operations, skin-grafts and brainwashing to correct their horrible manner of existence!". You know what? you can keep that intolerant, self-righteous philosophy and goto hell that your "merciful" god and religion is so fond of threatening you with, in order to extract compliance. I would stick with the religions and beliefs that are a bit more benevolent and tolerant than Christianity or Islam.
And of course you have no answers for *why* being a gay is a "problem" and exactly for whom it is a problem, and for what good reason?
Newsflash : Except for converts, majority people don't choose to be a christian or hindu or muslim or a budhhist. If you for example were born into a budhhist family, chances are fairly low that you would choose to practice any other religion and rituals instead of what rest of your family is practicing. So please stop talking out of your ass! You have just as much choice in being a certain religion as you have a choice in your nationality/citizenship. If you were born in a british family, you would be an american. If you were born in germany or in Nigeria, you won't have a choice in nationality either. You *might* apply for an australian or canadian citizenship when you grow up, but the percentage is quite small. And baptism is just as much a choice as is a particular citizenship for a newborn i.e. next to none.
*God* may want opposition, but *Christians* apparently don't, based on your own demonstrated intolerance for critics of your religion and your own irrational hatred of gays and lesbians etc.
Gays want to have their cake and eat it too. If homosexuality is inborn, cannot be chosen, then one can test for it and abort the gays in a eugenic fit of madness. Gays, quite rightly, don't want that. But that means that homosexuality is, on some level, chosen. But that means that like every other choice in the world, there are good choices and bad choices and it's reasonable to promote the good and discourage the bad. But gays don't like that because of all that icky moral condemnation. But let's face it, you've got no third choice between scylla and charybdis except demagoguery and a vain hope that nobody's going to notice the BS.
I agree with your logic! I feel exactly the same way about left-handed people! Have you noticed how almost the majority people in the world are right-handed? So it follows that the few that are left-handed people are an abomination against nature! They are evil, I tell you and must repent their sick ways! Nature did not intend for people to be left-handed! Else why would nearly all of the people be right-handed? These left-handed people are vile and just don't want to give up their disgusting habit of preferring to use their left hand instead of right hand! In the interest of natural order and survival of the species, and to keep humanity free from such freaks, I demand that all left handed people be eradicated in a purge! They should be sent to concentrated camps and not be allowed to marry! Their left hand should be chopped off in fact!
"Left-handed people want to have their cake and eat it too. If Left-handedness is inborn, cannot be chosen, then one can test for it and abort the left-handed people in a eugenic fit of madness. Left-handed, quite rightly, don't want that. But that means that Left-handededness is, on some level, chosen. But that means that like every other choice in the world, there are good choices and bad choices and it's reasonable to promote the good and discourage the bad. But left-handed people don't like that because of all that icky moral condemnation. But let's face it, you've got no third choice between left-handedness and right-handedness except ambidexterity and a vain hope that nobody's going to notice the BS."
P.S. You stink, you homophobic dumbass! I am 100% straight(and married) and yet I don't feel threatened by existence of gays and lesbians. It is not like they will convert me into being gay just by existing. I mean I don't see how their bedroom antics harm me or anyone else directly or even indirectly. Your illogical hatred of them points to a definite sexuality-conflict. Are you bothered by their existence, because you feel you might turn into a gay as well? In that case, you quite possibly already are, and are in just denial. And that is what makes you so angry against them!
Dude! What are you talking about??? Even the Shaolin monks respect the sheer deadly destructive powers of a *LAWYER*!!!
Rest assured that if the internet posting was about a *LAWYER* singlehandedly defeating and laying waste to all of the shaolin temple, there would be no refutal at all!
A lawyer would simply get end up showing prior art and a patent-in-progress filed on all of their techniques and get an injunction against the shaolin monks practicing their kung-fu!
Allesged Ninja has started training to master the One-point forearm indestructible defensive shield of Heavenly protection technique to counter the five-point palm exploding heart technique attack!
Pirates have issued an official statement claiming "they will still manage to get both of the other parties, although they are not sure about the role of monks in the conflict! Arrrrr!"
To be fair LJ should possibly provide a tool for the users to verify the links. But yeah, links do not change that frequently all of a sudden for a porn site. And plus LJ is not a democracy. They are simply reserving the right to terminate the accounts that are more trouble than they are worth. if you are a paying customer, they would probably just warn you off first. If there is too much mass-exodus, they would possibly investigate individual cases more cautiously...
But frankly, this is all the fault of Yahoo for giving in. They had user-created chatrooms, which got closed thanks to "think of the children" brigade. It hardly solved any problems. Not like the pedophiles were caught or arrested. Those sickoes were just forced to move elsewhere, making it a cat and mouse game... leaving them still free to prey on kids elsewhere.
But you can bet that after that case, no other company wants to take any risks. It is better to lose a few customers than to be shutdown. I mean especially when such "think of the children" idiots seem too lazy to mind their kids properly on their own. You allowed your representatives to do things based on fear-mongering and now it comes to bite you in the ass indirectly.
For all the "think of the children" nonsense(mind your kids dammit! ask your legislators to put more copson catching those sickoes! ), a quick look at the list of ages of consent in most of the US states is quite illuminating and shocking. Hypocrisy at its finest!
So you would rather that *they* take reponsibility and get shutdown for, any illegal stuff *you* put in your blog?
I bet!
You know, if your landlord declared tomorrow that he is not responsible for any drug trafficking you do from your rented apartment, and you yourself are responsible for your actions, it would hardly be seen as unfair(especially if there are 1000 other tenants in the high-rise, thus making it impossible to check up on all of them individually).
Why is it anyways with America's obsession with sex on the net, while in real life, solicitations of all and any such activities run unhindered and unnoticed? A pedophile can much more easily target the kids of people he knows. Such has always been the case since they already have the advantage of being trusted. It is not like pedophiles were not there without the net.
How hard is it to pull out the cable of your PC and hide it in a lock, when you are not using it? There are computer cases that can be locked you know... if you really think it is that big a threat. If you think internet is a threat then don't allow kids to use it unsupervised. Ask your local libraries and schools to ensure that unsupervised access to public computers is not given to minors. Are you that retarded or lazy to not see the simple solution? Or you are one those guys who couldn't be bothered to give time and attention to your own kids? In that case, you shouldn't be having kids in the first place!
Think of the children indeed! It would be much much better for the children if they just considered merely "thinking" in the first place! Sheesh!
No no, my good man... you are confused! It is MS whose response to Windows security issues comes in 321+ days... Linux responses and patches to security vulnerabilties come much much faster!
Makes sense.
Once the government decides that individual privacy is no longer important or desirable, all in the name of making *their* job easier, why wouldn't corporates follow suite? It is after all easier to monitor journalists rather than upgrading and perfecting their own security policies.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before America had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that America would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that America would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?
IOW, Get off your fucking high horse!
Kettle and black argument about who is more black?
Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before America had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that America would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that America would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?
IOW, Get off your fucking high horse!
Copyrights, patents etc. are essentially a deal between the public and companies/innovaters to provide a safer way of releasing their inventions, creations etc. to public without wasting too much time on fighting off copycats. In return, the public gets a cheaper/better deal as well. Why on earth should the public provide special protection support if they are not getting much in return? Why shouldn't the burden of protecting their idea, be on the corporations instead? Let *them* figure out how to keep their idea a secret and still make a much larger profit without worrying about copycat competitors.
If the public sees no direct benefits at all from this deal, without having to pay through the nose for all and any usage, why on earth would we be interest in helping such corporations retain their profit? Let *them* find their own solutions for protecting their idea. why should courts and governments funded by *public* tax money, help out these corporations?
It is stupid to think that without patents, no progress will happen. Steam engine and Railways did get invented. USA and many other countries stole a huge amount of such industrial inventions from Britain and used it without paying any royalties, no? And yet even in such insecure environment, companies still were doing business. Such inventors were merely making lesser profits and going to greater lengths to keep their secrets.
Corporates are just trying to force a lop-sided deal on the public. And public need not keep their end of the bargain either then.
And copyright protection is not a producer right either then.
There is zero reason why they should be given any extra protection by law then. It should be the companies' responsibility to think of the methods of protecting their idea/IP. If joe public is not allowed to have fair use, no reason why *our* tax money should go towards wasting time of courts funded by us, to help out these companies. Let them spend their own money on trying to devise methods to prevent competitors from copying off their idea.
The whole idea of copyrights and patents was for the benefit of the public, not for the companies, by encouraging invention and arts for the benefit of public. the whole deal is null and void if they want to renegade on their part.
If the joe public must pay for everything, so must they.
One could easily make the case that they are intentionally wasting a valuable energy source by merely sitting on it and using it as a weapon. Even 1/10th of the pile has been estimated to be capable of decimating the entire planet many times, so in theory that power could have been used to help solve the energy needs of rest of the mankind. Of course, making things better for everybody else sorts of makes people more satisfied and happy, and takes away much of the need for wars. And simultaneously puts two of the the largest American industry out of business.. the weapons industry and the oil industry.
And they are not going to reduce their own stock pile in the least for the same reason. The best way to get your rivals to buy more and more weapons from you directly or indirectly, is if you keep them insecure and scared shitless with the huge pile you have got. It is just pure business.
Oh, I understand the selfish need to watch after own self-interest. It is just the kool-aid of "we are doing it for good of the world! Thank us you ingrates!" that is full of too much gall!!
Previous answers :
1) We are more RESPONSIBLE about nukes than others!(RTFA)
2) We don't share the knowledge with others(We honestly don't know where israel got those! Seriously! And okay that dictator in pakistan both has WMDs and is profilerating them, but hey... their chief scientist said "ok sorry!"... and plus they are our allies, you know? different rules so the said dictator gets away scott free for something we killed saddam for.)
3) We will never use them! They are too *dangerous* to be *ever* used! (Okay so we dropped a couple on Japanese civilians including women and infants, and we are the only country in history to ever use them ... but hey it was *us* ... that is different!)
Idiot!
Oh yes, I clearly see how these two situations are similar. The children in Iraq, who are stealing to get the food they need to live, are on the same moral level as priests who molest children, who need their sexual gratification to live! I tip my hat to you sir, not many would be able to see how these two situations are so similar.
But since when has religion, especially the church and Islamic clergy, have accepted any excuses or shown any willingness to accept exceptions? Gays must *not* be allowed to be married... forget that it is nowhere terribly important to Christianity *or* the bible... you *must* convert and follow our customs and worship in *our* designed structures and manner. God won't answer to any other name, or unless you bow to his depiction in form of a cross. I am mocking *your* religion. If you find such misplacement of priorities and importance reprehensible, keep in mind that that is exactly what both Christianity and Islam tend to do. It is not important that we respect our parents. It is not important that we show tolerance for others. It is okay to passively collaborate in systematic murder of those that are different from us. To hell with whatever the new testament really says. It is the old testament that is important!
But gays getting married? Priests not being celibate? Pre-marital sex? *That* we totally get worked up on! How dare they? Our religion and way of life will be destroyed if some folks were allowed to do what ever they wanted, in privacy, and if these people who are different were allowed to consider themselves to be our equal! Heaven forbid, if the old testament which Jesus was not even much concerned with, is trifled with, in any manner... because we are still secretly jews you know? How dare they preach about evolution? Jesus may have not said anything to contradict it, but hell with Jesus! Our religion is all about a guy eating an apple offered by a woman made out of a rib, who was incited to do it on advice of a snake in a garden!
"Christians" would readily vote for a government that enforces sanctions that cause the death of million of infants. That is fine... no problem! It is better that they die. It is just far more important that they don't have sex with an older person. Yeah, we know that our granddads married and had sex with 12 year old girls back in old days... but you know... these things are bad now. Okay so the age of consent in US is as low as 13 or 14 in many states... a 14 year old may have sex with a 16 year old... we don't have problem with *that* ... it is terribly important that they don't do it with an older person. And those infants we won't allow medicines and drugs to be supplied to? Well they are in other countries and not of our religion... every one knows christian compassion thing is meant to be applied in case of only *christian* infants, right?
For the record, I do consider pedophilia sick. But I believe it is far more important to first fix your laws. If a kid is too young at 14 to have sex with an older person, he is just too young to have sex with anyone else as well... even in their own age group. Period! But amazingly the age of consent laws in both australia and USA are scandalous for any really civilized country!
And Christianity and Islam, dear sir, are a *joke* in their modern context! Mere cults!
Pedophiles, embezzlers, etc etc, all directly did something wrong, which (in my sole estimation, granted) is far less of a crime than failing to stand up when perhaps you should have.
So this law you have about people not standing up and volunteering info being jailed up for obstructing justice... you guys are repealing it this year and freeing anyone arrested for it? If someone doesn't answers the draft in a war he doesnt agrees with, he is not doing anything wrong and won't get jailed? Let me know, when either of those are put into practice by your fine Christian populace.
Oh why not? Let us free all the pedophiles, embezzlers, murderers and rapists. Let us let go of all their pasts, no? Or is that foreign to you as well? Or are we being selective about what crimes to punish as per the popular opinion of the day about different terrible crimes of the day i.e. whether practicing witchcraft etc. deserves tortoue and burning alive, or not?
Pope just joined the nazi army and served in the war. He went to serve at a concentration camp, witnessed jewish captives being taken for slaughter and didn't speak out for fear of being arrested and imprisoned himself. You are right... he didn't do anything BAD... in fact he didn't do anything at ALL. He just sold his soul to the devil by not speaking out against evil and even collaborating with evil. But that is okay. We all do that nowadays.
I mean we all know, there is not much higher standard required for being the head of Christianity. It just goes to show that almost *anyone*_(nazi, rapist, and especially pedophiles... that is just a matter of time and probability... stands a chance at becoming the pope. No strength of character or sense of right or wrong is required at all.... isn't that good? It feels so nice to know that your pope is a regular guy, who is not above joining the nazi army in active service to save his skin... cause the other guy who was crucified for sticking to his guns?... who can be like that? Too unrealistic to follow as a role-model. I mean yeah, Christ would have gladly given up his own life to protest and try and stop the slaughter of jews if he was there. But let us get real, we can't follow *his* example. Too hard! So *ofcourse* we need a religious leader who is cowardly and scared like the rest of us normal guys. He makes us feel better about ourselves. Who needs a leader who is better than you and makes you feel uncomfortable and inspiring you to make better choices?
Moreover, it's basically the biggest fallacy ever that maintaining the celibacy of the priesthood perpetuates child sexual abuse. The decisions that those priests make are THEIRS, and theirs alone... not the Vatican's. Hell, I guess since I'm not getting laid, I should be going and molesting little boys, by your logic. Well, except for the fact that no one's forcing it on me, I guess, so I have no one to blame the molestation on.
I agree. Furthermore... all the starving kids in Iraq who steal because they are hungry ...or because they don't have any skills or education to get work in a war-shattered country, it is still *their* choice and theirs alone to make the decision to steal or enlist in a terrorist camp for getting cash to buy food and things for their family. Stealing is a sin, even if you are starving and have no food... or even if you need cash to feed your family or for the operation of your daughter. Hell, I guess since I'm not getting food this morning, and I don't have a job, I should be going and stealing food from shops! Unthinkable! Things exist in only black and white and there are no shades of gray. It is not any government's fault for creation an unstable situation.. people are responsible for their own actions!
As someone else so succinctly points out in a thread further down the page, that isn't true at all. If you can't use birth control for religious reasons, don't have sex. It's not hard.
Yes! If tomorrow the pope declares that priests should sleep for just one hour every day, because sleep is a waste of time, since while you are asleep you are not worshipping... well ofcourse, we will deny our bodily needs and obey the pope blindly. If our prists go slight nuts from the lack of sleep and whip out an uzi at the next sunday sermon and shoot down all the chu
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/his
"After the fall of Rome, European medicine was dominated by the Church, which adopted the ancient belief that illness was punishment from God and treatable only by prayer and penance. The Church regarded the suffering caused by disease to be the will of God and as a requirement for eternal redemption. Anybody who dared to heal people, outside the authority of the Church, was accused of interfering with the will of God. Folk healers were accused of achieving their successes with the help of the Devil and were called witches. And, the cure, itself, was considered evil by the Church. For eight long centuries, from the fifth to the thirteenth, the godly, anti-science stance of the Church had stood in the way of the development of virtually everything, including medicine and any improvements in the living conditions of the peasant population. Then, in the 13th century, there was a revival of learning, touched off by the crusades which brought contact with the Arab world."
For an institution that insists on inflexibility and on authority/infallibility of an event and philosophy that is dated 2000 years back, the church can hardly escape from its action in their full scope and totality. They can hardly claim, oh that happened 1000 years back, those were different people and then proceed to shove ancient practices, rituals and beliefs down the throats of masses claiming that those are still unmodifiable and infallible.
Christianity as a religion may be a good enough philosophy, but the Church and any such "organized religion" is definitely a mere outdated cult.
And you seriously feel that such people must necessarily be trained, even if they are comfortable with the way they are and are not causing you any harm by being left-handed?
I give up. Someone who sees everyone even slightly different in the least manner, as "undesirable", and needing to be "trained" out of it, is ironically abnormal himself and in need of severe psychiatrical therapy.
Yes we get your brand of "Christianity" perfectly : "love all our brothers and sisters ... except homosexuals, muslims, hindus, atheists and people with different skin-tones! The latter need training, operations, skin-grafts and brainwashing to correct their horrible manner of existence!". You know what? you can keep that intolerant, self-righteous philosophy and goto hell that your "merciful" god and religion is so fond of threatening you with, in order to extract compliance. I would stick with the religions and beliefs that are a bit more benevolent and tolerant than Christianity or Islam.
Newsflash : Except for converts, majority people don't choose to be a christian or hindu or muslim or a budhhist. If you for example were born into a budhhist family, chances are fairly low that you would choose to practice any other religion and rituals instead of what rest of your family is practicing. So please stop talking out of your ass! You have just as much choice in being a certain religion as you have a choice in your nationality/citizenship. If you were born in a british family, you would be an american. If you were born in germany or in Nigeria, you won't have a choice in nationality either. You *might* apply for an australian or canadian citizenship when you grow up, but the percentage is quite small. And baptism is just as much a choice as is a particular citizenship for a newborn i.e. next to none.
*God* may want opposition, but *Christians* apparently don't, based on your own demonstrated intolerance for critics of your religion and your own irrational hatred of gays and lesbians etc.
Gays want to have their cake and eat it too. If homosexuality is inborn, cannot be chosen, then one can test for it and abort the gays in a eugenic fit of madness. Gays, quite rightly, don't want that. But that means that homosexuality is, on some level, chosen. But that means that like every other choice in the world, there are good choices and bad choices and it's reasonable to promote the good and discourage the bad. But gays don't like that because of all that icky moral condemnation. But let's face it, you've got no third choice between scylla and charybdis except demagoguery and a vain hope that nobody's going to notice the BS.
I agree with your logic! I feel exactly the same way about left-handed people! Have you noticed how almost the majority people in the world are right-handed? So it follows that the few that are left-handed people are an abomination against nature! They are evil, I tell you and must repent their sick ways! Nature did not intend for people to be left-handed! Else why would nearly all of the people be right-handed? These left-handed people are vile and just don't want to give up their disgusting habit of preferring to use their left hand instead of right hand! In the interest of natural order and survival of the species, and to keep humanity free from such freaks, I demand that all left handed people be eradicated in a purge! They should be sent to concentrated camps and not be allowed to marry! Their left hand should be chopped off in fact!
"Left-handed people want to have their cake and eat it too. If Left-handedness is inborn, cannot be chosen, then one can test for it and abort the left-handed people in a eugenic fit of madness. Left-handed, quite rightly, don't want that. But that means that Left-handededness is, on some level, chosen. But that means that like every other choice in the world, there are good choices and bad choices and it's reasonable to promote the good and discourage the bad. But left-handed people don't like that because of all that icky moral condemnation. But let's face it, you've got no third choice between left-handedness and right-handedness except ambidexterity and a vain hope that nobody's going to notice the BS."
P.S. You stink, you homophobic dumbass! I am 100% straight(and married) and yet I don't feel threatened by existence of gays and lesbians. It is not like they will convert me into being gay just by existing. I mean I don't see how their bedroom antics harm me or anyone else directly or even indirectly. Your illogical hatred of them points to a definite sexuality-conflict. Are you bothered by their existence, because you feel you might turn into a gay as well? In that case, you quite possibly already are, and are in just denial. And that is what makes you so angry against them!
Rest assured that if the internet posting was about a *LAWYER* singlehandedly defeating and laying waste to all of the shaolin temple, there would be no refutal at all!
A lawyer would simply get end up showing prior art and a patent-in-progress filed on all of their techniques and get an injunction against the shaolin monks practicing their kung-fu!
Fear the deadly powers of a *LAWYER*!!!
Allesged Ninja has started training to master the One-point forearm indestructible defensive shield of Heavenly protection technique to counter the five-point palm exploding heart technique attack!
Pirates have issued an official statement claiming "they will still manage to get both of the other parties, although they are not sure about the role of monks in the conflict! Arrrrr!"
But frankly, this is all the fault of Yahoo for giving in. They had user-created chatrooms, which got closed thanks to "think of the children" brigade. It hardly solved any problems. Not like the pedophiles were caught or arrested. Those sickoes were just forced to move elsewhere, making it a cat and mouse game... leaving them still free to prey on kids elsewhere.
But you can bet that after that case, no other company wants to take any risks. It is better to lose a few customers than to be shutdown. I mean especially when such "think of the children" idiots seem too lazy to mind their kids properly on their own. You allowed your representatives to do things based on fear-mongering and now it comes to bite you in the ass indirectly.
For all the "think of the children" nonsense(mind your kids dammit! ask your legislators to put more copson catching those sickoes! ), a quick look at the list of ages of consent in most of the US states is quite illuminating and shocking. Hypocrisy at its finest!
my bad ! put in that italics tag by mistake.
I bet!
You know, if your landlord declared tomorrow that he is not responsible for any drug trafficking you do from your rented apartment, and you yourself are responsible for your actions, it would hardly be seen as unfair(especially if there are 1000 other tenants in the high-rise, thus making it impossible to check up on all of them individually).
Why is it anyways with America's obsession with sex on the net, while in real life, solicitations of all and any such activities run unhindered and unnoticed? A pedophile can much more easily target the kids of people he knows. Such has always been the case since they already have the advantage of being trusted. It is not like pedophiles were not there without the net.
How hard is it to pull out the cable of your PC and hide it in a lock, when you are not using it? There are computer cases that can be locked you know... if you really think it is that big a threat. If you think internet is a threat then don't allow kids to use it unsupervised. Ask your local libraries and schools to ensure that unsupervised access to public computers is not given to minors. Are you that retarded or lazy to not see the simple solution? Or you are one those guys who couldn't be bothered to give time and attention to your own kids? In that case, you shouldn't be having kids in the first place!
Think of the children indeed! It would be much much better for the children if they just considered merely "thinking" in the first place! Sheesh!
"Nothing to see here. Move along".
No no, my good man... you are confused! It is MS whose response to Windows security issues comes in 321+ days... Linux responses and patches to security vulnerabilties come much much faster!
*whooosh* .... looks like the sarcasm flew past you!
Oh you mean like George Bush lied about those WMDs? i agree.
Makes sense. Once the government decides that individual privacy is no longer important or desirable, all in the name of making *their* job easier, why wouldn't corporates follow suite? It is after all easier to monitor journalists rather than upgrading and perfecting their own security policies.
R.I.P RIAA!!!