It's *also* unenforceable. How many people do you think download things off the Internet? I'd say tens of millions, and that's only in the US. If all those people had to be prosecuted or sued, we'd probably have to build several new courthouses and hire a legion of judges just to handle those cases. That would be impossible. Therefore, the **AA decide to go after only a few offenders, to show the world that they mean business and that you shouldn't feel protected by the "anonymity" of the Internet.
Don't worry. All we have to day is way a couple more years for the Constitution to "evolve" (it's a living organism, remember), and it will be recognized that "people" really means "citizens".
Can't we just say that the constitution is a living document that has now "evolved" to permit such searches because the framers could not have envisioned the particular situations in which this kind of searches should be allowed?
Face it people : the constitution has already been misused to such an extent that it has almost become worthless...
You don't own the content, merely the right to watch it (and some others like copying it for your own use -- provided you don't circumvent a copy protection mechanism -- depending on the country where you live).
I guess plenty of people (or companies) will be glad to have a 100-percent legal alternative to using Windows DLLs, but what the community badly needs now is a legal DVD player. Right now, the only way to watch DVDs on Linux in most Western countries is breaking the law (i.e. the DMCA or its local equivalent), which is clearly a no-no for most users, including myself. The saddest things is that the software is available (PowerDVD Linux), but Cyberlink will only sell it to OEMs. Couldn't someone strike a deal with them and release it ?
And yes, I'm aware that Mandriva includes it, but it's not my distro of choice (and I'm not sure the RPM would work as-is on other distros).
It looks to me like you're confused. What this legislation would do is prevent users from doing something that is, and always has been, legal, namely recording what's broadcast (provided they have legal access to it) for their own private use at a later time. There is no intrinsic difference between "timeshifting" TV shows, and timeshifting radio broadcasts, be them aerial or internet.
Now, they claim that it wouldn't change anything for most people, because it would not prevent you from recording everything, simply from using an automated system that would record only, say, songs by Shakira. Now, how is it a problem if I'm a Shakira fan and would like to listen to all her songs later on? If I have a Tivo, I can record all, say, Numb3rs episodes automatically, therefore eliminating the need to buy Numb3rs DVDs. How is it different?
Add to that that it'd probably be a real pain in the neck to implement properly (apart of course from sending spurious metadata, which would be more an inconvenience than anything), and would prevent us Linux people from listening to any kind of webradio (how likely is it that those special players that prevent you from cherry-picking which songs you want to listen to will be available on Linux?).
Did I also mention that it is perfectly useless, since NOBODY goes through this horribly inefficient process of waiting for songs to be broadcast on a webradio and ripping it, instead of just borrowing a CD from a friend an ripping it, which is faster and will give you better quality (128 kbps for the typical webradio vs perfect digital quality for FLAC)?
This kind of rule would primarily have nefarious consequences, not beneficial, as it would assuredly make prosecutors overlook any case that is not a "slam-dunk". Malicious prosecution can already get you disbarred, and the DA in this case did exactly what he was hired to do : trying to get a conviction on behalf of the state. Remember, you weren't at the trial, you don't know exactly what the experts said in their testimony, you haven't examined the evidence, and what the media says about a case and the reality of it are often widely at variance.
If there *was* indeed a problem, that's what appeals are for.
You know, setting up a Linux server can sometimes be a real pain in the neck too. I have some experience with Linux (helped set up a couple servers, been using it for years on all my computers,etc.), and I can assure you that I've seen some freaky stuff that got me scratching my head... Like the time all I wasn't able to access any directory because the site admin's script didn't get rid of some control characters that ended up messing up the/etc/passwd file read bad.
Or when the SAMBA team "updated" their software and changed the way groups are handled, which is why I'm still running FC5 on my server at home.
Compare what you have to do to set up Apache (edit the config file manually,etc.) to what you *should* have done to solve your problem on Windows, and you'll see that ease of use is not what's making most people use Linux.
Isn't it because most of their user base is comprised of criminals? I'm sure the majority of PCs out there are using illegitimate MS software one way or another.
What I'm about to say doesn't have anything to do with sleep, so mod me down if you want to.
So, here goes :
unlike what most people believe, we creationists do not reject "natural selection", which has been proven. We only reject evolution by means of natural selection, which is an entirely different thing. So, instead of ridiculing something you don't know anything about, maybe you should try to go to a few GOOD creationist websites and learn what we really teach.
Technically, the soldiers are sending themselves off to be killed in Iraq. That's what "all-volunteer" army means. Of course, you're probably one of those left-wing people who believe soldiers are too stupid to make an informed decision, and who can't figure out why somebody would be proud to serve his country because they themselves have never felt that patriotic in the first place.
Or maybe it's because they lack the physical capabilities of serving, with their frail bodies and all that ?
Seriously, can you come up with ONE activity that "conservatives" (such a broad term that it does not really mean anything) want to ban unreasonably ? It's America, not some middle-eastern dictatorship/theocracy.
Well, I should have made it clearer that, apart from the moral decency 99% of people have, I wouldn't kill somebody because vigilantism is also against my religion (that's why killing abortionists is not the right thing to do -- though having a court of law convict them of murder is all right with me).
My unwillingness to kill as you put it is a direct consequence of my beliefs, which supports my claim that it's not the strength of your belief that makes you dangerous, but what those specific beliefs are.
I tend to agree with you that maybe our definitions of fanaticism differ slightly, but I still think it would be unfair to claim that because some people label themselves as Christian fundamentalists and proceed to kill doctors we can infer that strong religious convictions are by themselves dangerous.
What I disagree with is when you claim that Islam is not out to get us. I'd argue that it is, but that most people who identify themselves as Muslims are not. That is major difference : the ideology is quite bloody, but, fortunately for us, most followers of that religion still have morals and know intuitively that, despite what the Quran says, it's not right to beat your wife, or kill innocent civilians.
AS far as education is concerned, I don't care if people learn things that I find objectionable, as long as you don't force it on my kids (not that I have any yet, I'm just projecting myself in the future), and make it as balanced as possible. Which means, among other things, don't have the teachers tell all the kids that homosexuality is all right and just an alternative lifestyle. If they are allowed to do that, they it's not the religiously-neutral public school we should have.
Same thing for evolution : if it's taught, I don't have a problem with that as long as the present evidence against it as well as in favor of it. I'm not asking them to say that the Bible is true, I'll take care of that myself, just not to present a distorted picture of reality that favors their belief system of mine.
This is one of the most intolerant and stupid posts I have ever seen. It's not the fact that you believe strongly in something that is wrong, but what you believe in. If I believe strongly in loving everyone, how does that make me a budding terrorists. I can give you dozens of examples of christian "religious fanatics" who did nothing but help the poor, feed the hungry,etc.
You can be a fundamentalist anything, it's only an adjective, and therefore has no meaning of its own. It's what it modifies that makes the person a threat or not.
I'm a religious fanatic by your definiton, but I'm also a college student who nobody would think of calling "uneducated or ignorant". I don't wish people to be stupid, since with greater knowledge also comes a greater understanding of your faith. And I certainly wouldn't want to blow anything up just because people disagree with my views -- how is killing someone beneficial to me or to God ? That will certainly not convert him so, unless I enjoy seeing people be sent to Hell (which I, along with every true Christian, do not), I don't see what could prompt me to do that.
What if you've just spent a whole year writing your Ph.D thesis and your advisor publishes it as his own? Are you still opposed to copyright? Or you've writtent the next "Da Vinci Code" and the publisher decides that he can publish it, make millions, and still not give you a dime? Do you think it's fair?
You can be opposed to some laws regarding copyright, to the length of copyright terms, but never to copyright itself.
You seem to assume that it's the same as downloading it from a P2P network, but it's an entirely different matter. Here, Russian law says specifically that you do not need any kind of agreement with the rights holder to offer their music for sale, as long as you pay money to a society like ROMS. Now, the question is : does ROMS give the money back to the artists? I've read somewhere that they were ready to give the amount they are required to to the artists, but the big lobbying groups like RIAA tell the artists not to accept any money, lest they implicitely recognize that ROMS is a legitimate organization.
It has nothing to do with "conscience", because copyright is mostly a recent, western concept. Therefore, whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or an atheist, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with listening to music you have bought from allofmp3.com (remember that even 400 years ago, there was no such thing as copyright and most creators were GLAD you could get your hands on their works).
What the RIAA is trying to make us believe is that, if artists were paid only for concerts or even for a 5-year period following the release of their CDs, nobody would want to be an artists anymore. Guess what : I'd take Mozart and Beethoven (who could not make any money on CD sales since there were not any) over any of the contemporary cookie-cutter pop "stars".
So, basically, nobody should have qualms about downloading things from allofmp3.com, unless it is illegal to do so in their country (which it isn't : consider this analogy : if I buy legitimate CDs in Russia for $3 and take them back to the US, can the US distributor sue me because I did not buy my music from them? Of course not. If it's legal and legitimate in the country where you purchased it, and there is nothing illegal with the material in itself (for example, child porn is illegal in itself, and so is counterfeit software), you should be in the clear.
Remember : in Russia, buying from Allofmp3.com is exactly the same as buying from a regular store, and they do everything that are required to by law.
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. If somebody weren't looking for MP3 files, he would not stumple upon any either. It does not mean that many people share music, movies,... on the Internet.
The fact is, there is plenty of kiddy porn on the internet, and we should do something about it.
I don't see how creating a database to help combat child porn limits your freedom, or that of your children.
And even if they decided to create a database of music files to prevent the dissemination of copyrighted material, I'd be in favor of it (in the jurisdictions where downloading MP3 is illegal, so not in some countries in Europe for example). Are you trying to imply that doing your best to make sure the laws are enforced is a bad thing ? No matter how unpopular a law is, it's still law as long as it is on the books.
You would not want to live in a world where people can pick and choose what laws they obey.
That's what the reporter said in TFA. Come on, that's just plain stupid. One laptop explodes and they start thinking it is a very common occurence while in actuality in happens once in a blue moon. The odds of your laptop exploding in this manner on a plane must be infinitesimal, and in all cases much lower than those of the moron next to you's cellphone interfering with the plane GPS or other instruments.
All too often, "neutral" POV means "Politically correct" or "in accordance with my beliefs".
At one point, just about any modification to articles like the Bible and Homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homose xuality) was deleted by those who did not agree with what was said in them.
That's great, my comment was modded down to -1 (just like any comment that dares question the validity of Evolution).
Maybe we should add a new category (-5000, "not compatible with my worldview ?").
I have yet to find ONE comment in favor of ID or Creationism that was modded "Insightful".
Science's website tells us that it's "an early ornithuran bird".
Okay, so it's still a bird, just different from the birds we have today. The fact that some species have now gone extinct does not validate the evolutionary hypothesis. Once again, there is a blatant discrepency between what the media (including Slashdot) reports it to be and what it really is.
Well, aren't you supposed to KNOW that something is stolen to be convicted of receiving stolen goods ? Else, it does not make any sense: how I am supposed to know that the guy who owns my local electronics store hasn't sold me a stolen DVD player ?
There is a major difference though : in a violent movie, the guy who gets killed does not get shot at FOR REAL and does not die FOR REAL. In a porn movie, they REALLY have sexual intercourse. What exactly is fake in porn movies ?
A better question to ponder : if I were to hire a few girls to have sex with men and profited from it, I'd probably be charged with pandering. But if I became a porn-film director, I'd get rich and nobody could prosecute me.
I don't oppress anyone, and I don't plan on forcing you to worship my not-false-at-all God (why would I want to do that, compelling you to you worship the Lord is not going to make him content).
If a woman WANTS (as opposed to : she feels compelled to do so because it's what hip, fashionable,...) to wear near-to-nothing, that's Okay with me (as long as she does not do it right in front of me, for the sole purpose of offending people like me who might object to such revealing clothing).
Once again, I don't hate women. I just consider that it's not right for them and anyone else to run around half-naked.
Does anyone here really believe that our society has a healthy relationship to sex ? I wonder what the first feminists (who fought for real issues like giving women the right to vote) would say if somebody told them that true gender equality means that women have the right to act like prostitutes just because men indulge in debauchery too...
Our society has because so obsessed with sex that even children now behave in questionable ways (I've read articles about 10 years old who raped 8 y.o's,...).
More to the point, I would not support a ban on provocative clothing (hey, it's a free country, right ?), unlike some atheists fundies who object to the mere mention of religion in public schools (who's intolerant ?).
(Anyway, this does not have anything to do with human cloning. My question is : what if you were told that they're going to kill you because it might one day save some rich guy ? Would you say 'I'd be happy to do it ? I guess not).
(I'm afraid they won't be able to drive me out, since I don't even live in the US of A. See, not all so-call fundamentalists live there).
Just in case you don't know, the Puritans didn't leave England because they wanted to dodge the age of Enlightenemnt (which is the 18th century), but rather because they were discontent with the Church of England of their time (which was the 16th/17th century).
BTW, when they were supposedly "driven out", 99.9% of people in Europe were also, according to your criteria, "fundies" (I assume that by fundie, you mean somebody who dares say that the Bible is right, how silly of him?).
I don't really see how saying that it might not be alright for a woman to show her nipples means that you are some sort of misogynous jerk ? Do you really believe that it's a sign of freedom for a woman to dress in outfits that don't leave much to the imagination. And, just so you know it, I'm as opposed to revealing clothing for men as I am for women, so it's absolutely not a case of double-standards.
Very often, I hear people rant about how fundies are bad, how you can be a good christian and believe in everything liberal theology teaches. Maybe you have faith in both orthodox christianity and subscribe to the widespread belief that the Bible is mostly myth, but that would simply mean that you faith would be baseless (which is stupid).
Harvard seems to have totally forsaken its once-christian heritage. Maybe someone should remind them that, originally, this noble instition's main purpose was to train clergymen ?
I wonder what those attending or who attentend Harvard Divinity School think about their alma mater decision to clone human embryos ? Unfortunately, it is likely that even they have no qualms about it, considering that HDS has long been a hotbed of liberal theology (so liberal that atheology might be better suited to it).
Slashdot Mirror
It's *also* unenforceable. How many people do you think download things off the Internet? I'd say tens of millions, and that's only in the US. If all those people had to be prosecuted or sued, we'd probably have to build several new courthouses and hire a legion of judges just to handle those cases. That would be impossible. Therefore, the **AA decide to go after only a few offenders, to show the world that they mean business and that you shouldn't feel protected by the "anonymity" of the Internet.
Don't worry. All we have to day is way a couple more years for the Constitution to "evolve" (it's a living organism, remember), and it will be recognized that "people" really means "citizens".
Can't we just say that the constitution is a living document that has now "evolved" to permit such searches because the framers could not have envisioned the particular situations in which this kind of searches should be allowed? Face it people : the constitution has already been misused to such an extent that it has almost become worthless...
You don't own the content, merely the right to watch it (and some others like copying it for your own use -- provided you don't circumvent a copy protection mechanism -- depending on the country where you live).
I guess plenty of people (or companies) will be glad to have a 100-percent legal alternative to using Windows DLLs, but what the community badly needs now is a legal DVD player. Right now, the only way to watch DVDs on Linux in most Western countries is breaking the law (i.e. the DMCA or its local equivalent), which is clearly a no-no for most users, including myself. The saddest things is that the software is available (PowerDVD Linux), but Cyberlink will only sell it to OEMs. Couldn't someone strike a deal with them and release it ?
And yes, I'm aware that Mandriva includes it, but it's not my distro of choice (and I'm not sure the RPM would work as-is on other distros).
It looks to me like you're confused. What this legislation would do is prevent users from doing something that is, and always has been, legal, namely recording what's broadcast (provided they have legal access to it) for their own private use at a later time. There is no intrinsic difference between "timeshifting" TV shows, and timeshifting radio broadcasts, be them aerial or internet. Now, they claim that it wouldn't change anything for most people, because it would not prevent you from recording everything, simply from using an automated system that would record only, say, songs by Shakira. Now, how is it a problem if I'm a Shakira fan and would like to listen to all her songs later on? If I have a Tivo, I can record all, say, Numb3rs episodes automatically, therefore eliminating the need to buy Numb3rs DVDs. How is it different? Add to that that it'd probably be a real pain in the neck to implement properly (apart of course from sending spurious metadata, which would be more an inconvenience than anything), and would prevent us Linux people from listening to any kind of webradio (how likely is it that those special players that prevent you from cherry-picking which songs you want to listen to will be available on Linux?). Did I also mention that it is perfectly useless, since NOBODY goes through this horribly inefficient process of waiting for songs to be broadcast on a webradio and ripping it, instead of just borrowing a CD from a friend an ripping it, which is faster and will give you better quality (128 kbps for the typical webradio vs perfect digital quality for FLAC)?
This kind of rule would primarily have nefarious consequences, not beneficial, as it would assuredly make prosecutors overlook any case that is not a "slam-dunk". Malicious prosecution can already get you disbarred, and the DA in this case did exactly what he was hired to do : trying to get a conviction on behalf of the state. Remember, you weren't at the trial, you don't know exactly what the experts said in their testimony, you haven't examined the evidence, and what the media says about a case and the reality of it are often widely at variance. If there *was* indeed a problem, that's what appeals are for.
You know, setting up a Linux server can sometimes be a real pain in the neck too. I have some experience with Linux (helped set up a couple servers, been using it for years on all my computers,etc.), and I can assure you that I've seen some freaky stuff that got me scratching my head... Like the time all I wasn't able to access any directory because the site admin's script didn't get rid of some control characters that ended up messing up the /etc/passwd file read bad.
Or when the SAMBA team "updated" their software and changed the way groups are handled, which is why I'm still running FC5 on my server at home.
Compare what you have to do to set up Apache (edit the config file manually,etc.) to what you *should* have done to solve your problem on Windows, and you'll see that ease of use is not what's making most people use Linux.
Isn't it because most of their user base is comprised of criminals? I'm sure the majority of PCs out there are using illegitimate MS software one way or another.
What I'm about to say doesn't have anything to do with sleep, so mod me down if you want to. So, here goes : unlike what most people believe, we creationists do not reject "natural selection", which has been proven. We only reject evolution by means of natural selection, which is an entirely different thing. So, instead of ridiculing something you don't know anything about, maybe you should try to go to a few GOOD creationist websites and learn what we really teach.
Technically, the soldiers are sending themselves off to be killed in Iraq. That's what "all-volunteer" army means. Of course, you're probably one of those left-wing people who believe soldiers are too stupid to make an informed decision, and who can't figure out why somebody would be proud to serve his country because they themselves have never felt that patriotic in the first place. Or maybe it's because they lack the physical capabilities of serving, with their frail bodies and all that ? Seriously, can you come up with ONE activity that "conservatives" (such a broad term that it does not really mean anything) want to ban unreasonably ? It's America, not some middle-eastern dictatorship/theocracy.
Well, I should have made it clearer that, apart from the moral decency 99% of people have, I wouldn't kill somebody because vigilantism is also against my religion (that's why killing abortionists is not the right thing to do -- though having a court of law convict them of murder is all right with me). My unwillingness to kill as you put it is a direct consequence of my beliefs, which supports my claim that it's not the strength of your belief that makes you dangerous, but what those specific beliefs are. I tend to agree with you that maybe our definitions of fanaticism differ slightly, but I still think it would be unfair to claim that because some people label themselves as Christian fundamentalists and proceed to kill doctors we can infer that strong religious convictions are by themselves dangerous. What I disagree with is when you claim that Islam is not out to get us. I'd argue that it is, but that most people who identify themselves as Muslims are not. That is major difference : the ideology is quite bloody, but, fortunately for us, most followers of that religion still have morals and know intuitively that, despite what the Quran says, it's not right to beat your wife, or kill innocent civilians. AS far as education is concerned, I don't care if people learn things that I find objectionable, as long as you don't force it on my kids (not that I have any yet, I'm just projecting myself in the future), and make it as balanced as possible. Which means, among other things, don't have the teachers tell all the kids that homosexuality is all right and just an alternative lifestyle. If they are allowed to do that, they it's not the religiously-neutral public school we should have. Same thing for evolution : if it's taught, I don't have a problem with that as long as the present evidence against it as well as in favor of it. I'm not asking them to say that the Bible is true, I'll take care of that myself, just not to present a distorted picture of reality that favors their belief system of mine.
This is one of the most intolerant and stupid posts I have ever seen. It's not the fact that you believe strongly in something that is wrong, but what you believe in. If I believe strongly in loving everyone, how does that make me a budding terrorists. I can give you dozens of examples of christian "religious fanatics" who did nothing but help the poor, feed the hungry,etc. You can be a fundamentalist anything, it's only an adjective, and therefore has no meaning of its own. It's what it modifies that makes the person a threat or not. I'm a religious fanatic by your definiton, but I'm also a college student who nobody would think of calling "uneducated or ignorant". I don't wish people to be stupid, since with greater knowledge also comes a greater understanding of your faith. And I certainly wouldn't want to blow anything up just because people disagree with my views -- how is killing someone beneficial to me or to God ? That will certainly not convert him so, unless I enjoy seeing people be sent to Hell (which I, along with every true Christian, do not), I don't see what could prompt me to do that.
What if you've just spent a whole year writing your Ph.D thesis and your advisor publishes it as his own? Are you still opposed to copyright? Or you've writtent the next "Da Vinci Code" and the publisher decides that he can publish it, make millions, and still not give you a dime? Do you think it's fair? You can be opposed to some laws regarding copyright, to the length of copyright terms, but never to copyright itself.
You seem to assume that it's the same as downloading it from a P2P network, but it's an entirely different matter. Here, Russian law says specifically that you do not need any kind of agreement with the rights holder to offer their music for sale, as long as you pay money to a society like ROMS. Now, the question is : does ROMS give the money back to the artists? I've read somewhere that they were ready to give the amount they are required to to the artists, but the big lobbying groups like RIAA tell the artists not to accept any money, lest they implicitely recognize that ROMS is a legitimate organization. It has nothing to do with "conscience", because copyright is mostly a recent, western concept. Therefore, whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or an atheist, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with listening to music you have bought from allofmp3.com (remember that even 400 years ago, there was no such thing as copyright and most creators were GLAD you could get your hands on their works). What the RIAA is trying to make us believe is that, if artists were paid only for concerts or even for a 5-year period following the release of their CDs, nobody would want to be an artists anymore. Guess what : I'd take Mozart and Beethoven (who could not make any money on CD sales since there were not any) over any of the contemporary cookie-cutter pop "stars". So, basically, nobody should have qualms about downloading things from allofmp3.com, unless it is illegal to do so in their country (which it isn't : consider this analogy : if I buy legitimate CDs in Russia for $3 and take them back to the US, can the US distributor sue me because I did not buy my music from them? Of course not. If it's legal and legitimate in the country where you purchased it, and there is nothing illegal with the material in itself (for example, child porn is illegal in itself, and so is counterfeit software), you should be in the clear. Remember : in Russia, buying from Allofmp3.com is exactly the same as buying from a regular store, and they do everything that are required to by law.
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. If somebody weren't looking for MP3 files, he would not stumple upon any either. It does not mean that many people share music, movies,... on the Internet. The fact is, there is plenty of kiddy porn on the internet, and we should do something about it. I don't see how creating a database to help combat child porn limits your freedom, or that of your children. And even if they decided to create a database of music files to prevent the dissemination of copyrighted material, I'd be in favor of it (in the jurisdictions where downloading MP3 is illegal, so not in some countries in Europe for example). Are you trying to imply that doing your best to make sure the laws are enforced is a bad thing ? No matter how unpopular a law is, it's still law as long as it is on the books. You would not want to live in a world where people can pick and choose what laws they obey.
That's what the reporter said in TFA. Come on, that's just plain stupid. One laptop explodes and they start thinking it is a very common occurence while in actuality in happens once in a blue moon. The odds of your laptop exploding in this manner on a plane must be infinitesimal, and in all cases much lower than those of the moron next to you's cellphone interfering with the plane GPS or other instruments.
All too often, "neutral" POV means "Politically correct" or "in accordance with my beliefs". At one point, just about any modification to articles like the Bible and Homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homose xuality) was deleted by those who did not agree with what was said in them.
That's great, my comment was modded down to -1 (just like any comment that dares question the validity of Evolution). Maybe we should add a new category (-5000, "not compatible with my worldview ?"). I have yet to find ONE comment in favor of ID or Creationism that was modded "Insightful".
Science's website tells us that it's "an early ornithuran bird". Okay, so it's still a bird, just different from the birds we have today. The fact that some species have now gone extinct does not validate the evolutionary hypothesis. Once again, there is a blatant discrepency between what the media (including Slashdot) reports it to be and what it really is.
Well, aren't you supposed to KNOW that something is stolen to be convicted of receiving stolen goods ? Else, it does not make any sense: how I am supposed to know that the guy who owns my local electronics store hasn't sold me a stolen DVD player ?
There is a major difference though : in a violent movie, the guy who gets killed does not get shot at FOR REAL and does not die FOR REAL. In a porn movie, they REALLY have sexual intercourse. What exactly is fake in porn movies ? A better question to ponder : if I were to hire a few girls to have sex with men and profited from it, I'd probably be charged with pandering. But if I became a porn-film director, I'd get rich and nobody could prosecute me.
I don't oppress anyone, and I don't plan on forcing you to worship my not-false-at-all God (why would I want to do that, compelling you to you worship the Lord is not going to make him content). If a woman WANTS (as opposed to : she feels compelled to do so because it's what hip, fashionable,...) to wear near-to-nothing, that's Okay with me (as long as she does not do it right in front of me, for the sole purpose of offending people like me who might object to such revealing clothing). Once again, I don't hate women. I just consider that it's not right for them and anyone else to run around half-naked.
Does anyone here really believe that our society has a healthy relationship to sex ? I wonder what the first feminists (who fought for real issues like giving women the right to vote) would say if somebody told them that true gender equality means that women have the right to act like prostitutes just because men indulge in debauchery too... Our society has because so obsessed with sex that even children now behave in questionable ways (I've read articles about 10 years old who raped 8 y.o's,...).
More to the point, I would not support a ban on provocative clothing (hey, it's a free country, right ?), unlike some atheists fundies who object to the mere mention of religion in public schools (who's intolerant ?).
(Anyway, this does not have anything to do with human cloning. My question is : what if you were told that they're going to kill you because it might one day save some rich guy ? Would you say 'I'd be happy to do it ? I guess not).
(I'm afraid they won't be able to drive me out, since I don't even live in the US of A. See, not all so-call fundamentalists live there). Just in case you don't know, the Puritans didn't leave England because they wanted to dodge the age of Enlightenemnt (which is the 18th century), but rather because they were discontent with the Church of England of their time (which was the 16th/17th century). BTW, when they were supposedly "driven out", 99.9% of people in Europe were also, according to your criteria, "fundies" (I assume that by fundie, you mean somebody who dares say that the Bible is right, how silly of him?). I don't really see how saying that it might not be alright for a woman to show her nipples means that you are some sort of misogynous jerk ? Do you really believe that it's a sign of freedom for a woman to dress in outfits that don't leave much to the imagination. And, just so you know it, I'm as opposed to revealing clothing for men as I am for women, so it's absolutely not a case of double-standards. Very often, I hear people rant about how fundies are bad, how you can be a good christian and believe in everything liberal theology teaches. Maybe you have faith in both orthodox christianity and subscribe to the widespread belief that the Bible is mostly myth, but that would simply mean that you faith would be baseless (which is stupid).
Harvard seems to have totally forsaken its once-christian heritage. Maybe someone should remind them that, originally, this noble instition's main purpose was to train clergymen ? I wonder what those attending or who attentend Harvard Divinity School think about their alma mater decision to clone human embryos ? Unfortunately, it is likely that even they have no qualms about it, considering that HDS has long been a hotbed of liberal theology (so liberal that atheology might be better suited to it).