How do you know that's actually her in the supposed voice clip? (which I'm not going to even bother listening to, since it doesn't prove anything, due to the very fact that it's easy to get a recording of a young girl, even for a 45 year old male pedophile pretending to be a young "targetted" girl. Apparently, he just couldn't find a sixteen year old that would say the right things, so he found someone younger and more gullible--hence "She sounds younger than she is")
Why are you so set on the fact that I care at all about this supposed 16 year old "girl" and his relationship with this group? I don't care. I'm glad the group catches pedophiles. I hope the group discovers the truth about this girl--whether it be some 45 year old man or some innocent girl.
As for you though...I don't know that you can speak about lying about statements. For example, you ignore all my arguments. When I discuss my reasoning on something, you turn and call me a liar, or whatever else you've called me in the past, not bothering to address my arguments.
You do realize, I hope, that others can read these posts. They aren't fooled by your misrepresentations of what I say--because what I said is right above for them to read.
Additionally, before helping this girl more, you might look more into whether she is one (a girl, that is). Her site is pretty suspect (for example, the design looks like someone was trying too hard to make it look like a girl made it). Also, I find it odd that you sympathize with her, the molested, and are so hateful of these groups who intend to catch adults. And as for lawfulness--the law does not respect status--it is illegal to have child porn whether you are a twelve year old boy or a 45 year old woman. As for this 1.2 billion that did nothing illegal--then how'd you get this count? This is the number of people that have told you they would have sex with a child if they could, but instead they refrain from viewing child porn, and all else that is illegal?...I highly doubt that. You're either a complete moron that's been sucked into a trap by some child pornogropher, or you are the pornogropher. In my mind, I wouldn't be surprised if you are the "fourteen year old girl."
Ummm, not only did you miss the point of my post, you hang tenaciously to the point of yours, even though it did not address what I was talking about. Until you introduced me to these groups, I'd never heard of them. I can tell yout that I am not against the idea of trapping pedophiles; no where did I say that I promote targetting young children. One thing I don't like about the group to which you linked was that he cares more about going after pedophiles than protecting children. I think the two go 85% hand in hand, so I'm not headed out to go shut the guy down (hey--it's better than nothing), but I can't say I totally agree with the groups either. I can say this though--I'm glad he's catching pedophiles! (but don't take that to mean I don't think he couldn't do a better job by taking a proper focus).
As for the groups' alleged targetting of young children--you fail to note that they aren't intentionally targetting children. The author of the blog you linked to obviosuly doesn't believe the 16 year old girl is actually a 16 year old or a girl. It is apparent that if he actually had reason to believe this was a genuine 16 year old girl (and "she" provides no reason to believe "she" is), then he wouldn't be trying to get his name and address! Personally, from reading "her" blog about how "she" enjoyed "her" sexual abuse I don't think it's really written by a sixteen year old girl either. This person claims to be using this blog to promote "her" enjoyment of her experiences with a pedophile. Hmmmmm. Sounds suspiciously like a message a pedophile would want to get out. If you want to be a sucker for these things then so be it. Go join NAMBLA. But see it for what it is, not for what it claims to be (you'll note that even the gay movement does not accept the NAMBLA movement).
My understanding was that these chip makers have actually been forced by chip manufacturers to watch power consumption and heat dissipation--by purchasers of laptops. We don't like our battery dying an hour into a meeting, and we don't like our computers to burn our laps in the airport, but we do like our computers to be fast (time is money; I can't afford for my laptop to take five minutes to turn on). I think they first addressed this really with the Pentium M Centrino application.
Also, I could be wrong, and I don't have any numbers in front of me right now, but my understanding was that the dual core chips generally did run cooler and were less power hungry than the high end single core chips.
PJ goons have no qualms whatsoever about targeting law-abiding minors in criminal attacks.
What made you think I'm talking about this? I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't think minors should be having sex with minors either, but my understanding of this whole conversation was that I object to adults having sex with minors. I don't understand exactly what you're talking about with the supposed targeting of "law abiding minors." Are you suggesting that I'm backing groups that set up sting operations to catch minors trying to have sex with minors? I mean that's really odd. If so, you pulled that out of thin air. However, I have to tell you, in all honesty, it doesn't bother me that a group is setting up stings to catch adults trying to meet up with children. I mean seriously--its a lot better to lock up the pedophile for the lesser crime of soliciting sex with a minor that it is to have to lock up the pedophile for actually having sex with the minor. If not for these sting operations, there would be a lot more molested children out there. You just have to do a cost-benefit analysis--which is worse: (1) locking up people who went through all the actions arranging a meeting to molest a child (remember that the potential molester might not have actually gone through with the final act, meaning a few people would get "wrongly" jailed), or (2) have the majority of those potential molesters succesfully solicit a child, and the majority of those potential molestors go through with the act? It seems to me that the benefits of cracking down on solicitation outweigh the risks of only going after those who complete the act of molestation. Oh--and obviously no minor is going to be charged with solicitation of a minor. Like you said, it's legal, so there's no problem.
Also, as for this whole "criminal hate group" thing--as long as what they're doing is legal--turning chat records, etc. in to the police, leaving the rest up to law enforcement--what's the problem? Aren't you a supporter of things that are legal?
Oh--and one more thing--these "hate groups"--they pretend to be children, and they allow some pedophilic adult to "talk dirty" to them, leading the adult to try to arrange a meeting with the child--I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this. These fools that talk with the sting operation; you realize they are genuinely attempting to set up a meeting with a child. What do you think was on the agenda at the meeting? Perhaps some business talk, some tea, and then send the child home? Hello--the meeting is for no other purpose that to sexually molest a child. People setting up meetings with children are doing so in order to have sex with the child--do you understand that? Chatting is legal, soliciting a child for sex is not. If some complete moron wants to solicit a child for sex and then gets caught in a sting operation, he brought it on himself. He was not a harmless person. He was a person that acted upon his desire to have sex with children, and was going through the steps necessary to obtain that sex. We also lock up attempted murderers, even though they didn't succeed--just the attempt is illegal, and we're ok with that. We don't let the person go just because he wasn't a very good murderer. And sting operations--We use sting operations to catch drug dealers, and many other criminals, I see no reason for leaving out adults illegally soliciting sex from minors.
As for the 1.2 billion number you're talking about--including children. All I can say is: what are you talking about? A child cannot be a pedophile. A pedophile is an adult who acts upon his desire to have sex with children. A child cannot be an adult, and therefore can't be a pedophile.
Yeah--I'm sure you're out there trying to "protect the children." Tell me again what you were chatting about with that 14 year old girl. I'm sure you were trying to console her as she was viciously attacked by this vigilante criminal hate gr
My goodness, man--what are you talking about? What is all this:
...that, even as I write this message, I am talking to a young teen girl, eager to get through high school, hoping to look forward to college, who is as we speak under direct personal threat from criminal organizations of hate who has herself broken no law.
There are 1.2 billion more.
Who will answer for each of these human lives, my good man? You?
In an average elementary classroom, there are about 7 children - the very same children you purpourt to object to harm towards - who learned their very first words from lurid descriptions of slow violence directed towards their person by the very people they were supposed to be able to trust; children who will have their lives destroyed, and their blood shed, by the terror regieme of lynch law.
. . .
This was all very odd, and makes little if any sense. You sound very much like the schizophrenic I observed the other day in court who had violated a restraining order against his mother after laying off his lithium for too long. You started on topic, then rambled into a speech about . . . I'm not sure . . . who is trying to hurt this young girl?
I understand that many parents are abusive toward their children. That wasn't want my argument was about, though. Obviously I disagree with abuse by parents as well. I understand that there are kids getting abused out there--that's my problem with pedophelia. This has gotten very weird...
I longer see any point in responding to your posts, as you either don't grasp what I'm saying, or you are schizophrenic. Or something. Because this response made no sense whatsoever.
...are you sure you're qualified to adress the topic of "attacks on character?"
There is a difference between an attack on character and telling the other party in the argument the necessary conclusion of their argument. You see the necessary conclusion of your argument, apparently, as an attack on your character. Perhaps this is evidence that you may disagree with the end result of what you are arguing for.
"The right to live free from violence" is also somewhere on this "desired" list.
The only pedophiles that must live with this fear are those who have acted on their desire to abuse children. In other words--true pedophiles. Pedophiles who have not acted on their desire don't go around with shirts saying "I'm a pedohpile," and are treated no different than anyone else. In fact, in most states, only the names of the worst offenders are released to the public. The other alternative interpretation of what you're saying to me is that someone should be able to walk around with a shirt that says "I'm a pedophile" (or perhaps merely, "I'm sexually attracted to children") and be treated no differently than any other person. The problem is that you're living in a world with a great many parents in it--the actions involved in being a pedophile involve abuse of children. For this reason, do not expect society to ever accept pedophelia outright. And, obviously, society is not wrong for treating pedophile's different based on this--they won't accept the abuse of children (this includes using children in photographs, recall). Here's the formula: abuse children --> expect to live in fear. It's not a matter of equal rights--its a matter of people love their children, and they're protective of their children from people who want to receive sexual pleasure from their children. This will not change until the day parents stop caring for their children.
Additionally--I'm talking in the general sense. This applies to nearly all of my arguments. This argument is long enough as it is--I can't touch upon every little anomaly, such as parents who sexually abuse their children, and adults technically attracted to children but who never view a piece of child pornography or otherwise sexually abuse a child.
Another point I might make in connection with the above argument is that people who physically abuse children are treated similarly by society. It's not just pedophelia thats distateful to society--it's abuse.
Because he or she is a pedophile, he or she, according to you, must satisfy his sexual needs. You are invited to link to where I have said this.
When you're talking about equal rights, this is the necessary implication, if the equal rights aren't referring the the pedophile's equal right to build bridges. Since we all know that pedophiles have equal rights to build bridges, it must be talking about the pedophile's equal right to act out their sexual desires--just like homosexuals began their path to equal protection by breaking down laws prohibiting homosexual sex, and their current fight to find government approval of gay marriage.
Now's your time to ignore other arguments I've made, and tell me again that I'm ignoring the types of equal rights that don't involve sex. I'll just preempt you on this one--pedophiles already have this. They have this through the fact that, if they don't act on the desire, then no one knows of their pedophelia. You'll turn again to the fact that they still can't admit that they're a pedophile. Even though I've already addressed this above, I'll adress it now in a different way--a person is what he or she does. If a person never acts out at all on this supposed desire to have sex with children (including through the use of pictures), then is that person really a pedophile? I would say no--that is the person that I am talking about that controls themselves. An analogy: if a person is naturally inclined to lie about something (as we often times are naturally inclined), but then you determine to tell
Your three comments seem to be largely name calling and unwarranted attacks on character. Obviously they don't deserve a decent response, as they are not in themselves a decent response.
One thing I will note, however, is that you still make comparisons of pedohpiles to homosexuals that fail to take into account the fact the PEDOPHELIA INVOLVES SEX WITH CHILDREN. I don't care if I hire a pedophile to build a bridge (I don't care--I'd hire a pedohpile to build a bridge, if he or she builds bridges well anyway)--the problem is that the pedophile has to go home at night. Because he or she is a pedophile, he or she, according to you, must satisfy his sexual needs. Here is where your arguments analogizing homosexuality to pedophelia fail. The pedophile has two choices: (1) fantasize, or (2) act. The fantasy generally involves photographs--this means, for most pedophiles, photographs of nude children, often is sexual poses. That means there has to be a nude child having his or her photograph being taken for sexual purposes. OR, there has to be a child that is sexually abused.
In your mind, apparently, the fact that a child is sexually abused (personally, I think photographing naked children for sexual purposes is sexual abuse) is just a necessary byproduct of giving the pedophile equal rights. We must let the pedophile satisfy his sexual desires because he's stuck with them, because "that's who he is."
I don't talk much about other equal rights because they are equal rights that pedophiles already have--pedophiles already are allowed to hold jobs and eat in restaurants and whatever else. Instead when pedophiles are complaining about equal rights, I have to figure they're complaining about equal rights that they lack--the right to satisfy their sexual desires. I believe those rights should not be granted. The day they're granted, I'll move to a more conservative country.
I can easily demonstrate that this argument holds no water. I have a "War in Iraq" that puts lie to that argument.
I guess I'm not quite sure how this hurts my argument. How does this show that pedophelia is productive/useful for society? All your argument showed is that sometimes society thinks killing may be useful. But even then, you seem to disagree with the societal benefit of this killing. So...then you do think killing doesn't benefit society...in which case you agree with its comparison to pedophelia.... I'm not quite catching you here I guess. Anyway, my point was with regard to murder in general anyway, not to all possible types of killing. Your so-called counter argument would be more rightly called a tangent, I believe.
Children really don't have the ability to consent
Unless, of course (as I am sure you will agree!), they murder somebody - then all of a sudden, they really can make informed and consentual decisions which affect their lives, and therefore tried as an adult.
This argument is odd given that I know that you know the real reason why young murderers are tried as adults, and you know that I know the reason as well. Do you really believe the legislature thought to themselves, "murderers that are younger than 18 may be tried as adults because, at that point, we know the person is capable of consent"? Where is consent involved in a child becoming a murderer? Anyway--the real reason we try young murderers as adults is because we don't want them released onto the streets the day they turn 18! If we try a 17 year old murderer as a minor, then the kid leaves jail when he's 18. What the legislature knows is that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Rather than trying the antisocial minor as a minor, letting him out when he's 18 and then jailing him for life next time he kills someone; we can just try the kid as an adult now and save the life of his next victim! Still, you realize, a minor tried as an adult doesn't get as much time as an adult tried as an adult. The kid does get a chance to reform. [now you might argue; why should we jail a person for this. Antisocial personality disorder is an "immutable characteristic" of people who have it (ask any psychologist--there's no "curing" a person of antisocial personality disorder). We shouldn't even call it a disorder. That person's natural biology is naturally inclined to kill people, and society should bend to find approval of it (and change its name). It's a matter of equal rights!]
If you are speaking of those supposed "reformed homosexuals" (or whatever born-agains and others of their ilk call it), they are most likely lying to you (and themselves). They are probably self-loathing, and will either end up like Mark Foley, or dead (likely at their own hands, quite possibly after they have had a family, unfortunately). Had all of us as a society instead accepted them for who they were, instead of ostracizing (or forcibly changing them via coercion and hate) at the behest of an invisible sky-fairy's "words" . ..
I can't help but find it so fascinating that you guys think this way. So you think that a person's sexual attraction toward children is "part of who that person is." I think that's total crap. One thing I find interesting about homosexuals (though this discussion is really not about homosexuals; it's about pedophiles; but you led the way to this tangent again, so I'll go there momentarily) is that their whole lives seem to be focused around their sexuality. Most heterosexuals I don't find to be that way--their lives are often focused around things--their family, work, their car, or whatever, but it is rarely focused around their sexual orientation. Now, is that person's focus around their car "who they are"? I think not. I used to be focused on cars, but then I went to college. That became my focus--my focus must not have been "who I am" because it changed. That isn't to say a person's focus is necessarily
So... do you know a way to change what turns you on? Where's your objection, exactly? I can tell you that acting on urges makes them stronger. Not acting on urges makes them weaker. In other words--YES. If you want to "change what turns you on," don't act on urges that are innappropriate.
By "another sexual orientation to deal with," I mean people feel that its their right to do whatever their bodies tell them. "My body wants to have sex right with that little boy. So I should have sex with him. How can I help that, it's my sexual orientation." It's a cop out. Learn self control--that's how we live together in society; by learning to control our natural desires. To help society run more smoothly, we don't go kill someone that makes us mad, and we don't go have sex with little boys just because our body tells us we want to. Instead we control ourselves.
I disagree that a grown adult's attraction to children is perfectly acceptable. I think that a person with such desires should see them as something to not heed. You agree with this; I'll show you by the end of this comment.
This has always been, and always will be, a war against hatred and for total equality. Huh? There are lots of paedophile's out there with kids. Ask any one of them what he would think of a person having sex with his six year old daughter. This isn't about equal rights--this is about using children for your sexual pleasure. I don't think you have any right to have sex with a child--consentual or not. Your version of equal rights is: "You are attracted to women; you get to have sex with women. I am attracted to small children, so in the name of equality, I should be allowed to have sex with small children." I disagree with this version of equal rights. In my version of equal rights, I take into account that children are very impressionable, and will do things for adults that they really don't want to do. Children really don't have the ability to consent--as the person in the above post noted. A person's attraction to children is not, in my mind, a good reason to allow that person to have sex with children.
Where did I say "society?" Productive for children. This I don't understand. "Productive for children"? I don't get what you're trying to say here. What I was saying was that there is no reason to support an adult's sexual attraction to children, because this attraction is not useful to society. In fact, I would say it's troublesome to society. You end up with child sex slaves, etc. Then again, I suppose this is ok under your version of equal rights.
Stop mixing up "action" and "fantasy," please. So fantasizing about having sex with little boys is ok, but actually doing it is bad? Your statement to not mix up action and fantasy show that you agree with my proposal that attraction to children is not acceptable. If acting on the attraction is not acceptable, then you're suggesting that the underlying attraction is the problem. I would propose that the underlying attraction actually can be altered--and does get altered (I know people that have altered their "sexual orientation" through self control). People that are attracted to children are, in my opinion, dangerous to children. I can tell you now that I will never let you around my children. Of course, I have no idea who you are....
But anyway, if you read your own post again, you really don't argue for the right to fantasize. You want "equal rights." I'm not confusing action and fantasy when I read your post--your post argues for the right to act. That's the problem. You see--you (apparently a paedophile) can't really differentiate between fantasy and reality (even though you ask me to). When does your fantasy with that child go to far? That depends how far you've justified your actions in your own mind.
Think about this now--you start with the J.C. Penny's catolog (I hear it's the most polular "magazine" in prison, because it has little girls and boys in their und
You might note I had disease in quotes, implying I don't think it's a disease.
Your second paragraph shows you missed the purpose of my post. I was saying the "support" is a vague term as used in the article. If "console" was intended--then say it.
You go pretty far out there calling paedophelia an immutable characteristic of a person. I think I don't agree with you on that one. Another "sexual orientation" to deal with. What a bunch of crap. "My attraction to children is natural and acceptable, just the way the attraction of two men or a man and a woman is acceptable." Like I said, what a bunch of crap. I recently attended a debate regarding the legalization of homosexual marriage. One point the defender of "traditional" marriage brought up was that many of the same arguments that support homosexual marriage can be used to support all sorts of relationships, including polygamy and others. The supporter of gay rights said his argument relied on the fallacy of the slippery slope. I see now that the gay rights supporter is wrong. You just used arguments that had been used to support gay rights in order to justify an adult's attraction to children. "It's 'harmful' to suppress one's 'immutable sexual orientation.'" Well, you see where this is leading.
In finale, I see no way for a paedophile to use their "immutable sexual orientation" toward children productively for society. Justify it as you may, but I have to draw the line somewhere. The attraction of consenting males and females is one thing, but there comes a point where some "immutable sexual orientations," such as orientations toward children, are a "problem."
Thank you! All the posts above point to use of the phrase "minor attracted adults," but what about use of the word "support"?! The article's been slashdotted, but according to a post below that supposedly contains the text of the article, the websites were chat rooms for gay people--looking for children, I presume.
Through a small amount of simple mind work we can figure out what "minor attracted adult" means, but use of the word "support" is intentionally vague, as the wording in the summary could just as easly to be read to say these rooms are helping to cure these people of their "disease." I guess that's why the editors always tell us to RTFA.
Word. However, just so you know, Winamp 5 has a "Lite" version that is essentially unchanged from version 2, except that it has the security updates, bug fixes, etc. You might look into it. It still has the classic skin, and starts up instantly (that's the reason I went back to this version, the standard version 5 takes almost as long as iTunes to start. The Lite version comes on instantly because it is a much lighter program). Basically, it's bare bones. Running, it usually uses less than 5 megs of ram, and less than 2 when minimized (which is less than Foobar in my experience). You can install it with as few codecs as you like (I only use mp3, ogg, wav, and sometimes wma)--basically its a good simple player. Winamp 2.0 perfected.
Be forewarned that installing this version of IE7 is nothing like installation of RC1.
The 14 MB download seemed a bit large, but acceptable for MS. But I wish it warned me about the time for intallation.
First, the installer started up and did its normal thing. It downloaded updates--kind of odd for something released today--and tried to install extra software. Then I figured things were about done. In grand MS tradition, it required a computer restart--annoying, but I'm used to it from MS.
Then came the real trouble.
During the restart the IE installed hijacked the entire computer for 10 or 15 minutes. I wish it warned me before the restart that this it was going to coninue installing before I could use the computer--then I would have waited to restart until I had time. For 10 minutes the installer reached into the depths of my computer and sold its soul to Microsoft, and that was all before it installed the "Core Componants" of IE7!
Then it forced a computer restart, and then the computer was finally usable by me again (after another little pieces of work by the installer).
On top of all this, the installer never gives any indication as to how far along in the process you are--so you have no idea that it will be another 15 minutes or more while the installer copies the entire contents of your hard drive onto MS servers. I guess I've been spoiled by Opera--2 painless minutes and it's over. Basically; if you really want IE7, do it when you have time. Get dinner or something while its installing.
Show me one state or federal law that gives me a legal right to not have my Google searches made known to the public.
Perhaps you say I have the right, it just isn't codified. Then show me a court case that decides such a right exists. I'm pretty confident you won't find it. And even if you do, the court won't call it a "right to privacy" because that term is already being used for something else!
I rarely see Opera which I use regularly, go above 60 MB. Firefox (I'm running 2.0 RC2), on the other hand, which I only use for pages that won't open properly in Opera (Groupwise web access, a few other similar things for school--not Flash intensive stuff), creeps higher and higher as it stays open. The other day, with one tab open, after working on my school's web page manager for several hours it was hogging over 180MB. And Opera, in which I had several tabs open, doing email, reading news,/., and whatever else was quietly consuming less that 50MB.
[Note, this post and parent of parent only applies to US law]
I don't really understand parent. What I am saying is that, if you have any sort of "right" for information about you to be kept private, then that right is on a personal level (meaning it's a matter of common courtesy). It isn't something that is currently extant in the law. That's why tabloids exist. They divulge personal information about famouse people to the general public. Their legal right to privacy was not destroyed when they became famous, they never had such a right. If you want to maintain your privacy in this way, then don't become famous. Sometimes the tabloids publish lies about a famous person--this infringes on a right. We have a right to not have lies published about us.
As for enumerated rights. Our legal rights are pretty much enumerated; very few are not. The so-called right to privacy that is so commonly misunderstood is an "un-enumerated right," but it only exists because the Supreme Court says it does. After its "discovery" we are to presume that this right has always existed, but in practicality of course it never really existed until the Court said it did. Extending this, there may be other un-enumerated rights that, in the future, will be determined by the Court to exist. In the mean time, for practical purposes that right doesn't exist and won't until the Court conjures it up the same way the "right to privacy" was conjured out of nothing.
[Note, this post and parent of parent only applies to US law]
There is no "right" to this type of privacy anyway. If you were sexually abused by a priest when you were 13, and, say, some reporter discovered this by chance (overheard something while standing outside of a closed door), and the reporter published this in the NYT: Little Billy Monroe Molested by Rev. Mainard--this violates no "right to privacy." Such a right does not exist in this fashion. The so-called "right to privacy" invented by the courts has only been applied to the ability to actively avoid pregnancy (birth control and abortion). The "right to privacy," though it gaurantees the right to have an abortion, does not even include a right to keep private the fact that you had an abortion--as long as its true, it can be published to the world against the will of the abortion patient.
I didn't read TFA, but the summary certainly made the error of equating Americans' "Right to Privacy" with the "right" to keep our personal lives seceret. There is no such right. "The right to privacy" is a term of art (meaning it has a defined legal meaning, in this case set by the courts). It applies to our right to marry someone of whatever race, choose after marriage to take steps against the production of children (use birth control, have an abortion before the child becomes viable). There is no "right" for your diary to be kept secret. There is no right for a convicted shoplifter to not have his picture on the convenience store wall. There is no right for leaked information to not be put in the newspaper (what's that you ask? What about the stuff that wasn't leaked; you want to protect that? Well, it wasn't leaked. So--done! It's protected). This "right to privacy" that people speak of largely doesn't exist.
Don't think of the word "privacy" in the phrase "right to privacy" as holding its normal definition. It applies only to a very few things. In fact--you can choose to have an abortion--that's your right to privacy--but you have no right to keep that decision out of the newspapers if a reporter discovered the fact. A doctor is required to keep records confidential, but that is not due to any supposed right to privacy--that's a doctor's "duty of confidentiality" which serves a completely different purpose.
Please, don't perpetuate the misconception that the right to privacy applies to our so-called private lives in general. The "right to privacy" the way it is misspoken of seems to me to refer to some sort of attempted shroud for illegal activity. "I've got a right to not have my Google searches revealed!" What? Where? That does not fall within the "right to privacy" as currently defined by the courts (and which is totally non-existant in statutory law).
Is parent serious? The USSR exists just like the Roman Empire exists--You can go where it used to be. The CIS consists of trade and defense agreements between sovereign nations, none of which are recognized by anyone as the USSR (all of this is quite clear in the cited article). The CIS is no more one country than the NAFTA signatories are one country.
There's a set of nations with strong censorship traditions, such as China, USA, former USSR, North Korea. Here is hoping these nations will follow China's lead.
You're hoping the former USSR will reduce censorship and open up to Wikipedea? I don't think that a country which no longer is exists is likely to do that...
First: English as a second language would only explain a few of the errors I included. The author is apparently Portuguese, but, although I don't speak Portuguese, I am relatively confident that they don't use two commas in a row there, and their grammar does call for periods between sentences.
Second: Throughout the majority of the article, the article 'an' was used properly, showing an understanding by the author of its proper usage. When it was misused in front of a word beginning with the letter 'f,' it was apparently not due merely to the author's lack of English proficiency.
Third: Some of the mistakes were apparently quoted from materials authored by Colin Campbell. Either the mistakes were carried over by the author of the article, or Mr. Campbell himself, who is Anglosaxon, made them.
Last: An author shouldn't make excuses for mistakes in his published materials. If you're publishing in English, get it right in English. This is what editors are for. If you aren't proficient in the language in which your article will be published, find an editor to help. Excuses don't make the author seem more credible. Typos are typos--and typos reduce credibility whether or not there is some 'valid' excuse for the mistakes.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know that's actually her in the supposed voice clip? (which I'm not going to even bother listening to, since it doesn't prove anything, due to the very fact that it's easy to get a recording of a young girl, even for a 45 year old male pedophile pretending to be a young "targetted" girl. Apparently, he just couldn't find a sixteen year old that would say the right things, so he found someone younger and more gullible--hence "She sounds younger than she is")
Why are you so set on the fact that I care at all about this supposed 16 year old "girl" and his relationship with this group? I don't care. I'm glad the group catches pedophiles. I hope the group discovers the truth about this girl--whether it be some 45 year old man or some innocent girl.
As for you though...I don't know that you can speak about lying about statements. For example, you ignore all my arguments. When I discuss my reasoning on something, you turn and call me a liar, or whatever else you've called me in the past, not bothering to address my arguments.
You do realize, I hope, that others can read these posts. They aren't fooled by your misrepresentations of what I say--because what I said is right above for them to read.
Additionally, before helping this girl more, you might look more into whether she is one (a girl, that is). Her site is pretty suspect (for example, the design looks like someone was trying too hard to make it look like a girl made it). Also, I find it odd that you sympathize with her, the molested, and are so hateful of these groups who intend to catch adults. And as for lawfulness--the law does not respect status--it is illegal to have child porn whether you are a twelve year old boy or a 45 year old woman. As for this 1.2 billion that did nothing illegal--then how'd you get this count? This is the number of people that have told you they would have sex with a child if they could, but instead they refrain from viewing child porn, and all else that is illegal?...I highly doubt that. You're either a complete moron that's been sucked into a trap by some child pornogropher, or you are the pornogropher. In my mind, I wouldn't be surprised if you are the "fourteen year old girl."
Ummm, not only did you miss the point of my post, you hang tenaciously to the point of yours, even though it did not address what I was talking about. Until you introduced me to these groups, I'd never heard of them. I can tell yout that I am not against the idea of trapping pedophiles; no where did I say that I promote targetting young children. One thing I don't like about the group to which you linked was that he cares more about going after pedophiles than protecting children. I think the two go 85% hand in hand, so I'm not headed out to go shut the guy down (hey--it's better than nothing), but I can't say I totally agree with the groups either. I can say this though--I'm glad he's catching pedophiles! (but don't take that to mean I don't think he couldn't do a better job by taking a proper focus).
As for the groups' alleged targetting of young children--you fail to note that they aren't intentionally targetting children. The author of the blog you linked to obviosuly doesn't believe the 16 year old girl is actually a 16 year old or a girl. It is apparent that if he actually had reason to believe this was a genuine 16 year old girl (and "she" provides no reason to believe "she" is), then he wouldn't be trying to get his name and address! Personally, from reading "her" blog about how "she" enjoyed "her" sexual abuse I don't think it's really written by a sixteen year old girl either. This person claims to be using this blog to promote "her" enjoyment of her experiences with a pedophile. Hmmmmm. Sounds suspiciously like a message a pedophile would want to get out. If you want to be a sucker for these things then so be it. Go join NAMBLA. But see it for what it is, not for what it claims to be (you'll note that even the gay movement does not accept the NAMBLA movement).
My understanding was that these chip makers have actually been forced by chip manufacturers to watch power consumption and heat dissipation--by purchasers of laptops. We don't like our battery dying an hour into a meeting, and we don't like our computers to burn our laps in the airport, but we do like our computers to be fast (time is money; I can't afford for my laptop to take five minutes to turn on). I think they first addressed this really with the Pentium M Centrino application.
Also, I could be wrong, and I don't have any numbers in front of me right now, but my understanding was that the dual core chips generally did run cooler and were less power hungry than the high end single core chips.
What made you think I'm talking about this? I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't think minors should be having sex with minors either, but my understanding of this whole conversation was that I object to adults having sex with minors. I don't understand exactly what you're talking about with the supposed targeting of "law abiding minors." Are you suggesting that I'm backing groups that set up sting operations to catch minors trying to have sex with minors? I mean that's really odd. If so, you pulled that out of thin air. However, I have to tell you, in all honesty, it doesn't bother me that a group is setting up stings to catch adults trying to meet up with children. I mean seriously--its a lot better to lock up the pedophile for the lesser crime of soliciting sex with a minor that it is to have to lock up the pedophile for actually having sex with the minor. If not for these sting operations, there would be a lot more molested children out there. You just have to do a cost-benefit analysis--which is worse: (1) locking up people who went through all the actions arranging a meeting to molest a child (remember that the potential molester might not have actually gone through with the final act, meaning a few people would get "wrongly" jailed), or (2) have the majority of those potential molesters succesfully solicit a child, and the majority of those potential molestors go through with the act? It seems to me that the benefits of cracking down on solicitation outweigh the risks of only going after those who complete the act of molestation. Oh--and obviously no minor is going to be charged with solicitation of a minor. Like you said, it's legal, so there's no problem.
Also, as for this whole "criminal hate group" thing--as long as what they're doing is legal--turning chat records, etc. in to the police, leaving the rest up to law enforcement--what's the problem? Aren't you a supporter of things that are legal?
Oh--and one more thing--these "hate groups"--they pretend to be children, and they allow some pedophilic adult to "talk dirty" to them, leading the adult to try to arrange a meeting with the child--I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this. These fools that talk with the sting operation; you realize they are genuinely attempting to set up a meeting with a child. What do you think was on the agenda at the meeting? Perhaps some business talk, some tea, and then send the child home? Hello--the meeting is for no other purpose that to sexually molest a child. People setting up meetings with children are doing so in order to have sex with the child--do you understand that? Chatting is legal, soliciting a child for sex is not. If some complete moron wants to solicit a child for sex and then gets caught in a sting operation, he brought it on himself. He was not a harmless person. He was a person that acted upon his desire to have sex with children, and was going through the steps necessary to obtain that sex. We also lock up attempted murderers, even though they didn't succeed--just the attempt is illegal, and we're ok with that. We don't let the person go just because he wasn't a very good murderer. And sting operations--We use sting operations to catch drug dealers, and many other criminals, I see no reason for leaving out adults illegally soliciting sex from minors.
As for the 1.2 billion number you're talking about--including children. All I can say is: what are you talking about? A child cannot be a pedophile. A pedophile is an adult who acts upon his desire to have sex with children. A child cannot be an adult, and therefore can't be a pedophile.
Yeah--I'm sure you're out there trying to "protect the children." Tell me again what you were chatting about with that 14 year old girl. I'm sure you were trying to console her as she was viciously attacked by this vigilante criminal hate gr
This was all very odd, and makes little if any sense. You sound very much like the schizophrenic I observed the other day in court who had violated a restraining order against his mother after laying off his lithium for too long. You started on topic, then rambled into a speech about . . . I'm not sure . . . who is trying to hurt this young girl?
I understand that many parents are abusive toward their children. That wasn't want my argument was about, though. Obviously I disagree with abuse by parents as well. I understand that there are kids getting abused out there--that's my problem with pedophelia. This has gotten very weird...
I longer see any point in responding to your posts, as you either don't grasp what I'm saying, or you are schizophrenic. Or something. Because this response made no sense whatsoever.
...are you sure you're qualified to adress the topic of "attacks on character?"
There is a difference between an attack on character and telling the other party in the argument the necessary conclusion of their argument. You see the necessary conclusion of your argument, apparently, as an attack on your character. Perhaps this is evidence that you may disagree with the end result of what you are arguing for.
"The right to live free from violence" is also somewhere on this "desired" list.
The only pedophiles that must live with this fear are those who have acted on their desire to abuse children. In other words--true pedophiles. Pedophiles who have not acted on their desire don't go around with shirts saying "I'm a pedohpile," and are treated no different than anyone else. In fact, in most states, only the names of the worst offenders are released to the public. The other alternative interpretation of what you're saying to me is that someone should be able to walk around with a shirt that says "I'm a pedophile" (or perhaps merely, "I'm sexually attracted to children") and be treated no differently than any other person. The problem is that you're living in a world with a great many parents in it--the actions involved in being a pedophile involve abuse of children. For this reason, do not expect society to ever accept pedophelia outright. And, obviously, society is not wrong for treating pedophile's different based on this--they won't accept the abuse of children (this includes using children in photographs, recall). Here's the formula: abuse children --> expect to live in fear. It's not a matter of equal rights--its a matter of people love their children, and they're protective of their children from people who want to receive sexual pleasure from their children. This will not change until the day parents stop caring for their children.
Additionally--I'm talking in the general sense. This applies to nearly all of my arguments. This argument is long enough as it is--I can't touch upon every little anomaly, such as parents who sexually abuse their children, and adults technically attracted to children but who never view a piece of child pornography or otherwise sexually abuse a child.
Another point I might make in connection with the above argument is that people who physically abuse children are treated similarly by society. It's not just pedophelia thats distateful to society--it's abuse.
Because he or she is a pedophile, he or she, according to you, must satisfy his sexual needs.
You are invited to link to where I have said this.
When you're talking about equal rights, this is the necessary implication, if the equal rights aren't referring the the pedophile's equal right to build bridges. Since we all know that pedophiles have equal rights to build bridges, it must be talking about the pedophile's equal right to act out their sexual desires--just like homosexuals began their path to equal protection by breaking down laws prohibiting homosexual sex, and their current fight to find government approval of gay marriage.
Now's your time to ignore other arguments I've made, and tell me again that I'm ignoring the types of equal rights that don't involve sex. I'll just preempt you on this one--pedophiles already have this. They have this through the fact that, if they don't act on the desire, then no one knows of their pedophelia. You'll turn again to the fact that they still can't admit that they're a pedophile. Even though I've already addressed this above, I'll adress it now in a different way--a person is what he or she does. If a person never acts out at all on this supposed desire to have sex with children (including through the use of pictures), then is that person really a pedophile? I would say no--that is the person that I am talking about that controls themselves. An analogy: if a person is naturally inclined to lie about something (as we often times are naturally inclined), but then you determine to tell
Your three comments seem to be largely name calling and unwarranted attacks on character. Obviously they don't deserve a decent response, as they are not in themselves a decent response.
One thing I will note, however, is that you still make comparisons of pedohpiles to homosexuals that fail to take into account the fact the PEDOPHELIA INVOLVES SEX WITH CHILDREN. I don't care if I hire a pedophile to build a bridge (I don't care--I'd hire a pedohpile to build a bridge, if he or she builds bridges well anyway)--the problem is that the pedophile has to go home at night. Because he or she is a pedophile, he or she, according to you, must satisfy his sexual needs. Here is where your arguments analogizing homosexuality to pedophelia fail. The pedophile has two choices: (1) fantasize, or (2) act. The fantasy generally involves photographs--this means, for most pedophiles, photographs of nude children, often is sexual poses. That means there has to be a nude child having his or her photograph being taken for sexual purposes. OR, there has to be a child that is sexually abused.
In your mind, apparently, the fact that a child is sexually abused (personally, I think photographing naked children for sexual purposes is sexual abuse) is just a necessary byproduct of giving the pedophile equal rights. We must let the pedophile satisfy his sexual desires because he's stuck with them, because "that's who he is."
I don't talk much about other equal rights because they are equal rights that pedophiles already have--pedophiles already are allowed to hold jobs and eat in restaurants and whatever else. Instead when pedophiles are complaining about equal rights, I have to figure they're complaining about equal rights that they lack--the right to satisfy their sexual desires. I believe those rights should not be granted. The day they're granted, I'll move to a more conservative country.
I can easily demonstrate that this argument holds no water. I have a "War in Iraq" that puts lie to that argument.
.
I guess I'm not quite sure how this hurts my argument. How does this show that pedophelia is productive/useful for society? All your argument showed is that sometimes society thinks killing may be useful. But even then, you seem to disagree with the societal benefit of this killing. So...then you do think killing doesn't benefit society...in which case you agree with its comparison to pedophelia.... I'm not quite catching you here I guess. Anyway, my point was with regard to murder in general anyway, not to all possible types of killing. Your so-called counter argument would be more rightly called a tangent, I believe.
Children really don't have the ability to consent
Unless, of course (as I am sure you will agree!), they murder somebody - then all of a sudden, they really can make informed and consentual decisions which affect their lives, and therefore tried as an adult.
This argument is odd given that I know that you know the real reason why young murderers are tried as adults, and you know that I know the reason as well. Do you really believe the legislature thought to themselves, "murderers that are younger than 18 may be tried as adults because, at that point, we know the person is capable of consent"? Where is consent involved in a child becoming a murderer? Anyway--the real reason we try young murderers as adults is because we don't want them released onto the streets the day they turn 18! If we try a 17 year old murderer as a minor, then the kid leaves jail when he's 18. What the legislature knows is that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Rather than trying the antisocial minor as a minor, letting him out when he's 18 and then jailing him for life next time he kills someone; we can just try the kid as an adult now and save the life of his next victim! Still, you realize, a minor tried as an adult doesn't get as much time as an adult tried as an adult. The kid does get a chance to reform. [now you might argue; why should we jail a person for this. Antisocial personality disorder is an "immutable characteristic" of people who have it (ask any psychologist--there's no "curing" a person of antisocial personality disorder). We shouldn't even call it a disorder. That person's natural biology is naturally inclined to kill people, and society should bend to find approval of it (and change its name). It's a matter of equal rights!]
If you are speaking of those supposed "reformed homosexuals" (or whatever born-agains and others of their ilk call it), they are most likely lying to you (and themselves). They are probably self-loathing, and will either end up like Mark Foley, or dead (likely at their own hands, quite possibly after they have had a family, unfortunately). Had all of us as a society instead accepted them for who they were, instead of ostracizing (or forcibly changing them via coercion and hate) at the behest of an invisible sky-fairy's "words" . .
I can't help but find it so fascinating that you guys think this way. So you think that a person's sexual attraction toward children is "part of who that person is." I think that's total crap. One thing I find interesting about homosexuals (though this discussion is really not about homosexuals; it's about pedophiles; but you led the way to this tangent again, so I'll go there momentarily) is that their whole lives seem to be focused around their sexuality. Most heterosexuals I don't find to be that way--their lives are often focused around things--their family, work, their car, or whatever, but it is rarely focused around their sexual orientation. Now, is that person's focus around their car "who they are"? I think not. I used to be focused on cars, but then I went to college. That became my focus--my focus must not have been "who I am" because it changed. That isn't to say a person's focus is necessarily
So... do you know a way to change what turns you on? Where's your objection, exactly?
I can tell you that acting on urges makes them stronger. Not acting on urges makes them weaker. In other words--YES. If you want to "change what turns you on," don't act on urges that are innappropriate.
By "another sexual orientation to deal with," I mean people feel that its their right to do whatever their bodies tell them. "My body wants to have sex right with that little boy. So I should have sex with him. How can I help that, it's my sexual orientation." It's a cop out. Learn self control--that's how we live together in society; by learning to control our natural desires. To help society run more smoothly, we don't go kill someone that makes us mad, and we don't go have sex with little boys just because our body tells us we want to. Instead we control ourselves.
I disagree that a grown adult's attraction to children is perfectly acceptable. I think that a person with such desires should see them as something to not heed. You agree with this; I'll show you by the end of this comment.
This has always been, and always will be, a war against hatred and for total equality.
Huh? There are lots of paedophile's out there with kids. Ask any one of them what he would think of a person having sex with his six year old daughter.
This isn't about equal rights--this is about using children for your sexual pleasure. I don't think you have any right to have sex with a child--consentual or not.
Your version of equal rights is: "You are attracted to women; you get to have sex with women. I am attracted to small children, so in the name of equality, I should be allowed to have sex with small children." I disagree with this version of equal rights. In my version of equal rights, I take into account that children are very impressionable, and will do things for adults that they really don't want to do. Children really don't have the ability to consent--as the person in the above post noted. A person's attraction to children is not, in my mind, a good reason to allow that person to have sex with children.
Where did I say "society?" Productive for children.
This I don't understand. "Productive for children"? I don't get what you're trying to say here. What I was saying was that there is no reason to support an adult's sexual attraction to children, because this attraction is not useful to society. In fact, I would say it's troublesome to society. You end up with child sex slaves, etc. Then again, I suppose this is ok under your version of equal rights.
Stop mixing up "action" and "fantasy," please.
So fantasizing about having sex with little boys is ok, but actually doing it is bad? Your statement to not mix up action and fantasy show that you agree with my proposal that attraction to children is not acceptable. If acting on the attraction is not acceptable, then you're suggesting that the underlying attraction is the problem. I would propose that the underlying attraction actually can be altered--and does get altered (I know people that have altered their "sexual orientation" through self control). People that are attracted to children are, in my opinion, dangerous to children. I can tell you now that I will never let you around my children. Of course, I have no idea who you are....
But anyway, if you read your own post again, you really don't argue for the right to fantasize. You want "equal rights." I'm not confusing action and fantasy when I read your post--your post argues for the right to act. That's the problem. You see--you (apparently a paedophile) can't really differentiate between fantasy and reality (even though you ask me to). When does your fantasy with that child go to far? That depends how far you've justified your actions in your own mind.
Think about this now--you start with the J.C. Penny's catolog (I hear it's the most polular "magazine" in prison, because it has little girls and boys in their und
I see why this commentor remained anonymous...
As for my comments on the above--
You might note I had disease in quotes, implying I don't think it's a disease.
Your second paragraph shows you missed the purpose of my post. I was saying the "support" is a vague term as used in the article. If "console" was intended--then say it.
You go pretty far out there calling paedophelia an immutable characteristic of a person. I think I don't agree with you on that one. Another "sexual orientation" to deal with. What a bunch of crap. "My attraction to children is natural and acceptable, just the way the attraction of two men or a man and a woman is acceptable." Like I said, what a bunch of crap. I recently attended a debate regarding the legalization of homosexual marriage. One point the defender of "traditional" marriage brought up was that many of the same arguments that support homosexual marriage can be used to support all sorts of relationships, including polygamy and others. The supporter of gay rights said his argument relied on the fallacy of the slippery slope. I see now that the gay rights supporter is wrong. You just used arguments that had been used to support gay rights in order to justify an adult's attraction to children. "It's 'harmful' to suppress one's 'immutable sexual orientation.'" Well, you see where this is leading.
In finale, I see no way for a paedophile to use their "immutable sexual orientation" toward children productively for society. Justify it as you may, but I have to draw the line somewhere. The attraction of consenting males and females is one thing, but there comes a point where some "immutable sexual orientations," such as orientations toward children, are a "problem."
Now look--even the article has been censored!
Thank you! All the posts above point to use of the phrase "minor attracted adults," but what about use of the word "support"?! The article's been slashdotted, but according to a post below that supposedly contains the text of the article, the websites were chat rooms for gay people--looking for children, I presume.
Through a small amount of simple mind work we can figure out what "minor attracted adult" means, but use of the word "support" is intentionally vague, as the wording in the summary could just as easly to be read to say these rooms are helping to cure these people of their "disease." I guess that's why the editors always tell us to RTFA.
I'm not sure what you mean saying that's a comparible computer. For example, that XPS doesn't come with a 15 in screen, nor a 120 GB hard drive.
Word. However, just so you know, Winamp 5 has a "Lite" version that is essentially unchanged from version 2, except that it has the security updates, bug fixes, etc. You might look into it. It still has the classic skin, and starts up instantly (that's the reason I went back to this version, the standard version 5 takes almost as long as iTunes to start. The Lite version comes on instantly because it is a much lighter program). Basically, it's bare bones. Running, it usually uses less than 5 megs of ram, and less than 2 when minimized (which is less than Foobar in my experience). You can install it with as few codecs as you like (I only use mp3, ogg, wav, and sometimes wma)--basically its a good simple player. Winamp 2.0 perfected.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
Is this serious or not?
Because--your description sounds very similar to what Wikipedia already is?
I think they're talking about buying copyrights, not producing new material.
Be forewarned that installing this version of IE7 is nothing like installation of RC1.
The 14 MB download seemed a bit large, but acceptable for MS. But I wish it warned me about the time for intallation.
First, the installer started up and did its normal thing. It downloaded updates--kind of odd for something released today--and tried to install extra software. Then I figured things were about done. In grand MS tradition, it required a computer restart--annoying, but I'm used to it from MS.
Then came the real trouble.
During the restart the IE installed hijacked the entire computer for 10 or 15 minutes. I wish it warned me before the restart that this it was going to coninue installing before I could use the computer--then I would have waited to restart until I had time. For 10 minutes the installer reached into the depths of my computer and sold its soul to Microsoft, and that was all before it installed the "Core Componants" of IE7!
Then it forced a computer restart, and then the computer was finally usable by me again (after another little pieces of work by the installer).
On top of all this, the installer never gives any indication as to how far along in the process you are--so you have no idea that it will be another 15 minutes or more while the installer copies the entire contents of your hard drive onto MS servers. I guess I've been spoiled by Opera--2 painless minutes and it's over. Basically; if you really want IE7, do it when you have time. Get dinner or something while its installing.
Just a warning.
Show me one state or federal law that gives me a legal right to not have my Google searches made known to the public.
Perhaps you say I have the right, it just isn't codified. Then show me a court case that decides such a right exists. I'm pretty confident you won't find it. And even if you do, the court won't call it a "right to privacy" because that term is already being used for something else!
I rarely see Opera which I use regularly, go above 60 MB. Firefox (I'm running 2.0 RC2), on the other hand, which I only use for pages that won't open properly in Opera (Groupwise web access, a few other similar things for school--not Flash intensive stuff), creeps higher and higher as it stays open. The other day, with one tab open, after working on my school's web page manager for several hours it was hogging over 180MB. And Opera, in which I had several tabs open, doing email, reading news, /., and whatever else was quietly consuming less that 50MB.
[Note, this post and parent of parent only applies to US law]
I don't really understand parent. What I am saying is that, if you have any sort of "right" for information about you to be kept private, then that right is on a personal level (meaning it's a matter of common courtesy). It isn't something that is currently extant in the law. That's why tabloids exist. They divulge personal information about famouse people to the general public. Their legal right to privacy was not destroyed when they became famous, they never had such a right. If you want to maintain your privacy in this way, then don't become famous. Sometimes the tabloids publish lies about a famous person--this infringes on a right. We have a right to not have lies published about us.
As for enumerated rights. Our legal rights are pretty much enumerated; very few are not. The so-called right to privacy that is so commonly misunderstood is an "un-enumerated right," but it only exists because the Supreme Court says it does. After its "discovery" we are to presume that this right has always existed, but in practicality of course it never really existed until the Court said it did. Extending this, there may be other un-enumerated rights that, in the future, will be determined by the Court to exist. In the mean time, for practical purposes that right doesn't exist and won't until the Court conjures it up the same way the "right to privacy" was conjured out of nothing.
[Note, this post and parent of parent only applies to US law]
There is no "right" to this type of privacy anyway. If you were sexually abused by a priest when you were 13, and, say, some reporter discovered this by chance (overheard something while standing outside of a closed door), and the reporter published this in the NYT: Little Billy Monroe Molested by Rev. Mainard--this violates no "right to privacy." Such a right does not exist in this fashion. The so-called "right to privacy" invented by the courts has only been applied to the ability to actively avoid pregnancy (birth control and abortion). The "right to privacy," though it gaurantees the right to have an abortion, does not even include a right to keep private the fact that you had an abortion--as long as its true, it can be published to the world against the will of the abortion patient.
I didn't read TFA, but the summary certainly made the error of equating Americans' "Right to Privacy" with the "right" to keep our personal lives seceret. There is no such right. "The right to privacy" is a term of art (meaning it has a defined legal meaning, in this case set by the courts). It applies to our right to marry someone of whatever race, choose after marriage to take steps against the production of children (use birth control, have an abortion before the child becomes viable). There is no "right" for your diary to be kept secret. There is no right for a convicted shoplifter to not have his picture on the convenience store wall. There is no right for leaked information to not be put in the newspaper (what's that you ask? What about the stuff that wasn't leaked; you want to protect that? Well, it wasn't leaked. So--done! It's protected). This "right to privacy" that people speak of largely doesn't exist.
Don't think of the word "privacy" in the phrase "right to privacy" as holding its normal definition. It applies only to a very few things. In fact--you can choose to have an abortion--that's your right to privacy--but you have no right to keep that decision out of the newspapers if a reporter discovered the fact. A doctor is required to keep records confidential, but that is not due to any supposed right to privacy--that's a doctor's "duty of confidentiality" which serves a completely different purpose.
Please, don't perpetuate the misconception that the right to privacy applies to our so-called private lives in general. The "right to privacy" the way it is misspoken of seems to me to refer to some sort of attempted shroud for illegal activity. "I've got a right to not have my Google searches revealed!" What? Where? That does not fall within the "right to privacy" as currently defined by the courts (and which is totally non-existant in statutory law).
Is parent serious? The USSR exists just like the Roman Empire exists--You can go where it used to be. The CIS consists of trade and defense agreements between sovereign nations, none of which are recognized by anyone as the USSR (all of this is quite clear in the cited article). The CIS is no more one country than the NAFTA signatories are one country.
There's a set of nations with strong censorship traditions, such as China, USA, former USSR, North Korea. Here is hoping these nations will follow China's lead.
You're hoping the former USSR will reduce censorship and open up to Wikipedea? I don't think that a country which no longer is exists is likely to do that...
First: English as a second language would only explain a few of the errors I included. The author is apparently Portuguese, but, although I don't speak Portuguese, I am relatively confident that they don't use two commas in a row there, and their grammar does call for periods between sentences.
Second: Throughout the majority of the article, the article 'an' was used properly, showing an understanding by the author of its proper usage. When it was misused in front of a word beginning with the letter 'f,' it was apparently not due merely to the author's lack of English proficiency.
Third: Some of the mistakes were apparently quoted from materials authored by Colin Campbell. Either the mistakes were carried over by the author of the article, or Mr. Campbell himself, who is Anglosaxon, made them.
Last: An author shouldn't make excuses for mistakes in his published materials. If you're publishing in English, get it right in English. This is what editors are for. If you aren't proficient in the language in which your article will be published, find an editor to help. Excuses don't make the author seem more credible. Typos are typos--and typos reduce credibility whether or not there is some 'valid' excuse for the mistakes.