Of course the authorities should have their own backdoors into every encrypted device on the planet. That goes without saying! Because terrorism! And, uh...the children!
The mere thought of a federal investigator abusing their power is laughable! They're the good guys, remember?
Linda Jaivin once poked me in the eye with a sharp stick and stole my wallet!
You want me to provide proof? I don't have to prove that she committed these crimes. I'm the victim! I'm sure she agrees.
From the original article: """[The ALRC] would put the onus of proof of the crime on the victim, which cannot be a good principle of law in any of its aspects.""" --- Linda Jaivin
"""At the police station I was interviewed by the police together with FACT (Federation Against Copyright and Theft). During questioning they asked me about Fast and Furious 6, where I obtained a copy from and if I was the one who went and recorded it at the cinema."""
Federation Against Copyright and Theft? That sounds like something I could get behind, as copyright is being heavily abused to steal from the public.
The Real Michael, May 15th, 2013 @ 5:47am: """... Again, if it were considered normal behavior, there'd be no need to convince (or in this case, brainwash) our children as it should be a given."""
So, do you honestly believe that kids are born with a natural instinct to reject homosexuality as unnatural? There are plenty of examples showing that that's not true. Kids don't give a fuck about someone being gay until they are taught to do so by their bigot parents!
I can't comment on particular schools and their "homosexual tolerance classes" because I have no information on them. But I do know that sometimes schools will have to try to undo damage caused by stupid parents.
The Real Michael, May 15th, 2013 @ 5:26am: """Parents should teach their children that homosexuality is wrong and immoral."""
Parents should teach their children to think for themselves and to question dogma.
In my mind, the only actions that are immoral are those that lead to the suffering of concious creatures.
The only time being gay leads to suffering is when people like you causes people suffering for being gay.
"""... That doesn't translate to 'let's go out and bully gays.'"""
Of course it does! Do people bully gays because they were taught to respect other people? No, they do so because they were taught that only a chosen few are worthy of respect.
"""Homosexuals love to play the tolerance card, all the while looking for every opportunity to force their distorted world view upon others, especially children."""
Wow, really? The world view that you don't have anything what-so-fucking-ever to do with what other consenting adults do with each other? Distorted? Why is this important to you? How does this affect you? If two men or two women get married (or not), live together (or not), have lots of sex (or not), raise children together (or not), do tell me how that is any of your fucking business. Please, explain this to me, because from where I'm standing, this doesn't affect you.
And another thing...
"""But then again, this is all born out of the same movement that used to be affiliated with with NAMBLA."""
Seriously? Again, the keywords here are "consenting adults." Why the fuck would you bring up NAMBLA?
If I call you a "bigot" right now, please explain how I'm wrong.
Just because something is legal it doesn't make it right, and just because something is illegal it doesn't make it wrong.
A lot of things that used to be illegal are now legal, because we know better.
And "Copyright" is all about violating other people's rights, by restricting them. When you are granted Copyright on something, you are not granted any substantial rights you didn't already have before. You are granted a monopoly that restricts other people's rights. Which is why I think it should be called "Copyrestriction" instead.
A lot of laws are anchored in the opinion of the majority. Like murder, for instance. Most people generally agree that murder is bad, so we gladly stand behind a law that says you can't commit murder.
Most copyright laws, though, are generally not anchored in the will of the people.
I have no problem with thinking I am above laws that are thrust upon us without the support of the actual people being governed by those laws.
If the right to get paid is so much more important than actually getting paid, no problem. I'll happily go without. There is no shortage of legal free entertainment in the world. And there is a growing amount of artists happy to both treat me with respect and take my money.
Just watch your back when you're lifting all that cash you'll make from me not watching/listening/reading/experiencing your movie/song/book/whatever.
Oh, wait.... Yeah, explain that to me, would you, please? If I'm not consuming your content (paid or free) at all, how does that help you?
Business as usual
Forgot #10 on the list
...
...
10. Profit
Of course the feds should have backdoors to encryption!
The mere thought of a federal investigator abusing their power is laughable! They're the good guys, remember?
What's that? I'm commenting on the wrong article?
Oh, wait...
Ban dihydrogen monoxide now!
Ban dihydrogen monoxide NOW!
Constitutional democracy?
The simple and obvious answer is: You're not.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
BOOM! Headshot!
Hey look....
Huh....
Linda Jaivin is an eye-poker and a thief!
You want me to provide proof? I don't have to prove that she committed these crimes. I'm the victim! I'm sure she agrees.
From the original article:
"""[The ALRC] would put the onus of proof of the crime on the victim, which cannot be a good principle of law in any of its aspects.""" --- Linda Jaivin
Well, that sounds alright!
Federation Against Copyright and Theft? That sounds like something I could get behind, as copyright is being heavily abused to steal from the public.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"""... Again, if it were considered normal behavior, there'd be no need to convince (or in this case, brainwash) our children as it should be a given."""
So, do you honestly believe that kids are born with a natural instinct to reject homosexuality as unnatural? There are plenty of examples showing that that's not true. Kids don't give a fuck about someone being gay until they are taught to do so by their bigot parents!
I can't comment on particular schools and their "homosexual tolerance classes" because I have no information on them. But I do know that sometimes schools will have to try to undo damage caused by stupid parents.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"""Parents should teach their children that homosexuality is wrong and immoral."""
Parents should teach their children to think for themselves and to question dogma.
In my mind, the only actions that are immoral are those that lead to the suffering of concious creatures.
The only time being gay leads to suffering is when people like you causes people suffering for being gay.
"""... That doesn't translate to 'let's go out and bully gays.'"""
Of course it does! Do people bully gays because they were taught to respect other people? No, they do so because they were taught that only a chosen few are worthy of respect.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"""Christians are supposed to uphold their faith and have a strong sense of morals."""
And do you get your sense of morals from the bible? If so, let me ask you a few questions:
When did you last help stone someone to death?
How many slaves do you own?
Oh, I could go...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"""Homosexuals love to play the tolerance card, all the while looking for every opportunity to force their distorted world view upon others, especially children."""
Wow, really? The world view that you don't have anything what-so-fucking-ever to do with what other consenting adults do with each other? Distorted? Why is this important to you? How does this affect you? If two men or two women get married (or not), live together (or not), have lots of sex (or not), raise children together (or not), do tell me how that is any of your fucking business. Please, explain this to me, because from where I'm standing, this doesn't affect you.
And another thing...
"""But then again, this is all born out of the same movement that used to be affiliated with with NAMBLA."""
Seriously? Again, the keywords here are "consenting adults." Why the fuck would you bring up NAMBLA?
If I call you a "bigot" right now, please explain how I'm wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"""Do tell, what is 'normal' about a guy ramming his **** up another man's ass and why do you feel that everyone has to accept that behavior?"""
Why do you assume that all homosexual people like anal sex? Sticking your dick in various holes is not the only way to enjoy each other's company.
And no-one is forcing you to stick your dick in anyone's ass, right? Or taking one up your own ass?
Then why do you fucking care?!?
Seems to me that for someone who hates the thought of two guys getting it on, you spend an awful lot of time thinking about it...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A lot of things that used to be illegal are now legal, because we know better.
And "Copyright" is all about violating other people's rights, by restricting them. When you are granted Copyright on something, you are not granted any substantial rights you didn't already have before. You are granted a monopoly that restricts other people's rights. Which is why I think it should be called "Copyrestriction" instead.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I agree that there are overly-entitled douchebags that put themselves above all others, but I guess we will disagree on who those people are...
Re:
A lot of laws are anchored in the opinion of the majority. Like murder, for instance. Most people generally agree that murder is bad, so we gladly stand behind a law that says you can't commit murder.
Most copyright laws, though, are generally not anchored in the will of the people.
I have no problem with thinking I am above laws that are thrust upon us without the support of the actual people being governed by those laws.
Well...uh... That's completely different!
Copyright: It's only infringement when someone else is doing it.
Bombings: It's only terrorism when someone else is doing it.
Re: Silly premise. First, DRM works unless circumvented.
If the right to get paid is so much more important than actually getting paid, no problem. I'll happily go without. There is no shortage of legal free entertainment in the world. And there is a growing amount of artists happy to both treat me with respect and take my money.
Just watch your back when you're lifting all that cash you'll make from me not watching/listening/reading/experiencing your movie/song/book/whatever.
Oh, wait.... Yeah, explain that to me, would you, please? If I'm not consuming your content (paid or free) at all, how does that help you?
More comments from Stig Rudeholm >>
Stig Rudeholm’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt