What is Digg?249 Comments
- LifeguardMom, on 04/26/2008, -5/+20To anyone who has an ounce of common sense, this is a no-brainer. You do NOT provide pornography at a government run facility! DUH! This is so incredibly stupid, it boggles the mind. Child porn is illegal. Anyone who accesses it should be arrested. Anyone who provides access to it should be arrested. Allowing porn to be available at a facility that is supported by tax dollars of hard-working Americans is WRONG.
Will someone please tell me how this could deadlock? Are people in this society really that perverted to think that this is a free speech issue? God help us. - eir574, on 04/26/2008, -0/+13The urban dictionary defines it: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moo ... . It's a derogatory term, and urban dictionary has a couple of different possible origins for it. However, I don't know why GOD0S0WORD/Spiritblad substitutes zeros for the letter 'o,' or why he so often puts brackets around it.
- eir574, on 04/26/2008, -0/+13He certainly does turn people away from him. I don't understand why people think that peppering their proselytization attempts with insults is a productive thing to do. I know not everyone Christian does it (and that non-Christians do it as well), but I've actually conversed with people on digg who seem to think that calling me intellectually inferior or intellectually lazy for failing to agree with them will suddenly intimidate me into changing my mind. We'd all do well to call on the people in our "camps" who use those techniques to stop doing so since when see a few advocates of an idea insulting those with opposing viewpoints, it's easy to dismiss the viewpoint rather than just the person presenting it in an obnoxious manner.
I've occasionally come across some people who have told me that it's not an insult to call someone stupid, intellectually lazy, intellectually dishonest, or even inferior to another person if that's the truth Those people are so incredibly arrogant that, as tempting as it might be to try to engage them in conversation, there's no point in doing so. - inactive, on 04/27/2008, -4/+16"...If you are Christian, and live in California- would you please elaborate here, as to "why" you feel it is such a good idea?...."
Maybe it's God's will that His people are in California spreading the Gospel and being His light in the world. Where do you get off passing judgment on fellow Christians, and I use the label of Christians very loosely for you, in that more often than not you are offensive and caustic for not preaching the love of Jesus, but the wrath and venom of your personal hate. That said, while you're safe and sound in your little hamlet asking why on Earth a Christian would live in California, those of us out here in California are in the trenches, living in the world, but not necessarily OF the world. I don't think anyone is obligated to justify to you why they live where they live, when maybe you need to justify why you act out as you do, contrary to God's living Word, when you insult and belittle people. You fail miserably at the command from Jesus, 'Love they Neighbor'
"...THE WORLD- WILL, WILL, WILL- GO TO HELL. It is written, that our job is to WITNESS it...." You don't witness often, do you? Now you're a prophet? I hope you have a one hundred percent accuracy record, or you've just exposed yourself as a false prophet. You are judgmental and you are insulting to me, other Christians and the unsaved who we are to set a Christlike example for. YOU, sir, must repent or your ways and become a witness for Christ, not a judge His judge on His behalf. Try reading your Bible. Remove the beam from YOUR OWN eye.
"...('because i can't wrap my head around preaching the gospel in a brothel - maybe you can help me-out)...."
Jesus commands that we go out into the world to preach the Gospel. You stand in judgment of me and my fellow Christians for doing that? Hypocrite! Wrap your head around that. Perhaps you are not doing God's will. Don't insinuate that I'm not doing His will. I've lived in small town hamlets. I prefer small town life. I live among the drive-by-shootings, the assaults, the murders, the rapes, the corruption, the perversions, the agenda driven public schools, I live with the pinkos, the commies, the muslims, the illegals, and all that is wicked. I can tuck my tail between my legs to run and hide in some cozy little hamlet. But I have not felt that God has that in His plan for my life at this time. I doubt that I have addressed you more than once on digg. I generally ignore you. Yet, I see your venom and hate here all the he time. The only purpose you serve is to give the world a bad taste in their mouth towards Christians who attempt to conduct themselves in a Godly fashion. Any inroads Christ makes through us, you allow Lucifer to undo through your negative, belligerent and un-Christlike trolling of these threads. I don't address you, because you sin through insults and you have no repentance for your offensive ways. Oh, FYI, -Mook
(noun) 1: A male adolescent or young adult exhibiting an unpleasant, self-centered attitude, formed during a sheltered upbringing. 2: One who revels in their own ignorance.- That definition is spot on, when describing you and your actions. They're calling you over at FARK. Maybe it's time you moved on, Spiritblade, aka GOD0S0WORD. If you are a Christian, perhaps your Christian brothers and sisters are not impressed by your blowhard ways and your pathetic self righteous demeanor. FYI again; self-right·eous –adjective confident of ones own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others. Man, it's a sacrifice of love when we're commanded to pray for sinners and we must do damage control in the name of Christ by praying for guys like you. LOL, I almost called you a mook, there. -I'm outta here. /rolling eyes - eir574, on 04/26/2008, -0/+11The vast majority of us do that from time to time, but there are people who do it on a regular basis. People make mistakes, but other people make a conscious decision to insult others on a regular basis. I think there's a huge difference between the two.
I have seen that there are Christians who would like GOD0S0WORD to stop posting on digg, which is good. Many of his posts don't even have a point to make other than that he thinks someone is a "[m00k]" or is "butt St00pid." It's harder, though, to deal with cases where someone consistently makes points with which you agree, is polite towards those who agree with him, and then turns on those who don't. - kirralin23, on 04/27/2008, -1/+11@GOD0S0WORD Do you seriously believe that you are the only person who ever spoke the TRUTH? On the other hand, you may very well be the only person who has called any given individual a [M00K]. In fact I think that's likely since even though I now know the meaning of the word and realize you didn't just make it up I don't think anyone else uses it quite like you. The problem with your philosophy is that it is extremely unlikely that you will turn one pagan, or atheist or whatever else that is not Christian to the truth my calling them st00pid. On the contrary, your example makes Christians look like idiotic fanatics who have to stoop to name-calling because they are too stupid to create a rational argument. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and brought to Earth the greater Law. The Law Christ brought is a law based on Mercy, Love and Forgiveness. If we want to do any good in the world we must emulate Christ's life to the best of our abilities. When you read in the scriptures you'll find that the only time Christ showed anger was to the money changers in the Temple. They claimed to Love God, but were taking advantage of those who truly Loved and Worshiped God, and they were doing it in God, The Father's own House. Even then his anger was controlled. He did not injure any of the animals as he drove the money changers from the Temple Grounds with whips. The repeated example shown by Christ was one of Love and Forgiveness. He ate with the publicans. Why? Because they are the ones who needed him most. Do you think while he ate with them he called them mooks? I wasn't there...but I seriously doubt it. If you are going to try to represent God then you should follow Jesus Christ's example.
- eir574, on 04/27/2008, -1/+11I see two possibilities: Spiritblade/GOD0S0WORD is a troll, in which case we shouldn't feed him, or he's mentally ill, in which case we should hope that he gets the help he needs and in the meantime shouldn't support his behavior by responding to it. Either way, the best thing to do is to leave him be.
GOD0S0WORD: If you're reading this and you're not simply trolling for reactions, I sincerely mean you no disrespect. I hope you have friends and family around you who can help you assess whether the behavior you've displayed on digg is healthy. - inactive, on 04/27/2008, -3/+12Two or three years ago I read that a local ACLU chapter (in Texas I think) was recruiting new members. A bunch of Veterans from the local American Legion went and joined that ACLU chapter and even voted one of the Legion members onto the board of directors of that ACLU chapter. Guess what--- NO FRIVILOUS CRAP out of that particular ACLU group. Join them and take over in order to neutralize them.
- johnny2k, on 04/27/2008, -4/+13Right on, Brother, right ON! You said it beautifully.
- kirralin23, on 04/27/2008, -1/+9What does flood-humping mean? This is another term I've never encountered before. I try to understand what message a person intends to send when I read their posts; that is why I ask.
And I am definitely not a boy. That would require surgery and is an abomination before God. Besides, even with surgery I wouldn't be a boy. You can't change your sex. You are what you're born, regardless of how you may mutilate your body. I'm using the word you loosely; I am not refering to you, yourself, GOD0S0WORD. - kirralin23, on 04/26/2008, -0/+8I have to admit that on occasion I'll call someone a moron or an idiot. It is an intellectually lazy thing to do, but some posts are so ridiculous or hate-filled that I simply want to register my thoughts of disdain but feel that attempting to have a discussion with them is totally pointless. Of course, when I do that, I realize that I haven't actually accomplished anything positive. And yes, it is much easier to call someone names when you can't think of a logical argument to their point of view, especially when their point of view differs widely from your own, but is bolstered by actual facts. Those who cannot form a cohesive argument to support their opinions have nothing to resort to except name calling.
It seems to me that more and more Christians are trying to get GOD0S0WORD to shut up. - eir574, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7@Nanny,
I think the question is too general. It's like asking whether gambling is harmful. It's harmful to some people, but it's not necessarily harmful to everyone. Some people can gamble or look at pornography and then walk away without it impacting their lives. Other people can't (or don't). For instance, my husband is aware that he has an addictive personality. He can't collect just some baseball cards without wanting them all (which would be harmful to us financially!). He knows this about himself, and so he'll never gamble because he's afraid he'd have a hard time walking away. But, there are people who have no problem going to a casino, spending a set amount of money gambling, and walking away. I know gambling and collecting baseball cards are not perfectly analogous to pornography, but I think the concept is the same. Some people can compartmentalize and not let those activities affect their lives or they way they view their lives. Others can't. - Indyanna, on 04/27/2008, -2/+9eir574 said "...or he's mentally ill." I reached the same conclusion not too long ago, and therefore am not digging up, not digging down, nor responding to his comments.
- lydecker, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7That's what I thought.
"While pornography didn't cause him to commit murder, the consumption of violent pornography helped "shape and mold" his violence into "behavior too terrible to describe."
He was a violent man. Give a violent man ideas of violence, and what will he do? Give an obese man a cake, and what will he do? Give an alcoholic access to alcohol, and what will he do?
Pornography didn't make him commit murder or make him do anything. It doesn't make non-violent people into criminals either. It just affects how people who are already messed up manifest that. So, the problem is helping the people who are messed up, not limiting everyones access to porn, cake, and alcohol. - kirralin23, on 04/26/2008, -1/+8Thanks. I've never seen it used by anyone except GOD0S0WORD. I was wondering if he made it up.
- kirralin23, on 04/27/2008, -3/+10I was just curious if he actually knows the meaning of Pagan. Many people don't realize there's a difference between an Atheist, an Agnostic and a Pagan. I think he's one of them. I am a Christian. I belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. I think I've finally got a handle on GOD0S0WORD. He's insane.
- eir574, on 04/27/2008, -2/+9@kiralin23:
I guess that would depend on which definition of 'pagan' was intended. If GOD0s0WORD intends it to mean people who don't believe in the Christian god, then that's me. If he intends it to mean people who believe in a polytheistic religion, that's not me. - kirralin23, on 04/27/2008, -2/+9Actually she posted about both child pornography and pornography in general. Why should she be ashamed? She said people who view child porn should be arrested. She said porn should not be allowed in the library. The leap to child porn in such a discussion isn't a big one.
- kemojr, on 04/27/2008, -3/+10It is beyond the pale why any organization would consider it the obligation of a library to provide pornography, much less child pornography. Just another example of the wacked out thinking in some parts of the country.
- kirralin23, on 04/26/2008, -4/+11You have to keep in mind that the push for pornography in the libraries, even kiddie porn, is backed up by the UCLA; which is one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet. That is why it could deadlock. I'm surprised that anyone running a library in California is supporting the ban on porn in the library. It seems like that state tends to do things the wrong way almost every time.
As to teaching the gospel in a brothel, they are the ones most in need of help. - inactive, on 04/27/2008, -3/+9I have often fantasized about this. Only if some people in my area would join with me...
- ozydingo, on 04/28/2008, -1/+7Although the results from any one study are likely to be interpretable in various ways, a google search for the keywords "correlation pornography sex crime" seems to suggest otherwise.
- kirralin23, on 04/27/2008, -3/+9Thank you. Now I understand what you are trying to communicate. I've asked the question before. Perhaps you've answered before and I missed the post.
- eir574, on 04/27/2008, -0/+6" I think where we need to draw the line is to make a distinction between art and porn."
And, to whom would you like to give the power to make that distinction? It's easy to say that it should be done according to community standards, which is certainly an improvement over the standards of some committee at the federal level, but there's still a great potential for abuse.
I do think that pornography that victimizes someone should be illegal, but it should be the victimization that we go after, not the pornography itself. That is, one should have to make a case that a specific piece of pornography has victimized someone (in a specific sense, not in a broad sense), not that all porn automatically victimizes people, in which case we're back to having to differentiate between art and pornography. - kirralin23, on 04/26/2008, -1/+7What does the term [m00k] mean and where does it come from? You may have answered this in the past and I missed the post; but I'd really like to know.
- eir574, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6@KCLorelei39:
Seriously? If someone calls me a [m00k] or "butt St00pid," self examination is in order? Also, I think it's important to point out that it's possible to find someone's comments offensive without being offended on a personal level. The offensive nature of a comment doesn't necessarily depend on whether I actually let it affect me emotionally. - inactive, on 04/27/2008, -4/+10"....Before God, it still seems to me that Living in California, is like preaching in a brothel..." Go ahead and take the easy way out. You can preache to the saved, where it is safe. Me, I'll preach in the brothel, where the message needs to be heard.
You answer is what expected. Buried and to be ignored and dugg down for now on. - Nannybell, on 04/27/2008, -4/+10rjwusa, I think the former Spiritblade believes that what comes out of his mouth is involuntary *prophecy* sent to him by God; you know, like God takes over his vocal chords, and Spiritblade doesn't know why he's saying what he's saying but thinks it is coming from God to us. Of course, a proper understanding of Scripture would disabuse him of that idea. Unscriptural beliefs like that are why the TV faith healers are able to bilk gullible people out of their money.
- inactive, on 04/27/2008, -3/+9I have nothing more to say to you. I need not explain myself to you. I only answer to God and I am only accountable to my church congregation and those Christians I have aligned myself with on digg. You and I are done. Please refrain from addressing me on digg. I've no interest in your rants. May Jesus guide you and minister to your needs according to His will.
- alkajazz, on 04/30/2008, -0/+6@nannybell
You also have to recognize that our constitution is a living document and should be interpreted/amended to where it's relevant to our society. You do it with the bible, i'm sure you don't stone adulterers. Society doesn't stagnate it keeps moving into the future and evolves. Bob Dylan said it best "You'd Better Start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone". - inactive, on 04/27/2008, -1/+7Now see, what does urinating in somebodies corn flakes have to do with it? "Papa" didn't teach you to talk like that. From whence does this behavior come? Not from "Papa". Unless, your papa is a different papa. Check this out.
- idoj, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5@camelseye
There's a documentary that's been out for a few years entitled "Ted Bundy: Natural Porn Killer" that addresses this very topic. I've not seen it in its entirety, but what little I have watched seems to mirror this conversation. Here's a link, if you're interested: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0850342/
In addition to what's been stated, you must remember that Ted Bundy was a narcissist whose main goal during his incarceration was to keep his name in the news. There have been many papers written about Bundy and his constantly shifting defense--all of which seems to point to the fact that he took no responsibility for his actions and instead, laid it on everything and everyone else--including his final statement against pornography.
I'm not denying the fact that for Bundy, viewing pornography may have helped to fuel his illness, but Bundy was also a sociopath and didn't need much in the way of help. I can have a glass of wine with dinner and not think twice about it, but it's a different story for an alcoholic. Different scenario, same logic. - eir574, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5There may be things on the internet that aren't porn, but that aren't appropriate for kids of all ages, either. It's also conceivable that someone could view art on a website, e.g. Michelangelo's David, and a child could catch a glimpse of it without having any context. It's the context that makes it artistic rather than pornographic, but it's the child's perception that we're concerned about. Or, perhaps that child's parents doesn't want him to see any art that depicts genitalia.
Also, again, the issue is not whether we're going to flip some switch that will magically block all porn on the internet and allow everything else through. The issue is what steps we need to take to protect children in libraries, preferably without limiting adults' access to the internet. Besides, once we try to make a porn filter, someone has to decide what is and what isn't porn, and I thought you agreed that's not a job we want to give to the government. Still, maybe we want to be overzealous in our efforts to protect children, so we could have adults only computers with no filtering, and kids' computers with filtering. If it were practical, that is. It may be a solution that works for some libraries, but probably not for all of them.
I'm still not sure why you keep framing the issue in terms of whether or not libraries should deliver porn. That's perhaps one aspect of this issue, but it's certainly not the only one. - lydecker, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5Camelseye,
My post was sarcastic when I mentioned film, games and porn had no redeeming qualities. Then I named some of the ones they do have. Film, games, and porn do have the redeeming qualities I mentioned. Congratulations on naming a redeeming quality of film that... obviously... not all films have, and yet films are still viewed as okay.
"Give me a case where pornography is used and there is no victim." An 19 year old watches a masturbation video of a girl that she submitted to Xtube.
"...because it contributes only negatively." Opinion, of course. So you are talking about regulating based on opinion. - kirralin23, on 04/27/2008, -2/+7I know the UCLA has fought to allow porn to be viewed in public libraries before under the heading of "Free Speach." It has been in the news in years gone by. I can't give exact quotes, but I first heard about it in High School. That makes it over 15 years ago. It is not far fetched to believe they are doing the same thing again.
- kirralin23, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5Now that I've read the definitions I understand why he uses the word in so many contexts. It loses it's power because he uses it so much. Kind of like if someone who has known you for 10 years and has never heard you swear will sit up and take notice when you swear. But if, during those ten years, you swear all the time and you swear you will simply be tuned out. Although I often agree with the basics of what GOD0S0WORD is saying he tends to take things beyond basics and value and turn it into hatred, which destroys the message and turns people away from him.
- eir574, on 05/01/2008, -0/+5@camelseye,
Things don't have to have provable merit in order to allow them in society. That's far too subjective. I asked who would decide what has only negative qualities and hence should be outlawed, and you described how you personally would decide. The problem is that you still haven't said how we can come up with a system that isn't a theocracy, that has a relatively small government, that doesn't use the law to enforce the ethics of one religion over another based purely on religious belief, and that yet somehow has a fair way of deciding which things have only negative qualities.
I'm not a fan of pornography. I don't care for it. But, I don't want some agency at any level of government deciding for everyone whether pornography has positive value, because they may then go too far in deciding what is and is not pornography. Sometimes, someone sets out to produce art that others decide is too explicit and hence is pornographic. If Michelangelo's David had been sculpted today (as opposed to in the past, in which case its endurance in our culture makes it easier to see it as art), would there be some people who would say that it's pornographic because it depicts a naked person? Is that how we should define pornography? Does it necessarily have to depict a sexual act? If so, then what counts as a sexual act?
I'm not actually asking you to answer those questions. I'm just saying that requiring pornography to have some positive benefits in order to allow it in society is just as problematic as trying to decide what types of guns private citizens should be allowed to own. The exact same argument has been used there, much to the dismay of many people.
Essentially, I'm saying that the benefit of allowing pornography in society (with appropriate controls to keep children from seeing it) is that in doing so, we uphold our right to free speech and we keep the power of the government to limit our freedom in check. If we want those things, we have to accept that the government will therefore never create the society we want through force of law. - lydecker, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5So Nannybell... why is it important that we tell people first and that they know we are Christian? You didn't address the question I asked. Why is it important that my internet persona have Christian labeled next to it? Christ can own me or die for me without me saying I'm a Christian... I can help people come to Christ without saying first off that I'm a Christian... I AM doing and saying many things that are far more likely to make people who have troubles turn to Him than you without saying first off that I'm a Christian... Why is it important that we tell people first that we know they are Christian? Or was that not what you meant to say?
- lydecker, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6What difference does it make if people percieve me to be a Christian or a non-Christian? Unless they state that they are unable to believe a Christian could believe something, my arguments should stand on their own. In a good debate, people listen to the ARGUMENTS and the FACTS and the EVIDENCE, not the people presenting them.
Curious, why is it important that the first thing people know about us is that we believe in Christ? God knows it, and that's really the most important. And I don't think people should treat me differently whether I'm a Christian or not. - eir574, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5@KCLorelei,
Yes, I was just talking about him. I've seen people ask what a m00k is before, and I'm not sure I've ever seen Spiritblade give an answer. Actually, this thread was the first time I'd seen him respond, and even then he didn't refer to the common definition (to the extent that it's a common word). He's called me a m00k many times before, so I've looked it up, and I provided an answer.
As for my opinion on his mental health, I would have told kirralin privately, but I had no way to do so since she doesn't accept shouts from random digg users. The first time I saw one of Spiritblade's posts was when he responded to me with the usual insults. I responded to him, and someone else let me know that he might be mentally ill. I looked through his history, and I agreed that it's likely that either that's the case, or he's a troll. If he's a troll, nothing we do matters. If he's mentally ill, then I'm concerned that engaging him in conversation here, particularly when people disagree with him and start fighting back, is not a good thing to do. I did think about whether it was a bad idea to say that Spiritblade might be ill where he could see it, but he's almost certainly seen someone else say it on digg, and I thought that it might be worth it if it could get people to back off and stop engaging him. If you thought I was trying to insult him by calling him mentally ill, I was definitely not doing that.
I don't know that there's a formal term for a tag team in a debate, but with respect to your last paragraph, you may want to look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy (otherwise known as a self-sealing fallacy). :) - inactive, on 04/27/2008, -1/+6Well speaking for myself as a Christian, I've blocked him under his former name and now I get the opportunity to do so again. :) There's always the people who know the letter of the law, but not its spirit. This guy is like a "rules lawyer" -- to borrow a D&D term -- of the Gospel.
- 10QGZus, on 04/26/2008, -7/+11The ACLU is an evil organization. Anyone who would protect pornography and say it is a freedom of speech issue has no soul, no morality, no sense of right and wrong.
- alkajazz, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5"ought to be given hard labor" What the hell? If you're a consenting adult you should have the right to purchase/possess pornography.
- lydecker, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5Yes, I am Christian. But I am also AMERICAN. I support the Constitution and people's freedom to accept their sexual orientation, to watch pornography, to be promiscuous, atheist, etc. I do not support Christians taking away people's rights as a way to force people into a version of morality or Christianity.
I will believe you are an American when I see you standing up for people's freedoms.
I am concerned more with facts than with mythology. If you think that by trusting and relying on facts means someone cannot be Christian, that that is your issue. - eir574, on 04/27/2008, -1/+5"The problem is of them seeing the porn the adults are viewing, which was brought up in a separate article, but is still a related topic."
As postingbh has said before, this concern can be addressed by saying that this can't be controlled in a public library (i.e. that having separate areas with computers that are accessible only to adults puts an undue burden on libraries). Instead, people are turning this into an issue over child porn.
"The librarian who was fired for reporting a man who was viewing child porn does add value because it brings up the point that child porn is most definitely being viewed in libraries and some libraries have a policy which protects the perpetrator."
One library that we know of has a policy that requires employees to notify supervisors when they think it's necessary to call the police, and the supervisor decides whether to make the call. In general, this policy may be worthwhile, and the problem is that it was applied badly. There was no rule that says that the library protects people who view child porn or that people who report crimes that occur in the library will be fired. Postingbh and I had a discussion about this in which I suggested that the local government should consider passing a law which makes it illegal to fire or take disciplinary action against an employee for reporting a crime that takes place on government property (at least if that employee had reasonable suspicion that the crime had taken place). That way the library can keep their policy about notifying a supervisor before calling the police in general, but this would be an exception.
"The ACLU defended The Man Boy Love Association..."
Are you familiar with the actual case? The ACLU has been quite clear that they don't support sex with children. Two men kidnapped and killed a boy they intended to molest (not sure if the molestation actually happened), and were convicted of the crime. The family of the victim then sued NAMBLA because it had been shown that the perpetrators had accessed the website. They wanted to hold NAMBLA responsible for facilitating a crime. Essentially, that sounds to me to be similar to punishing hate speech, which is an idea that many Christians are against these days (as am I). NAMBLA expressed extraordinarily unpopular ideas, and I think they're a disgusting organization, but free speech applies to everyone, not just to those with popular ideas. It's possible in this particular case that NAMBLA was liable; I don't know the details of the case well enough to say that. But, it's an important enough issue that they deserved a defense. - postingbh, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4@michaels4lsu:
I would probably not object to the library providing access to such material. However, I freely admit that I don't know the legal history of snuff films. I'm sure good arguments can be made on both sides. When in doubt, I am inspired by the words of Thomas Jefferson - "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - eir574, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4I also wouldn't take a criminal's word on what it is that led him to murder. Many evil people are very good at finding excuses for their evil actions. Just because they say there's a causal link, that doesn't mean it's there. As lydecker said, Bundy would have been evil even in the absence of pornography.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 249 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is