 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, exactly how can they "disrupt the government" while being
> "peaceful"?
Vote for someone else. Lobby your local politicians. Make a petition. Try
to gather support in the community. Hold a peaceful protest at a key
location. There are many non-violent ways to disrupt the government.
Physically disrupting it by force is not one of them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> That's like sayin DARPA was commissioned to design a system for mass
>> porn dissemination! o_O
>>
>
> Excuse me?
>
> "The Internet is for Porn" remember?
Sure, it is *today*. But when it was invented, high-resolution graphics
didn't even *exist*. :-P
I think it would be rather a stretch to claim that this was the design
goal. More like, any technology which can be used for porn will
inevitably be used for porn...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I wasn't saying whether it was legal *or* good, but only why "guns were
> made". Most cops go their entire careers without having to shoot
> anyone, let alone kill them.
Where I'm from, "most cops" don't even *have* guns...
They do, however, have these wicked batton things that look pretty mean.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Where I'm from, "most cops" don't even *have* guns...
Hehe yeh, which is probably why I'm always a little disconcerted when I'm at
the airport and every cop has some automatic rifle about 50cm long held in
such a way that it looks like they're about to start shooting everyone. If
you look carefully above you will probably find another couple aiming down
at the crowds of passengers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Where I'm from, "most cops" don't even *have* guns...
>
> Hehe yeh, which is probably why I'm always a little disconcerted when
> I'm at the airport and every cop has some automatic rifle about 50cm
> long held in such a way that it looks like they're about to start
> shooting everyone. If you look carefully above you will probably find
> another couple aiming down at the crowds of passengers.
o_O
That can't be good...
(Personally I've never seen *anybody* IRL with an actual firearm. Well,
unless you count an air rifle.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I think it would be rather a stretch to claim that this was the design
> goal. More like, any technology which can be used for porn will
> inevitably be used for porn...
It was the reason VHS won out over Beta. So, its entirely possible,
stories you hear otherwise are just invented to cover up that fact. We
know what they were /really/ thinking ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> (Personally I've never seen *anybody* IRL with an actual firearm. Well,
> unless you count an air rifle.)
I remember after 9/11 seeing lots of military types wandering the
airport with automatic rifles. Pretty freaky....
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> I saw a thing here a while back where a group of people were protesting
> about something. There were literally twice as many police with shields and
> guns compared to the protesters (who were armed with nothing). The police
> were just waiting at a safe distance when suddenly the protesters started
> destroying peoples gardens and ripping out fences and trees to throw at the
> police. The police did nothing, they just stood there. Afterwards they
> showed the state of these peoples gardens and interviewed them, basically
> they couldn't believe it that the police did absolutely nothing to protect
> their property.
> If that is "free speech" and "freedom to express your opinion", then I want
> it banned!
Fine, refuse to believe that people are being sanctioned for simply
expressing their opinion, with absolutely no violence involved.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> If that's the worst (or best?) you can come up with, I think we're safe with
> being free to express our opinions :-)
You are being the perfect example of the type of mentality which allows
freedom of speech to be limited more and more.
There are thing which are now so "taboo" that it's completely "ok" if
they are not anymore included into the rights of free speech. These taboos
are being expanded little by little as time passes, and more and more
things are passing outside of the free speech right. But all this is ok.
It is, after all, a taboo, and everyone who dares to express their opinion
on them must be fanatic and violent and deserves to be punished.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Publishing derogatory comments, especially when generalising about a
> certain group of people is a very dangerous thing to do,
No it's not. It's *words*.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
