Our entire legal system is based upon Christian morality.
Yeah, from memory Christ was particular down on pirating MP3s but came out strongly in favor of software patents.
Pull your head from your ass.
I think you mean pull thy head from thy neighbor's ass.
If one managed to censor 100% of all child pornography without affecting anything else, there wouldn't be much complaint.
Well there should be. If one managed to prevent the production of such material then I would not complain.
You seem to be buying into the idea that this is about protecting children. Or at least the bizarre idea that it's ok for children to be abused as long as we don't accidentally tune into it.
What's becoming increasingly clear is that it is not about protecting children. It is about enforcing views and most of those views appear to stem from theological rather than rational origins.
The quantity of killing in a video game is often better than the act of hunting down one person.
Even if that one person is a game reviewer?
Any society that feel the need to implement censorship in order to 'function' is already badly broken and censorship will only prolong the suffering and delay the inevitable, making it unavoidable.
Whilst I completely agree with you, you've just given me an insight into what it must be like to be an Iranian or a citizen of Oklahoma.
I doubt that most Australians agree with this legislation. Actually, I think that most haven't thought about it enough to see the seriousness of it. But that's really the point. The filter in its current form has not been put to the electorate for a vote.
I have copies of Bolt and Quantum of Solace. Neither are out on DVD yet. Yes, I admit that they are pirated copies acquired through less than noble means. I had no intention of ever seeing either movie
Do you only download movies that you have no intention of seeing?
Don't bother to respond. I only ask questions if I don't care what the answer is.
If these people want to pay for the kind of research they support, well, they should pay for it explicitly. Otherwise they are only trying to steal from people who don't share their view, like so many statists.
By that logic, government shouldn't spend money on anything that any tax payer opposes because it would be stealing.
I see now that sarcasm may not be the best vehicle for making my point - thankyou. I'll try again.
My point was simply that individuals in Silicon Valley and Hollywood are already paying taxes.
A reasonable answer to "what prevented them from pulling out their checkbooks" would be simply that they felt they already had and now wanted to see the money spent appropriately.
If beneficial therapies do result from the stem-cell research that you argued against publicly funding and in favor of funding by "donation" would you have the good grace not to use them?
If people wanted this so bad, what prevented them from pulling out their checkbooks? Hello, there, Silicon Valley. There's lots of rich people there. How about a donation? You, too, Hollywood, if this is such a big issue.
Hell yeah! And if you want a road built or a law enforced how 'bout you pay for that yourself too.
Or you want a war fought or a private bank bailed out...oh no wait, we have got money for that.
That science, which is the systematic and empirical study of the natural world, can prove the non-existence of a supernatural entity. ("Supernatural" being, by definition, outside of the purview of science.)
He said that did he?
If you're looking for quotes to back up your claim, you might find something in Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" in chapter 4 "Why there Almost Certainly is no God".
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger
