Juries are finders of fact, not of law. If what you say is true--and I don't think you have any basis whatsoever for claiming this about "most" juries--then it actually cuts against you. When the facts themselves are so ambiguous as to leave juries conflicted about whether they have actually correctly decided what those facts are, how do you expect to create laws that apply fairly to facts that can't be determined to any degree of certainty?

I agree. We should eliminate the need for lawyers by moving to a religious law system like they have in Middle Eastern countries. It's pretty straightforward. There's one text that we all follow--not too much for the average person to memorize. Laws are interpreted by those doing the enforcing, so in most cases we wouldn't even need a court system. Disputes are settled by consulting the book, and the authority of said book is final. And we wouldn't ever want to update the book, because that would lead to the kind of instability and uncertainty you're objecting to. If your case doesn't fall under one of the predefined situations, we just find the closest one and go with that.

This is the only way to create a uniform system that is applied fairly in all situations. This has worked particularly well where it has been applied--witness the logical and fair conclusions that are regularly reached by the enforcement of zero-tolerance policies in schools, for example. You're absolutely correct that the problem is not that individuals may find themselves in differing situations and thus need the law applied differently to reach a reasonable result, but that judges and lawyers have too long been allowed to permit such vague concepts as subtlety and nuance to cloud the issue.

I mean, let's look at the numbers here. With only seven billion people in the world, there can't possibly be more than a few hundred different kinds of disputes that ever come up. A thousand, tops. So why would we ever need more laws than that? And why would we ever need to interpret those laws on a case by case basis? I wouldn't call our current society "lawless"--I'd call it out and out anarchy.

Again, you admit that the two statements are "connected" by "attitude" at best. You've gone from making a specific statement of fact (people think that censoring child porn and censoring political speech are the same thing) to a vague general statement of opinion (people are unreasonably afraid of the threat of authoritarianism). I think you understand the difference between these two, and why shifting your premise from the former to the latter is dishonest, particularly when you claim you're not doing so.

The fact is you couldn't prove your former statement, because it's not true. So you're making the latter claim, which can't really be proven as it's a matter of opinion. So not only are you begging that question, you're trying to substitute your opinion for fact.

There are really only two options here. Either find two quotes that explicitly say what you said in the first place, i.e.:

Or admit that you are a liar and that statement is untrue. I'm not interested in your opinion on what the "attitude" of a statement is, or how you twist and interpret people's words to mean what you want them to mean. You made the claim that people say that. So you back it up with proof. Not opinions. Not wild interpretations. Facts are what we deal in here.

I await your next pathetic attempt to weasel your way out of admitting you lied.

Once again, you fail to get the point that you can't simply shift the goalposts once you've started losing. I have no interest in debating the "merits" of your silly strawman argument and I never did. It is obvious that you cannot defend your lies and misrepresentations. You have no ground left to stand on But please do continue with the gratuitous name calling. You're only continuing to embarrass yourself.

Never mind the fact that the quote says nothing about child porn OR authoritarian states. (Do you really disagree with the notion that having a system in place to censor one kind of speech makes it easier for a government to censor another kind? Because that's all that quote says to those of us capable of reading things objectively). Your premise has changed. You started out saying:

You're now saying:

I guess if you can't prove what you set out to prove, change what it is you set out to prove (not that you have been able to adequately demonstrate either one). Not only that, but you still haven't found a SINGLE quote that even mentions the censorship of child porn. I'm afraid there is only one dishonest person here, intellectually or otherwise. You.

You also failed to answer the question I posed. You cannot state that the quote says that liberal countries' censorship of child porn and authoritarian countries' censorship of political speech are the same, or even that they are functionally or morally equivalent. Or even that one necessarily leads to the other. But if we go by your original premise, that is what you would need to show. That people believe that censoring child porn is morally no better than censoring political speech, and therefore countries that do the former can't criticize those that do the latter. I can only presume that you cede the point, and thus, your entire argument.

If I were to challenge you to find two anti-Microsoft comments you could easily do it. And no, they wouldn't have to mimic your exact words (and you don't apparently know the meaning of the word "pedantically"). But they would have to be clearly anti-Microsoft. Comments about IBM wouldn't be acceptable, nor would comments contrasting specific problems with Microsoft software against open source. They would have to be clearly anti-Microsoft to the average reader. You, on the other hand, apparently cannot find two comments that say what you want them to say. Never mind finding 90% of the posts on Slashdot--you can't find a damn one.

You have given us nothing but rhetoric. Even the threads you cited plainly don't say what you want them to say. You have a lot of nerve talking about intellectual honesty when you have been called out on your lies multiple times and still cling to them.

I have explained to you time and time again why even the examples you have given say exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. You have ignored this. You have done nothing but regurgitate the same lies over and over again.

But here we go. As Zappa said, one more time for the world!

This is a quote you provided as an example. And yet, it says EXACTLY the opposite of what you're pretending it does. Specifically, the poster differentiates between "protecting the children" censorship and "political" censorship. The switch metaphor couldn't be any clearer. What they are saying is that one may lead to the other, and you can't deny the possibility of that. You can argue about the likelihood of it happening, or whether it is worth censoring immoral material at the cost of potentially stifling freedom of speech. One thing you cannot do--at least, not without rightfully being called a liar--is what you have done; that is, you cannot say that the poster is saying they are the same thing, or even that they are functionally equivalent.

Respond to that. Explain how the poster says that censoring child porn and political speech are the same thing. Not that one leads to the other. Not that both are wrong. HOW THE POSTER SAYS THEY ARE THE SAME THING. This is the crux of your argument, after all. You provided the quote, so now you defend your position on that quote.

If you respond in any other way, it is tantamount to an admission of dishonesty because you cannot support the position you so vehemently advanced without changing the parameters. So go on, let's see you try. It'll be fun. But in all honesty, you'd have an easier time tying to prove the existence of unicorns.

It doesn't happen.

Find QUOTES. Or it doesn't happen. Not links to pages that kind of maybe say something tangentially related to what you're talking about. Not assertions that it's somehow my job to prove a negative. I pose to you the same challenge as the original responder to your comment.

Quote me two posts on Slashdot, with links TO THE ACTUAL POST, that say that censorship of anything at all is the same as censoring political speech. And only posts that say that. Not posts talking about government restrictions in general. Not posts expressing concern that governments in the west may be trying to suppress political speech.

Let's put this another way. Your hypothesis is as follows: "On Slashdot, there are many people who say that censorship of any sort of speech is the same as censoring only political speech." Now support your hypothesis with specific examples.

But I wouldn't bother wasting the effort if I were you. Practically nobody believes that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater shouldn't be prevented or punished. Just as very few believe that producing child porn shouldn't be punished. Or that libel laws shouldn't be enforced. That's certainly not the prevailing opinion on Slashdot. Therefore, your argument really has no basis in reality.

Nobody has ever made this claim except you.

If you have, then so have I.

I am honestly impressed that the Socratic Method is not completely lost on you. I am also impressed with your inability to understand the point.

This has already been done. Twice.

There is nothing else anybody can say to respond to your nonsense except to reiterate that what you're quoting doesn't say what you're claiming it does. None of the links you reference make any mention of child porn. Practically none of them even mention censorship, and those that do are only talking about political censorship.

It is not good enough to simply point at some quotations and say "See? These say what I want them to say!" THEY... DO... NOT. Any more than the links I provided say anything relevant to my point. You seem to be capable of recognizing this when other people apply it to yourself.

If you really believe what you are saying, then you are doing a really miserable job explaining it. Hardly surprising, given your piss-poor communication skills. But nonetheless, simply willing things to be the case over and over again doesn't prove your point. Even when you directly quote the material and respond to it, the best you can come up with is a bunch of non sequiturs, most of which don't even go to your point in the first place. Unless you somehow equate people being concerned with having their rights taken away with defending kiddie porn?

Try actually choosing a direct quote from the ones listed above and explaining in a rational manner how it states that blocking child porn and government censorship of political speech are the same thing. Clearly nobody has been able to follow your line of reasoning so far, so it behooves you to clarify it rather than asking us to prove a negative--something you should know is impossible, particularly when you haven't articulated a lucid position in the first place.

But I don't really expect you to do that. So I would love to hear whatever asinine response you have prepared to embarrass yourself with yet again. I could do this all day!

That's not a refutation. You still lose. Sorry you're too stupid to actually provide a logical answer. My point was perfectly reasonable, and I backed it up with valid evidence. Your making jokes just shows that you can't really refute what I was saying. Again, I challenge you to follow these extremely simple directions: Either demonstrate that what I was saying doesn't prove my point, or you admit defeat.

So you can't challenge me on the merits of what I say. I guess you lose. Buh bye.

I already did. Those links I provided say exactly what I just told you they do. They challenge and refute your arguments one by one. If you're too stupid to understand that then that's not my problem. Sorry if you can't follow simple directions. If I'm wrong about this, prove it or shut up.

I think if you look at these links, it's fairly obvious your argument doesn't hold water. Specifically, I take exception to the numerous times you've stated (and I won't bother to provide specific examples of this, because I'm not your link boy) that sex with children is a normal and natural part of society.

A perspective on the benefits government mandated censorship in Ireland.

Would this qualify as child porn for purposes of internet filters?

Demonstrates that censoring child pornography is worth the potential collateral damage.

Artistic freedom is not unreasonably suppressed by the outlawing of child pornography.

As anybody with an IQ above 20 can plainly see, you believe that child porn is acceptable in society and should not be outlawed. It's OBVIOUS. I've PROVEN it. In actual fact, you are a disgusting pervert for thinking that raping children is not a big deal. Go ahead and try to demonstrate my argument wrong. You can't--the evidence I've cited is plainly irrefutable. I'm not going to do any more of your research for you. Read the pages I've pointed you to. If you can't see what I'm talking about, then you're not doing it right because you're a moron.

Yeah, somehow I didn't really expect that apology to be forthcoming.

Where do these comments, except in your insane little imagination, even mention kiddie porn? Where do they even say anything like "all censorship is completely wrong"? The ONLY mention of censorship I was able to find in your quotes was a reference to "certain kinds of political censorship", which seems to me to state exactly the opposite of what I am, due to your own inability to form a coherent sentence, taking a best guess at what you're saying: That people on Slashdot do not distinguish between political censorship and outlawing child porn.

Your quotes do not in any way, shape, or form say what you are claiming they do. You could have just as effectively quoted random passages from "War and Peace" and it wouldn't have gone any further towards proving your point. In other words, you are either a liar, a troll, or completely batshit insane. Please do continue, though. I actually find it quite amusing.

Well done, sir. I think circletimessquare is due to provide "a correction and an apology".

Actually, as a disinterested reader of this thread, it's pretty clear to me that you've lost. Your linked posts have absolutely nothing to do with your point--which, as far as I am able to discern, is that people believe that censoring child pornography is as bad as censoring anything. You haven't shown that. You haven't even linked to a specific post (let alone two specific posts) that state that censoring anything at all is completely objectionable under any circumstances. If you're not technically capable of linking to individual posts, then at least provide post numbers. Don't expect us to sift through any web page you happen to feel like linking to in search of vague evidence that you believe proves you're right when, in fact, you appear to have no idea what you're talking about. Or to describe your fallacy more formally, "argumentum ad just making shit up".

You've spewed a lot of verbiage and said absolutely nothing. Your whole argument seems to be based on the premise that people--on Slashdot, at least--believe that censoring child pornography is wrong as a general matter. This is a straw man argument unless you can provide concrete evidence that this is the generally held opinion on Slashdot. But you can't. All you can seem to do is hurl invectives when challenged. And, to be brutally honest, your writing style is slovenly and tiresome to read. Kindly do us a favor and learn to use the shift key.