You rephrasing the problem to cast the best light on your viewpoint does not eliminate all the people in this very comments section who are arguing the exact opposite viewpoint; ergo it is not "quite clear" at all.

It's trying to fix a social problem with a technological solution instead of a social one. Maybe people need to learn the definition of ACCUSED vs. CONVICTED. And for a lot of cases, stop and examine why cheating on your wife suddenly makes you incapable of exercising judgment in any other possible area of your life.

Also if you're a frequent Slashdot reader, you should know damn well that "what this law is intended for" and "what they use it for" are hardly ever the same. This is not new news.

Or you can post on Slashdot about how everyone are sheeple and offer no constructive dialog otherwise.

Those looking for damning information should therefore look for news that the person in question was CONVICTED of X, not CHARGED WITH X.

Or we can just be incompetent twats and force Google to do our homework for us. Obviously that's the better choice.

I wait hopefully for the Pirate Bay-type website that will inevitably pop up where you can find lists of all the blocked terms.

*acquitted

I thought we were talking about how supposedly every war throughout human history has involved rampant civilian slaughter.

Or option 3, your analogy sucked.

What exactly is keeping you from enacting your plan exactly as advertised? I'm genuinely curious.

Maybe you'd need some special kind of strip club zoning or something? Because it's legal for people to take their clothes off there, for money even. And I guess there's some requirement for that kind of thing to not be visible from the street, so you'd have to cover the windows, too.

That you might enact the changes and immediately lose most of your revenue is beside the point. If city hall gave you the necessary permits 'n whatnot, it would be your prerogative as a business owner.

To address your original argument, the legality of contracts has been a field for a very long time so apparently somebody somewhere is watching the system and wants it the way it is. Phone companies can put all the shit they want up on the screen in fine print. Not calling them on it is implied consent on the part of the regulatory agencies.

So I guess my point is that when you said, "I can't just put up anything I want and have it be legal," yes...yes you can, if you're a telecom company and nobody calls you on it. That's the pragmatic truth.

Maybe it would be less confusing if you didn't reply to people you agree with with, "No, ..."

If they don't want to abide by your crazy rules but still want to eat there, you can always deny them service/ask them to leave your property.

The difference is that one specifically targets civilian infrastructure for destruction while the other only incidentally targets civilians, and not even the infrastructure at all. Saying the two are the same is gross misrepresentation.

I'm kind of curious why splitting it in half is unworkable. Both sides want the fertile land, or what? So divide the fertile land in half already.

If you look at my recent posting history from last Friday you'd see more of how I see the conversation but if I post it again I'm sure I'll get in another lengthy shouting match :-/

The context of that Titus quote is:

From my reading, it sounds like those being talked about are Christians who are paying too much attention to what the Jews say, not the Jews themselves. You might recall that most all the books of the New Testament after Acts were letters written to certain congregations telling them to "hold firm in the faith" and advising them what their stumbling blocks were.

And then the Revelation passage is about those who falsely claim to be Jews, not True Scotsmen^WJews.

Not that I'm saying anything about current politics (in this post) but Jesus' attitude towards nonbelievers was usually one of pity and desire to convert. He did complain about obstinate ("stiff-necked") people, too, though.

That distinction sounds about as useful as colored vs. people of color i.e. not at all. Because what we really need for thorny issues nobody agrees on already is making the terminology difference a matter of mispunctuation.

I don't see how your two paragraphs are reconcilable. I assume that if they gave back the settlements, the Palestinian minority that is already launching rocket attacks would promptly do so from the regained territory.

I guess in this context, the whole question is how much the guys with the rockets are acting on behalf of the Palestinian authority, and however much either of those things exist. Can you justify invading a country if a minority of their population is attacking you without their authorization? A lot of people would say no. Israel currently says yes.

Old-style wars i.e. European wars prior to WWI. Most of the Napoleonic Wars were pretty much won by marching around their armies until one side was in a better position and the other surrendered.

I think you meant "name the war since the advent of 'modern'/total war."

Well I suppose we *would* call it Total War but that usually means "destroy their ability to make war" and more or less all of the Palestinian's shit has already been destroyed but they continue to fight anyway.