Only a little bit hungry. He'll be convinced before breakfast.

Everything is up for debate. Otherwise you have given up science and adopted your own brand of quackery.

You ignored the post with actual citation of evidence and attacked a strawman of the post directly below it from the same person. Why should anyone take you seriously?

Yeah okay but that website is kind of a buckshot approach to dismissing any kind of nonsense it sees fit. Which would be fine, until you actually start reading it. Let's take a stroll through, uh, random selections from just above the fold on the "rituals" page. What's the harm with "rituals"?

What rituals? What kind of rituals do people use in a "native american[sic] sweat lodge" to "wake up"? This is the kind of nonsense I'd expect from Reefer Madness.

That has nothing to do with ritual initiations, and everything to do with being absolute morons with guns.

That's not a ritual, that's a known-dangerous delicacy that's banned because it's known-dangerous.

Welp.

Let's go find out about the harm of feng shui.

Unless the claim is that the mirrors made them do it... I'm pretty sure morons kill each other over sports and musical taste too. What's the harm in liking basic human recreation, amirite?

Okay but surely believing in ghosts is harmful right?

Seems like both of them believed in ghosts, but one of them made out pretty well.

I'm sure that Rachel wouldn't have been shot if she'd been trespassing for scientific reasons.

Okay what's the harm of Holocaust denial? LOL holy fuck. Apparently the only harm in Holocaust denial, according to this idiotic website, is that societies which don't prevent speech might fine or arrest you for unpopular speech.

Yeah sorry, pick a better source.

Yo, if you want to explode some things there is explosives info in this publication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - now am I a terrorist?

Yet people are still trying to ban it.

Any way you slice it, how-to content should be protected speech.

And then your app can have the desirable quality of feeling equally not-at-home on every platform.

A whole lot of random stuff about ass and someone who's confused about whether the gays or the islams are the enemy. Sharpen your point.

The thing that's astonishing, and that Orwell got wrong, is that you will find astute people who actually defend this fully aware of the fact that they will attack it in the future—just as you find people now who defend the stability of Assad's regime who will readily admit they attacked it in the recent past. We were not always at war with Eurasia, but we may well be again in the near future and we should always be at the ready to be craven profiteers of whatever short-sighted gain can be had in any version of the 24 hour news cycle.

Damn right. Get ready to deal with a slightly-to-moderately different bunch of lunatics and their nominally distinguishable abuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'm far more worried that this will be used to defend some kind of surveillance program as having "prevented an attack", or that it'll be used without context as precedent of curtailing speech without controversy.

Thanks for the correction, chum...p.

It's not an entitlement. The difference is "having a right" versus "being willing to pay".

I don't have a right to have anyone perform for me, but I certainly can decide whether or not I'm willing to pay for a performance. If the available performances don't match my expectations, they may not make a sale. They are not entitled to my purchase.

I can access it just fine, all you need is access to AC's computer.

It's like the Tooth Fairy, Loch Ness Monster, and Jesus all revealed themselves at once.