It is not my duty to kill blasphemers. Saudi's interpretation of Islam is not THE ISLAM. This is something you must understand, just like America's Christianity is at odds with the Greek Orthodox Church who have one of the earliest copies of the Bible. Islam is simply, you attack us, we attack back but no more than we need to. It is easy to take verses out of context especially Surah at-Taubah - if you are generally interested then I recommend this explanation:- http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html Order to kill was only given when the Romans killed 14 Muslims and summoned an army of 200,000 people - only logical really when you're in a fight or flight situation surrounded by the enemy geographically.

The understanding that everything is the will of Allah is correct. People find this concept uncomfortable and dismiss God by saying "how can such a God let rape and massacres happen?!" But it is simply a misunderstanding. Muslims believe Allah has given everybody free-will in this life and if that human being uses that free will for bad, Allah has willed it indirectly because Allah gave them that free-will in the first place.

Freedom and self-expression is all well and good until you become a victim of it.

Equating pornography with censorship will take me some time to get my head around. Again, you seem to take the polar opposite here by saying that censoring pornography will cause extreme political ideaology to prevail and we will go through other Holocaust. Those who advocate censorship are not all Facists and Maoists - they just want their future generation to have a higher view of women and more respect for them. Read and reflect on reports on how young boys are watching extreme pornographic, and then getting a girlfriend and trying the same things they have seen, which can cause the girl pain and emotional distress. You are right it is a fallacy that moderation is always the middle path. But it is also a fallacy to assume that all possible fallacies are certainly fallacies. When it comes to sex moderation is the best path as the effects of too little acknowledgement and "over-acknowledgement" is unhealthy for society. Simple example, too much or too little with your partner can be damaging to the relationship. When is comes to moderation, pornography will always lead to excess as it encourages a quick-route to satisfaction which will always be addictive. A quick route to pleasure without very little effort is very addictive regardless of the vice. Age is definately a factor in determing how people think and view life. Our thoughts evolve everyday - this doesn't make me "ageist" as you describe, it's not suprising a pro-pornography person such as yourself will be quick to make me out to be discriminatory and try make yourself out to be the hero. Now I guess im "anti-liberalist" for pointing out your modus operandi. But pornography will always discourage moderation as it is a quick-route to satisfaction where one can bypass all the usual steps involved to gaining that pleasure with a partner. http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm However I'm sure you know statistics aren't everything so what is required here is a rational logical debate. Statistics will only get us so far so we must think these issues through logically. If we are to play your card we could use correlation does not imply causation for censorship effecting negatively/postively society over the years. This is the typical liberal argument except when it works in their favour. They will often goto extremes making their opponent out to be a right-wing facist. All I'm asking is for you consider one question:- "Are you fine with your children growing up in an unrestricted internet environment that could expose them to rape scenes, extreme pornography and self-multilation?" If so, then this is your choice.

your*.

1.) Linguistically you're first point may make sense but practically it does not. Censorship is not a form of pornography. 2.) I wouldn't call pronography a sound form of expression. Just look at the effects of it on our society. I hate to play the censorship card on this one but I am a realist - censoring people from material that is good for them is no different from preventing people from taking hard drugs such heroin. Or would you call injecting heroin an expression and that individual should continue to "express" themselves. Grosteque tabus around sex is one extreme and it's complete openess devoid of censorship is another. Like I said we need an equilibrium here. 3.) It may not but the correlation I am observing is that younger people such as myself have less reponsibility such as children. Therefore they are less likely to understand what it really means to have your children at risk on the internet, such as being exposed to uncensored pornography with all its genres. I read a good post on slashdot a few days back about how students are usually left-wing and anti-taxation, until they step into the real world after they've done their degree and start earning. peace

I think a balance is needed here:- A lack of censorship and full-blown "dictator-style" censorshop are as bad as each other. Pro internet freedom activists will argue it is up to parents to shield their children from the filth on the Internet. This is however practically impossible as children and teenagers are increasing in computer knowledge at a faster rate than the previous generation. A complete lack of censorship is all good until you discover it's your children viewing the pornography which helps subconsciously shape their view of women and men in society. Does it come as a suprise that the strongest anti-censorship activists are young people without children? However full blown censorship in which a person cannot express his or her opinion is totally wrong either. Expression of opinion can help society grow and encourage debates in which society can come to rational decisions, which can in turn help develop society intellectually and morally. Dictators or political parties who dislike the opposition choose to silence their opponents through censorship which unfair, as this is enforcing their desires on the rest of society. To summarise, are pro/anti censorship activists acting in accordance to their own desires or do they truely want the best for society? As regards to China, unfortunately such laws will only be effective if backed up with physical brutality - another government tactic to forcefully enforce the law if society does not submit to the government's desires. Proxies are simply the answer to such censorship or underground ISPs which I'm sure will be an emerging market.

Maybe Linus woke up on the wrong side of the bed or had a night terror in which XP logon sounds were looped throughout.

We should educate oureselves to understand the essense of the scientific method, basic statistics and fallacy such as correlation does not imply causation. Then we will have the tools to analyse such reports and understand what they really do and do not mean.

Oh man so I went multiarch on Debian for nothing