Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Jan 2012 21:11 UTC
Legal "Three weeks ago the 23-year-old UK-based administrator of a TV show and movie links site was arrested by police. The site, referred to only as TVShack, could be one of three domains of which two are already controlled by the US government after their seizure as part of Operation in Our Sites. Following his detention in the UK's largest prison, the admin is now fighting his extradition to the U.S. with the help of Gary McKinnon's lawyer." His site only linked; it did not host. The most damning point is that he was found not guilty under UK law. So, does this mean The Netherlands can request extradition of, say, Rick Santorum for his blatant anti-homosexual remarks, which are illegal under Dutch law? That would be fun.
Thread beginning with comment 503506
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Santorum
by ricegf on Sun 15th Jan 2012 02:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Santorum"
ricegf
Member since:
2007-04-25

"He started it" is a kindergartner's defense.

Calling people with whom you disagree names is just a cheap way to avoid having to address the issues they raise.

And if you're so sure of your moral superiority, why stoop to the exact same behavior for which you are criticizing them?

Sorry, not buying it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Santorum
by zima on Sun 15th Jan 2012 03:10 in reply to "RE[3]: Santorum"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The issue here is, "he"/"them" not only don't see any problem with it - they essentially see gay bashing and such as a ~virtuous thing to do (NVM the amount of actual harm it brings)

Demanding to bring (real) moral superiority issues to the table with such people is a bit naive at this point, after the non-issues they raise have been addressed in more eloquent ways numerous times over the years - evidently it just doesn't work.
(so, let Savage & co. have his cheap shots if they want, especially since they're the ones really impacted by whole mess)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Santorum
by ricegf on Sun 15th Jan 2012 03:22 in reply to "RE[4]: Santorum"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Ah, "they" are too stupid to reason with; "they" have evil motives; "they" aren't like "us", so it's OK to use immoral means such as a campaign of innuendo and character association to destroy those you fear - you know, like Mr. Turing's enemies did to him.

May I suggest that you read about Dr. Martin Luther King's approach to dealing with bigotry and injustice? His birthday is 15 January. No better time to learn that being persistently honorable and of high character is better than merely being an ugly bully.

Just a thought.

Edited 2012-01-15 03:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

The 'He Started it' excuse
by shotsman on Sun 15th Jan 2012 07:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Santorum"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

This is how bullies get away with their campaign of hate for so long.

The person being bullied tells the truth. 'He/She Started it'.
The Bully is alibied by his/her mates/Friends/Fellow Gang members who all say 'No he didn't'.

The victim is then punished for telling the truth. The bully wins twice.

Sorry, the 'he started it' excuse is very lame and does not cut any mustard with me. (yeah, I was the victim for many years at school)

Back on topic, I think it would be kinda nice for the Dutch to issue an international arrest warrant for Mr Santorum for his comments that are bordering on a 'hate crime'.
Then we would at least get to see how the US Acts with the extradition request. His crime is equally as bad as someone having some links on his web site.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: The 'He Started it' excuse
by zima on Sun 15th Jan 2012 12:21 in reply to "The 'He Started it' excuse"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And it seems the guy is quite quick to go towards the "blame the victim" kind of stuff, of fairly low calibre... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Catholic_Online_article_... (and Godwined the Senate? Hm, that's actually also kinda cool ;) )

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Santorum
by kaiwai on Mon 16th Jan 2012 01:49 in reply to "RE[3]: Santorum"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"He started it" is a kindergartner's defense.

Calling people with whom you disagree names is just a cheap way to avoid having to address the issues they raise.

And if you're so sure of your moral superiority, why stoop to the exact same behavior for which you are criticizing them?

Sorry, not buying it.


I know this is going way off from the original topic of the article which Thom posted but lets get one thing straight - Rick Santorum is a guy who compares a same homosexual relationships and homosexual sexual acts between consenting adults as being morally equivalent to beastiality, incest and paedophilia. I'm sorry but such views have gone well beyond a matter of two people disagreeing, given that both sides can be understood as reasoned arguments with different conclusions, to point where Rick Santorum's arguments are so lacking in structure it is entering face palm territory. We're talking about self evident statements that incriminate oneself as a moron and do not require any sort of retort given that the original statement lacked any intellectual rigour in the first place.

What Dan Savage did was childish but lets keep one thing in mind, Dan Savage isn't a senator he is an entertainer. The fact that a state would vote in Rick Santorum tells me more about the state whom he was voted to represent more than it says anything about the American system over all.

I know what I've said will fall on deaf ears given that ricegf is a Christian fundamentalist and God forbid him speaking against a 'like minded believer' whom he finds affinity with Rick Santorum.

Edited 2012-01-16 01:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Santorum
by ricegf on Mon 16th Jan 2012 13:16 in reply to "RE[4]: Santorum"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

So you're volunteering to lead the pogrom?

And seriously, "Christian Fundamentalist" is the best slur you can think of? I realize it invokes "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist", i.e., someone who can be incarcerated for life without trial (or so I hear). Bur surely you can think of some disgusting bodily fluid to label "ricegf" and recruit for an on-line campaign to promote, similar to the post that started this thread?

In any event, try to understand that I would have precisely the same reaction to a recruiting campaign to desecrate the name of Milk or Kameny. I don't give a flip who sleeps with whom or who marries whom, but I care very much that filthy campaigns of slurs and innuendo (for good examples, look at the posts that follow my mention of the name "Dr. Martin Luther King" elsewhere in this thread) be jettisoned from the arena of online discussion.

It's the best hope I can find toward the end of the extreme polarization infesting American, and perhaps world, politics these days.

Reply Parent Score: 2