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 503587
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Santorum
by kaiwai on Mon 16th Jan 2012 01:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Santorum"
Member since:

"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:

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

RE[6]: Santorum
by JAlexoid on Mon 16th Jan 2012 17:53 in reply to "RE[5]: Santorum"
JAlexoid Member since:

When you get enough of your fellow countrymen to vote based on actual issues, rather than the "poo flinging" campaign effectiveness then you can start thinking about polarisation.
Till then, I doubt that you could have raised awareness how much Santorum stereotypes people.

(Why do I care about US politics? He's running for the seat of the president of the US. And my country tends to be dominated by pro-US policies.)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Santorum
by zima on Sat 21st Jan 2012 23:59 in reply to "RE[5]: Santorum"
zima Member since:

So you're volunteering to lead the pogrom?

And another basic logical fallacy (are you able to post on such matters without them?). Not far from another :
That's a much longer elaboration on your thesis that it's OK to abuse people with whom you disagree, but I'm afraid I didn't find it any more convincing than the short version. Sorry.

Splendid one, really ;) ...just a post after I pointed out your previous one was built on two logical fallacies, you again respond with a clear logical fallacy, one of those two (too bad they work so good on too many - but hey, otherwise people wouldn't use them), possibly without even blinking.

No, maybe you hinted correctly, maybe there's no point in reasoning...

"I still reject what I misrepresent as your position" - this is what you basically wrote, another classic straw man (not much of a surprise it's unconvincing). Goes into red herring at this point ...or even proof by assertion; or framing (of yourself, really) / loaded language / labelling (yeah, funny that, how you meander in the vicinity of name calling... but TBH all those are rampant in US politics); heck, even slight newspeak - unless you also petition for, say, Ministry of Abuse / Attack name change.

This is closer to what I'm actually saying few times already: a limited defence from those abusing you is fairly understandable (limited particularly in comparison to what's promulgated and inspired by the abusers)
Or: responding in kind / in fairly ~proportional, but still comparatively limited way, can be justifiable if the offender fails to moderate his abusive behaviour despite constant (and continuing) more "civilised" attempts (indeed, it can be the only thing left to do, assuming an issue is of enough severity - and that's the case when we can easily pinpoint to it inspiring many youth-destroying, well, persecutions; even some deaths)

His words, his stances (and on homosexuality, he made one of his most notable ones) do actual harm (not imaginary one, such as kids easily realising what few % of humanity always were, what few % of them also are).
This isn't about simple disagreeing (NVM strong hints he's a hypocrite, so "disagreeing" is a bit beyond such case - not like that's unusual among politicians, they even tend to lie also simply because society can't handle the truth, and wrap it up in local neologisms such as "social conservatism"), this is what actually happens.
Newsflash: not all opinions warrant respect. One can pretty easily recognize those which don't by seeing the harm they fuel. I don't really particularly care about what Santaro says, more what kind of actions rhetoric such as his tends to inspire.

Oh, and not "people" but vocal and abusive public figures (what, they didn't know - when they were getting into it - they can't expect the same amount of protection as common folks, from the fallout of their freedom to say stupid things?) with dirty (ultimately, also pro-bullying) political rhetoric as a defining characteristic of their public persona.

While you framed it in a way which absolves the bully and won't let it go (how else to call somebody who very much inspires bullying, goes against so many so diverse people: ...many celebs of higher standing than Santorum / in many places throughout the world / also businesses, some of which you surely love, which would be embarrassed by somebody like Santorum / oh, and that's from the very same Savage - who also seemed to offer Santorum a way to somewhat repair the harm, to support a foundation fighting with ~gay bullying)...

...congratulations, your approach enables them, this is what bullies sustain on (and so, I was bullied / beaten / stolen from - nobody really cared, there was no reason since obviously there can't be anything wrong happening to a kid with consistently top academic results (NVM how he can't use them) - but I couldn't defend against it, that would make me baaad in some way which I'm sure makes sense to you)

Well, "good" thing is - by participating you essentially contribute to a Streisand effect of sorts.

Edited 2012-01-22 00:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2