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 504150
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Santorum
by zima on Sat 21st Jan 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Santorum"
zima
Member since:
2005-07-06

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 http://www.osnews.com/permalink?503548 :
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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Gets_Better_Project ...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