Removed by mod

People being contractually obligated to undergo medically unnecessary surgery is still an intolerable atrocity.

Removed by mod

We kinda do need him, though. Very few people are as intensely principled as he is on the subject of computing freedom, and without him anchoring the Overton window, there’s nothing stopping the Bill Gateses of this world from moving it.

I think the problem there is that, for many years, nobody bothered to explain to him exactly why child porn is bad.

Most people observe that everyone else thinks it’s bad and don’t question it any further. That’s not good enough for Stallman, though, and for good reason: expecting him to unquestioningly bow to peer pressure is an insult to his intelligence.

Someone did eventually explain the problem to Stallman. I don’t know what exactly was explained, but my guess is that Stallman was told that child porn is non-consensual and therefore violates the child’s privacy, similar to how revenge porn violates the subject’s privacy. At any rate, after that discussion took place, Stallman did an about-face on the subject, and is now opposed to child porn like anyone else.

Moral of the story: taboos and peer pressure bad; logic and education good.

Hoping to see news that the US government has finally decided to stop the economy from melting down.

I keep being disappointed…

Aren’t you supposed to be sword fighting on an office chair?

To be replaced by Nazis. A sad and embarrassing choice by the people of Finland.

That will keep children out for about 12 seconds.

But yes, if porn is the only use case then this method is self incriminating.

That is precisely the problem. It will mostly or only be used for porn.

First, despite there being multiple school shootings this year, school shootings are a tiny fraction of the overall homicides in the US

Which are also often committed with guns…

which are, in turn, dwarfed by the number of suicides committed with firearms.

I’m not talking about suicide.

Second, looking at your link you provided, you see a lot of things like, “A gun was fired during a fight near a basketball game at Appoquinimink High School. No injuries were reported”, and “Bullets struck two windows of classrooms at PS 78 in the Stapleton neighborhood of Staten Island. One classroom was occupied by ten adults, but no bullets entered the classrooms” being counted as "school shootings:, which you then compare to Columbine. You are intentionally, and in bad faith, conflating entirely different things, and placing them all under the heading of, “firearms near schools”.

I did nothing of the sort. There are multiple bona fide school shootings in that list, such as the Michigan State shooting and the Covenant shooting.

It is relevant, because it has different causes, and is thus addressed differently.

That’s not a meaningful answer. Let’s have some details.

Are you willing to engage in good faith, or have you already decided that the only solution is banning firearms?

Are you willing to engage in good faith? So far, you’ve argued based on false premises (namely that school shootings are rare, and that there are no bona fide school shootings in the previously linked Wikipedia list) and evasive non-answers (namely that targeted violence at school is to be “addressed differently”, with no explanation of how). Doesn’t seem like good faith to me.

Could’ve fooled me. I was under the impression we were sending weapons and trainers to one of our allies who are fighting them. Sounds like an enemy to me.

Before Internet video porn, kids were finding their dads’ Playboys and VHS tapes.

And before that, people living in cabins or caves had sex in full view of their children because there was nowhere else to do it.

Children seeing adults bang is not even remotely new, and nothing overly bad ever came of it. The only reason anyone is concerned with this is because their screwed-up religion taught them to be afraid of sex, and that is not an adequate justification for compromising innocent adults’ privacy.

some conservatives are going to have things blocked that aren’t porn and are helpful to some kid’s sexual education because they’re regressive.

That sounds like the real motivation for this nonsense: not to protect kids from harm, but to protect their parents from the responsibility of properly educating them.

You severely underestimate kids’ technical know-how. If it can be broken, they will break it.

That would require you to disclose proof of your real-life identity to some dubious company for the purpose of unlocking porn. Definitely not privacy-preserving.

Which is not a desktop.

Good. China has enough slaves. It doesn’t need more.

That’s not how you spell “imprison the C-suite of”. Last time I read the Constitution, giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies was treason.

Good riddance to bad spyware.