Hey stop bitching at me. I didn't know who the fuck the guy that guy was and I thought the site was pretty amusing and fake.
Poster
Hey stop bitching at me. I didn't know who the fuck the guy that guy was and I thought the site was pretty amusing and fake.
en(un)lightened
Oh, you did that in total innocence?Originally posted by Arm@22 June 2004 - 05:32
Hey stop bitching at me. I didn't know who the fuck the guy that guy was and I thought the site was pretty amusing and fake.
Then from now on we can assume naivete every time you make a contrary comment, correct?
That should be fun; I expect we won't have long to wait.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
we want your oil!
anyonee know these al queada websites? i reckon theyd be interesting to read
effendi
not an al qaeda website but aljazeera gives the world news from an eastern, rather than a western, point of view.Originally posted by GepperRankins@22 June 2004 - 21:48
anyonee know these al queada websites? i reckon theyd be interesting to read
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
there is no god
You find pictures of decapitation "amusing"?Originally posted by Arm@22 June 2004 - 03:32
Hey stop bitching at me. I didn't know who the fuck the guy that guy was and I thought the site was pretty amusing and fake.
What does it matter real or fake, there was no purpose served in posting such pictures.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Maybe we should have a Poll about whether this prick should post pictures of decapitations.
No wait, sorry don't want to offend anyone by having a Poll about what they should post. Just use the report button if you think something is out of order and let the Mods deal with it.
Can't go trying people in public, without them having a say. That would be unfair.
Im getting sick of having peoples moralities pushed on me. People go around hailing the virtues of the debate and the freedom of speech, then duplicitously lash out if they find their sensibilities offended by someone using those same means. You can make whatever case you like for why this instance is different, or does not apply but we all know this is nothing less than mere hypocrisy.
There's no 'I' in 'team'. But then there's no 'I' in 'useless smug colleague', either.
And there's four in 'platitude-quoting idiot'. Go figure.
there is no god
This isn't about forcing morals upon anyone. The statement has been made that I /we are anti censorship but pro responsibility.Originally posted by Canti@22 June 2004 - 15:58
Im getting sick of having peoples moralities pushed on me. People go around hailing the virtues of the debate and the freedom of speech, then duplicitously lash out if they find their sensibilities offended by someone using those same means. You can make whatever case you like for why this instance is different, or does not apply but we all know this is nothing less than mere hypocrisy.
Had he posted a link to the pictures that would be fine, anyone that wished to view the pictures could have chosen to do so, but instead he decided to post the pictures in full view which meant that the reader had no choice. There is no hypocrisy involved, just a wish for responsibility in method.
This forum has members from many backgrounds, cultures and ages and all should be respected.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Move It On Over
Oh no I think I might actually agree with you on somethingOriginally posted by vidcc@22 June 2004 - 19:24
This isn't about forcing morals upon anyone. The statement has been made that I /we are anti censorship but pro responsibility.
Had he posted a link to the pictures that would be fine, anyone that wished to view the pictures could have chosen to do so, but instead he decided to post the pictures in full view which meant that the reader had no choice. There is no hypocrisy involved, just a wish for responsibility in method.
This forum has members from many backgrounds, cultures and ages and all should be respected.
Just this one time though
A link, with a description and warning would have sufficed.Originally posted by Canti@22 June 2004 - 23:58
Im getting sick of having peoples moralities pushed on me. People go around hailing the virtues of the debate and the freedom of speech, then duplicitously lash out if they find their sensibilities offended by someone using those same means. You can make whatever case you like for why this instance is different, or does not apply but we all know this is nothing less than mere hypocrisy.
It was him who took people choice and freedom to decide away, not the reverse.
That way his freedom of expression would have been conserved, as would everyone else's freedom not to look at disturbing images.
The way he did it left him as the only person able to make a choice.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks