How do you judge what has literary value? It seems to me that the only metric for violence in media is the age of the composition itself. Hamlet would be fine since it's by Shakespeare and was first published in 1603. Yet Scarface would be blocked since it only goes back to 1932 (the Al Pacino remake in 1983).
It wasn't just a big intel dump to the internet for anyone to access.
You forgot a step in Manning's release plan: He gave it to Wikileaks for them to filter out names of people who might be harmed and then disseminate the information to the media. Just as they had been doing for other whistleblowers prior to this incident. That is how the story broke out in the mainstream media after all. Larger news organizations like the New York Times picked up the story and told about the release of diplomatic cables. Then it was Manning that was betrayed by Adrian Lamo who brought everything to the Federal agencies and outed the whistleblower.
I noticed that too. It reads like half of a sentence. Cutting out the extra info to break the sentence down we get this:
ASCAP has a variety of different rates that it charges for things, and Pandora noted that its online competitors, such as iHeartRadio -- which is owned by ClearChannel, the largest owners of terrestrial radio stations in the US.
Pandora noted that its online competitors, such as iHeartRadio...what?
In the 1940s and 50s IIRC. Better known as the McCarthy era. The threat of Nazism in the United States during WWII and the post-war communist scare had the Government trying to pass laws to criminalize specific acts of political activity.
I'd invite you to learn what just a logical fallacy is. First of all, it isn't always a true/false statement. What it is is a mistake in reasoning. Conclusions based on logical fallacies can be true, but they would be true for the wrong reasons.
There are a number of types of logical fallacies and a quick google search will direct you to a number of resources that can explain them in detail.
For instance, this statement is a logical fallacy:
I have yet to come across any person in all my years of living and interacting with people from the around the world where my statement is not true.
This is an example of Confirmation Bias. It might be a good anecdote to illustrate a point, but it does not actually prove one.
Lastly, what is acceptable and what is not is a matter for each of us to decide as individuals.
I disagree to an extent. There is a consensus among a group which drives our decisions on what is and is not acceptable. People who do not conform to group think are punished or otherwise guided towards conformity. An individual can decide what is acceptable to them but if it doesn't conform with their group, then conflict can arise.
I don't know where you get the idea that the Old Testament is no longer binding.
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."
2 Peter 20-21
"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
Which brings me to John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law.
You're talking about Transcendental Morality. This is a very, very frightening concept. Is something moral because God said it is? The Old Testament is rife with genocide, rape, murder, and infanticide. All of it based on God's morality.
Since I mentioned John 7:19, here's a section reference from Exodus 32:27-28:
27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.
It was moral for Moses to order his men to kill around 3,000 people because they were offering prayers and sacrifices to a golden idol. He had men kill their own brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers and children. Why? Because God commanded him to give that order. It was a moral imperative.
Then after the slaughter Moses delivered the Commandments. He ordered the deaths of hundreds of people who were following old traditions without even knowing God's Law since it had yet to be proclaimed to the people.
What's worse is before this merciless act, Moses dared question God:
Exodus 32:11-12 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people.
Even Moses knew that it was an immoral act to kill his own people. Yet because it was commanded by God to do so, he relented and followed suit.
God's morality has been a justification for inhumane acts for thousands of years. Chronicled in the holy texts of three major religions.
Your statement/comment is no less bigotry than the ones you are commenting about.
Children like Glowacki have been taught to cloak their bigotry under the guise of religion. The first note is that you are assuming that the young person in question has not thought deeply about his particular beliefs. As we do not know him, nor have we attempted to understand or know him, we do not know on what basis he holds these particular beliefs.
Secondly assigning the term bigotry to his particular stance is making the assumption that by him taking that stance he is automatically a bigot. Just because he doesn't agree with a particular standpoint, it does not mean that he doesn't allow others to have their own point of view.
Hence, your statement is, of itself, bigotry. My own response will be classified as bigotry. That is the nature of the game.
You've just demonstrated Deflection and set up a strawman.
I was going to address several points you've tried to make, but looking into the context, you're saying just one thing which was nicely summarized in your closing statement:
The problem is that all people are bigots in some form or another. That is the nature of being human.
This is a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populum.
Just because "everyone does it" does not make the instance of this one child and his actions acceptable.
Children like Glowacki have been taught to cloak their bigotry under the guise of religion. For some reason I highly doubt this individual nor his parents hold such strong convictions to other laws dictated by verses of Corinthians and Leviticus.