The Infamous Joe 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1677) comment rss

  • On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language… But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2012 @ 11:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

    I can't help but notice that you completely ignored my question. Never fear, I'll treat you as I want to be treated, and address your points!

    It's true that science holds many theories, and only a handful of "laws". However, in science, new data creates new theories, and discards old, outdated ones. Religion, in contrast, cannot adapt. (Though, a strong argument can be made that between the old and new testament, the attempt to adapt was made.)

    In a more practical example: I'm not saying that there is no supreme creator of the universe, I'm just saying that the evidence doesn't support that theory. I assure you, were real proof shown to the contrary, I'd change that theory, or discard it.

    Can you say the same? Obviously not.

  • On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language… But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2012 @ 11:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

    Well... Isn't one of the tenants of your religion that you have a personal relationship with your God? That's pretty egotistical, isn't it, when you think about it?

  • On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language… But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2012 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

    Don't get me wrong, belief in something without any facts or data to back it up is very dangerous, and ripe for misuse, and I encourage any religious people who ask to really consider the implications of their belief.

    For instance, if a man came up to you, John Doe, dressed in rags and said that he spoke to God, would you believe him? If he then commanded, say, that you take your newborn and kill him, would you obey?

    Probably not. Why? Your religion has shown that God can and does do/ask these things. Also, you have exactly as much proof that God *didn't* tell the man to command you to murder your son as you do that he *did* tell him. It's because we're all born rational creatures, and deep down you know that God (or any god) doesn't exist.

    I defend and respect your right to believe whatever you want, but I urge you to trust the world around you and not the one that someone told someone else, who told someone else, who wrote down, who then translated, and translated again says exists.

  • On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language… But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2012 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

    I think it's pretty obvious that you don't have to actually believe a religion to use it.

    Although I have absolutely zero data to back it up, I feel like the people who *actually* believe in their religion aren't the people we should worry about. The people who don't really believe, but instead use it as a convenient means to achieve their goals. (Killing infidels, outlawing porn, reason to hate some type of human, etc)

    Again, that's just a gut feeling.

  • On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language… But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2012 @ 10:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

    ... wide range of *results*, depending ...

  • On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language… But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2012 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

    Well, both guns and religion were invented by Man, and both have a wide range of uses, depending on what type and for what use it's used.

    I also used a 'gun' because it's another thing that people often blame for the actions of its user. Though, depending on what old movie you watch, it's conceivable that people might worship, say, a bomb. ;-)

    I think the analogy works quite well, personally. :-)

  • On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language… But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2012 @ 10:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

    Well, we're blurring analogies, at this point. We've already established that I'm an atheist. I'm just saying that you're placing blame on a *thing*. The blame is always on the person using the thing. Always.

    A corollary, I suppose, is that simply ridding the world of the tool won't stop the underlying behavior. Good people will be good; responsible people will be responsible; power hungry people will strive to control people; and hateful people will find excuses to kill. This is the point that John Doe was making, I think.

  • On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language… But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2012 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

    Personally, I view religion much as I do guns. Some people can use it to make the world better, some people use it to make themselves feel safe, and some people use it to exert control over people, and some people use it to kill people.

    I don't ever blame to tool, only the person using it.

  • On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language… But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2012 @ 09:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Morality

    I'm an atheist, but not the kind that thinks that religion should be wiped from the face of the planet. If someone thinks that porn is bad, or that unleavened bread can become human flesh because someone sings to it, or that it's unlucky to break a mirror, I don't care-- not even a little bit. It's when they take the general religious message of "Hey, guys, don't be a dick." and turn it into some judgmental, violent, hateful bullshit that compels them to try and tell me what to do with my life that I start to become a tiny bit anti-religion.

    Obviously, I have no quarrel with deists.

  • On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language… But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2012 @ 09:00am

    Re: Morality

    I try very hard not to be anti-religion, but the religious seem determined to change my mind.

  • On the post: Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2012 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action

    The only reason jury nullification is legal is because you can't *know* that the jury "nullified" a particular law. (That's the "de facto" part you mentioned above)

    When the jury then opens it's big, fat mouth, it changes everything. When there's *proof* that the jury disobeyed the court, then it's grounds for a mistrial, or JNOV.

  • On the post: Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2012 @ 11:15am

    Re:

    //sigh

    http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/26/3270837/google-responds-apple-samsung-verdict

  • On the post: Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2012 @ 10:04am

    Win-win?

    So, Samsung gets to look like the good guy fighting against big, bad Apple; gets to get a lot of free publicity about how their gadgets are so great that Apple has to compete in the courtroom; and get to have the whole thing turned over because the jury was filled with morons.

    Buy your Samsung stock now, while it's (temporarily) low(er).

  • On the post: Rep. Nadler Proposes The RIAA Bailout Act Of 2012

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2012 @ 09:45am

    Anger Management.

    It's enough to make me want to cancel my music streaming subscription I pay monthly for and pirate again.

  • On the post: Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2012 @ 07:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Objection; Conjecture.

  • On the post: Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2012 @ 12:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    [Citation needed.]

  • On the post: Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2012 @ 12:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe? "Maybe" is a flimsy excuse to route around the constitution. "Maybe" you've done something illegal, and deserve to lose your rights, too. Who can know? Who needs to? "Maybe" is all it takes, it seems.

    Turn yourself in, it will make things easier on you, criminal.

  • On the post: Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2012 @ 09:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    On this post, at the time of this writing, the only posts down-voted are truly report-worthy-- they hold no value.

    This is not always the case, as sometimes a mere dissenting voice gets flagged-- which is sad.

    I hope this is a new trend.

  • On the post: Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2012 @ 09:36am

    Re:

    Well, their work load has gone down now that they only have to worry about legitimate rapes.

  • On the post: Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2012 @ 09:35am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If an accused drug dealer has Oxycontin in his house, that doesn't not mean he can have his house seized. He has to have a quantity such that it is obvious he is selling, or they have to catch him selling it.

    The problem with you statement is that it assumes guilt without due process. If there is a crime, it must be proven, *then* it can be stopped. That's how it works. That's how you *want* it to work, trust me.

Next >>