Originally posted by RobtardIf they are sent to your email account I suppose. Though intending to destroying something and advertising your shit is different. Kinda how letter bombs are frowned upon, while the advertising for the local china place is alright.
Same thing could be argued for computer viruses then.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If they are sent to your email account I suppose. Though intending to destroying something and advertising your shit is different. Kinda how letter bombs are frowned upon, while the advertising for the local china place is alright.
Rememebr those anpying pop-ups you'd get back in the day, after a trojan was installed into your comp? Now, they don't harm your computer per say, they just keep popping up and up and up, telling you about all the great deals on penis enlargement, porn or this awesome new anti-virus program. Still an invasion of privacy, as your comp is not public property.
Originally posted by RobtardYour computer not. Your email account on the internet is open to it so. Again, difference between your mailbox and your living room. If you bring shit from your mailbox in it's really your problem.
No, no and no.Rememebr those anpying pop-ups you'd get back in the day, after a trojan was installed into your comp? Now, they don't harm your computer per say, they just keep popping up and up and up, telling you about all the great deals on penis enlargement, porn or this awesome new anti-virus program. Still an invasion of privacy, as your comp is not public property.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Your computer not. Your email account on the internet is open to it so. Again, difference between your mailbox and your living room. If you bring shit from your mailbox in it's really your problem.
SPAM isn't governed strickly by your email account. i.e. you can get SPAM from just 'surfing the net'.
Originally posted by Robtard
SPAM isn't governed strickly by your email account. i.e. you can get SPAM from just 'surfing the net'.
Those are viruses, however. The semantic argument between spam and viruses is fairly pointless. It's very easy for any of us to eyeball it and no the difference, as well as seeing how they affect one's computer differently. Saying that if one should be allowed, then the other has to be as well, is frankly a sloppy misuse of the slippery slope argument.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Those are viruses, however. The semantic argument between spam and viruses is fairly pointless. It's very easy for any of us to eyeball it and no the difference, as well as seeing how they affect one's computer differently. Saying that if one should be allowed, then the other has to be as well, is frankly a sloppy misuse of the slippery slope argument.
I'm not the one grouping them together, they are both classified as "SPAM". Unless you have some insight on this?
Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not sure what this other spam you are talking about is actually.
Though I could be wrong in my initial assertion that hijackers would be classified as SPAM, I need further research, though I doubt it, as I am never wrong.
SPAM is the least of your worries. This ACLU if you look at their history is one of the only groups that stops the stripping away from the conservative parties that was in acted over 20 years ago. It may take another 20 to at least put our rights concerning court, true justice and impartial ways back in effect.
Originally posted by Deja~vuWe understand that you hate conservative parties, but really, it all depends whether you want to be stripped of your civil or economic rights.
SPAM is the least of your worries. This ACLU if you look at their history is one of the only groups that stops the stripping away from the conservative parties that was in acted over 20 years ago. It may take another 20 to at least put our rights concerning court, true justice and impartial ways back in effect.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
SPAM is the least of your worries. This ACLU if you look at their history is one of the only groups that stops the stripping away from the conservative parties that was in acted over 20 years ago. It may take another 20 to at least put our rights concerning court, true justice and impartial ways back in effect.
Your "Conservatives ad portas" fear-mongering is ridiculous.
I disagreed on certain aspects of the ACLU, of which I named four. Considering the hundreds if not thousands of cases they've covered that I don't have a problem with, I think it's safe for you to assume I am not out to destroy or discredit them.
I'd make the same distinction as bardock concerning spam. If they're considered the same thing, then that's dumb and it wouldn't take much to draw a line between the two types, passive and invasive.
...
I know they have been opposing extreme feminist groups in recent years who want to make porn illegal, citing it as a loss of women's rights both during the making of it and also the viewing of it.
Kinda odd, since porn stars voluntarily choose to take part in it, just like any other business (women are actually much more highly paid on average). Not that I condone some of the more degrading portrayals of women in porn, but at the same time I struggle to think of one instance where public opinion was altered through freedom-denying censorship. It would set a dangerous precedent, imo, so I fully support the ACLU in such endeavors.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
SPAM is the least of your worries. This ACLU if you look at their history is one of the only groups that stops the stripping away from the theocratic political opportunists that was in acted over 20 years ago. It may take another 20 to at least put our rights concerning court, true justice and impartial ways back in effect.
fixed
oh, and, as an institution, the ACLU is like all other institutions and inherently self-interested. No self-interested body is interested in YOU, unless you are aided by their ascension.
I'm all for freedom, but we shouldn't expect a political organization to protect us from the people we are stupid enough to elect in the first place.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'd make the same distinction as bardock concerning spam. If they're considered the same thing, then that's dumb and it wouldn't take much to draw a line between the two types, passive and invasive....
I know they have been opposing extreme feminist groups in recent years who want to make porn illegal, citing it as a loss of women's rights both during the making of it and also the viewing of it.
Kinda odd, since porn stars voluntarily choose to take part in it, just like any other business (women are actually much more highly paid on average). Not that I condone some of the more degrading portrayals of women in porn, but at the same time I struggle to think of one instance where public opinion was altered through freedom-denying censorship. It would set a dangerous precedent, imo, so I fully support the ACLU in such endeavors.
Despite how degrading some porn may betray women, they're willing doing it and being paid for it. So I don't see a problem, as long as said actions are not illegal.