Good decision. Any site that exists for the sole purpose of piracy should not exist. It's not a case of blocking access... it's a case of these sites should not exist at all. When it comes to things like YouTube, there can be no justification for blocking access because these sites do not exist for illegal purposes. I don't believe there's a slippery slope as some of you seem to be suggesting.
[QUOTE="alexside1"] You know, the same thing can be said about the health care plan.alexside1
Er... No? I'm pretty much sure that health care plan involves in increasing power. It's for providing health care to people who can't afford it. The fact that we call ourselves a first world nation and we don't have universal healthcare/socialized medicine is ridiculous.
I'm pretty much sure that health care plan involves in increasing power. It's for providing health care to people who can't afford it. The fact that we call ourselves a first world nation and we don't have universal healthcare/socialized medicine is ridiculous. I know what it dose, but that involves giving more power to the goverment.
Good decision. Any site that exists for the sole purpose of piracy should not exist. It's not a case of blocking access... it's a case of these sites should not exist at all. When it comes to things like YouTube, there can be no justification for blocking access because these sites do not exist for illegal purposes. I don't believe there's a slippery slope as some of you seem to be suggesting.SolidSnake35
Doesn't really matter what the government tries to do people will get through it within days or weeks as they always have. The government trying to stop it will likely just make people take it as more of a challenge and in the long run I bet this backfires on them huge.
[QUOTE="alexside1"] I'm pretty much sure that health care plan involves in increasing power.alexside1
It's for providing health care to people who can't afford it. The fact that we call ourselves a first world nation and we don't have universal healthcare/socialized medicine is ridiculous. I know what it dose, but that involves giving more power to the goverment. I'd rather have more control to the government than the big businesses that control it.
[QUOTE="alexside1"] No, increassing power of the goverment.alexside1
Off-topic: Do you hold conservative ideologies?
On-topic: Because decereasing the power got us in a fantastic economic boom that we're in right now? (referring to deregulation)
1.no I not politic type of guy. 2. I was pointing out that health care is an example of increasing power which, the poster is referring to. I was referring to limiting the power of the government on the internet. They have enough power already. I never brought up health care or even hinted at anything like it. You brought this thread derailing on yourself
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Good decision. Any site that exists for the sole purpose of piracy should not exist. It's not a case of blocking access... it's a case of these sites should not exist at all. When it comes to things like YouTube, there can be no justification for blocking access because these sites do not exist for illegal purposes. I don't believe there's a slippery slope as some of you seem to be suggesting.testfactor888
Doesn't really matter what the government tries to do people will get through it within days or weeks as they always have. The government trying to stop it will likely just make people take it as more of a challenge and in the long run I bet this backfires on them huge. But if they can block traffic then it's as good as dead. You shouldn't look at it as a restriction because you shouldn't want to visit these sites. If it was YouTube, for example, it would be a restriction because you could have a very good reason for wanting to visit.
[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Off-topic: Do you hold conservative ideologies?
On-topic: Because decereasing the power got us in a fantastic economic boom that we're in right now? (referring to deregulation)
testfactor888
1.no I not politic type of guy. 2. I was pointing out that health care is an example of increasing power which, the poster is referring to. I was referring to limiting the power of the government on the internet. They have enough power already. I never brought up health care or even hinted at anything like it. You brought this thread derailing on yourself
I'm fairly supportive of government regulations across a lot of industry, but the Internet is one place I really do think the government should not get involved in.
Good decision. Any site that exists for the sole purpose of piracy should not exist. It's not a case of blocking access... it's a case of these sites should not exist at all. When it comes to things like YouTube, there can be no justification for blocking access because these sites do not exist for illegal purposes. I don't believe there's a slippery slope as some of you seem to be suggesting.SolidSnake35
[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="jaydough"] It's for providing health care to people who can't afford it. The fact that we call ourselves a first world nation and we don't have universal healthcare/socialized medicine is ridiculous.
jaydough
I know what it dose, but that involves giving more power to the goverment. I'd rather have more control to the government than the big businesses that control it. That's not the point. a poster says that blocking websites due to illegal activity is giving power to the goverment which, says that it will try to get more power. I point to health care of an example of goverment gaining power.
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Good decision. Any site that exists for the sole purpose of piracy should not exist. It's not a case of blocking access... it's a case of these sites should not exist at all. When it comes to things like YouTube, there can be no justification for blocking access because these sites do not exist for illegal purposes. I don't believe there's a slippery slope as some of you seem to be suggesting.jaydough
No site exists solely for piracy. They can do other things at a differnt location. Nothing is stopping them.
[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Good decision. Any site that exists for the sole purpose of piracy should not exist. It's not a case of blocking access... it's a case of these sites should not exist at all. When it comes to things like YouTube, there can be no justification for blocking access because these sites do not exist for illegal purposes. I don't believe there's a slippery slope as some of you seem to be suggesting.SolidSnake35
Doesn't really matter what the government tries to do people will get through it within days or weeks as they always have. The government trying to stop it will likely just make people take it as more of a challenge and in the long run I bet this backfires on them huge. But if they can block traffic then it's as good as dead. You shouldn't look at it as a restriction because you shouldn't want to visit these sites. If it was YouTube, for example, it would be a restriction because you could have a very good reason for wanting to visit. They can't block traffic simply because the people who run these sites will find 101 ways to get around it. Piracy will never die and for them to fight it by trying to ban it completely is pointless. Prohibition on anything never works when its being forced on people. Everyone who wants to pirate will find ways and likely as I said this will blow up in the government's face. I will be glad when it does as well because I don't want the government to have the power they want over us.
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Good decision. Any site that exists for the sole purpose of piracy should not exist. It's not a case of blocking access... it's a case of these sites should not exist at all. When it comes to things like YouTube, there can be no justification for blocking access because these sites do not exist for illegal purposes. I don't believe there's a slippery slope as some of you seem to be suggesting.jaydough
No site exists solely for piracy. For the most part, some do. There's an obvious line between websites like the Pirate Bay and websites like YouTube. So like I said.. no slippery slope.
[QUOTE="alexside1"] I know what it dose, but that involves giving more power to the goverment.alexside1
I'd rather have more control to the government than the big businesses that control it. That's not the point. a poster says that blocking websites due to illegal activity is giving power to the goverment which, says that it will try to get more power. I point to health care of an example of goverment gaining power. And your example isn't really effective, since it's the government doing a good thing (for once.)
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Good decision. Any site that exists for the sole purpose of piracy should not exist. It's not a case of blocking access... it's a case of these sites should not exist at all. When it comes to things like YouTube, there can be no justification for blocking access because these sites do not exist for illegal purposes. I don't believe there's a slippery slope as some of you seem to be suggesting.SolidSnake35
No site exists solely for piracy. For the most part, some do. There's an obvious line between websites like the Pirate Bay and websites like YouTube. So like I said.. no slippery slope. The Pirate Bay has many purposes. I've downloaded tons of legal content from the seeders there.
[QUOTE="alexside1"] I know what it dose, but that involves giving more power to the goverment.alexside1
I'd rather have more control to the government than the big businesses that control it. That's not the point. a poster says that blocking websites due to illegal activity is giving power to the goverment which, says that it will try to get more power. I point to health care of an example of goverment gaining power. Since when was getting people healthier a bad thing? What will they do next! Oh no!!!!!! They're going to want to regulate Wall Street! NO!!!!!!
[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="testfactor888"] Doesn't really matter what the government tries to do people will get through it within days or weeks as they always have. The government trying to stop it will likely just make people take it as more of a challenge and in the long run I bet this backfires on them huge. But if they can block traffic then it's as good as dead. You shouldn't look at it as a restriction because you shouldn't want to visit these sites. If it was YouTube, for example, it would be a restriction because you could have a very good reason for wanting to visit. They can't block traffic simply because the people who run these sites will find 101 ways to get around it. Piracy will never die and for them to fight it by trying to ban it completely is pointless. Prohibition on anything never works when its being forced on people. Everyone who wants to pirate will find ways and likely as I said this will blow up in the government's face. I will be glad when it does as well because I don't want the government to have the power they want over us. I'm happy for the government to have power over criminals. It's one of the major reasons they exist.
[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="jaydough"] I'd rather have more control to the government than the big businesses that control it.
jaydough
That's not the point. a poster says that blocking websites due to illegal activity is giving power to the goverment which, says that it will try to get more power. I point to health care of an example of goverment gaining power. And your example isn't really effective, since it's the government doing a good thing (for once.) Blocking a site that has illegal activities is not a "good thing"?
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="jaydough"] No site exists solely for piracy.
jaydough
For the most part, some do. There's an obvious line between websites like the Pirate Bay and websites like YouTube. So like I said.. no slippery slope. The Pirate Bay has many purposes. I've downloaded tons of legal content from the seeders there. A website called the Pirate Bay does not mask its intentions very well. I'm sure you can find that legal content elsewhere.
[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="jaydough"] I'd rather have more control to the government than the big businesses that control it.
DroidPhysX
That's not the point. a poster says that blocking websites due to illegal activity is giving power to the goverment which, says that it will try to get more power. I point to health care of an example of goverment gaining power. Since when was getting people healthier a bad thing? What will they do next! Oh no!!!!!! They're going to want to regulate Wall Street! NO!!!!!! I never said the health care is a bad thing. I just using as an example of goverment getting power.
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] But if they can block traffic then it's as good as dead. You shouldn't look at it as a restriction because you shouldn't want to visit these sites. If it was YouTube, for example, it would be a restriction because you could have a very good reason for wanting to visit. They can't block traffic simply because the people who run these sites will find 101 ways to get around it. Piracy will never die and for them to fight it by trying to ban it completely is pointless. Prohibition on anything never works when its being forced on people. Everyone who wants to pirate will find ways and likely as I said this will blow up in the government's face. I will be glad when it does as well because I don't want the government to have the power they want over us. I'm happy for the government to have power over criminals. It's one of the major reasons they exist. Well we can't really go into details in an argument but I think we see which sides we are on this debate :) I always respect your opinion I just disagree. I think the government should have very little power over the internet. There will always be certain things that need regulation but the government trying to regulate the internet is one step toward them trying to ban other sites that they don't approve of. The United States government loves to take advantage of power grabs and once you let them get their teeth in something they will never let go
[QUOTE="alexside1"] That's not the point. a poster says that blocking websites due to illegal activity is giving power to the goverment which, says that it will try to get more power. I point to health care of an example of goverment gaining power.alexside1
And your example isn't really effective, since it's the government doing a good thing (for once.) Blocking a site that has illegal activities is not a "good thing"?1. I was talking about health care reform being a good thing.
2. It depends on the activities. Many things that are illegal are not bad.
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] For the most part, some do. There's an obvious line between websites like the Pirate Bay and websites like YouTube. So like I said.. no slippery slope.SolidSnake35
The Pirate Bay has many purposes. I've downloaded tons of legal content from the seeders there. A website called the Pirate Bay does not mask its intentions very well. I'm sure you can find that legal content elsewhere. But if I want the choice, I should be able to get the choice.
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="jaydough"] The Pirate Bay has many purposes. I've downloaded tons of legal content from the seeders there.
jaydough
A website called the Pirate Bay does not mask its intentions very well. I'm sure you can find that legal content elsewhere. But if I want the choice, I should be able to get the choice. I want choices in my life too. But guess what? It never happen. Somethings in life that we don't get to chose.
[QUOTE="alexside1"] Blocking a site that has illegal activities is not a "good thing"?alexside1
1. I was talking about health care reform being a good thing.
2. It depends on the activities. Many things that are illegal are not bad.
1.never said it was 2. If it's not bad then why it's illegal in the first place? Don't try to justify piracy. It's a cultural thing. Gay marriage, drugs, et cetera, are not bad, yet they are illegal.
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] A website called the Pirate Bay does not mask its intentions very well. I'm sure you can find that legal content elsewhere.alexside1
But if I want the choice, I should be able to get the choice. I want choices in my life too. But guess what? It never happen. Somethings in life that we don't get to chose. Why don't we get to choose. I think we get to choose. I demand the right to choose
[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="jaydough"]1. I was talking about health care reform being a good thing.
2. It depends on the activities. Many things that are illegal are not bad.
jaydough
1.never said it was 2. If it's not bad then why it's illegal in the first place? Don't try to justify piracy. It's a cultural thing. Gay marriage, drugs, et cetera, are not bad, yet they are illegal. Gay marriage involves with state not the entire U.S. Drugs *are* bad when it comes to health and I certenly don't want to see kids smoking cigrates.
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="jaydough"] The Pirate Bay has many purposes. I've downloaded tons of legal content from the seeders there.
jaydough
A website called the Pirate Bay does not mask its intentions very well. I'm sure you can find that legal content elsewhere. But if I want the choice, I should be able to get the choice. Hey, if i want to buy legal headache pills from a guy who also sells heroine i should be able to get the choice! :P In other words, i don't think that logic makes sense. Websites which function as a means of piracy on a massive scale don't get a free pass because hey, there might be some legal stuff going on in there too.
[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="jaydough"] But if I want the choice, I should be able to get the choice.
testfactor888
I want choices in my life too. But guess what? It never happen. Somethings in life that we don't get to chose. Why don't we get to choose. I think we get to choose. I demand the right to choose You can't demand choose. They give you the choose not the other way around.
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="jaydough"] The Pirate Bay has many purposes. I've downloaded tons of legal content from the seeders there.
jaydough
A website called the Pirate Bay does not mask its intentions very well. I'm sure you can find that legal content elsewhere. But if I want the choice, I should be able to get the choice. I want to ride a bus full of marshmallows to uni instead of the one I get. Sadly the choice isn't there. I could put it in a request, though... so I suggest you could write a letter to the government stating that you particularly wish to get content from a site bearing your desired name of choice (because the available ones aren't to your taste).
[QUOTE="alexside1"] 1.never said it was 2. If it's not bad then why it's illegal in the first place? Don't try to justify piracy.alexside1
It's a cultural thing. Gay marriage, drugs, et cetera, are not bad, yet they are illegal. Gay marriage involves with state not the entire U.S. Drugs *are* bad when it comes to health and I certenly don't want to see kids smoking cigrates. It's still illegal, and harmless.
Kids aren't allowed to smoke, a large portion of drugs are completely harmless, and it's your choice whether you use them.
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] A website called the Pirate Bay does not mask its intentions very well. I'm sure you can find that legal content elsewhere.SolidSnake35
But if I want the choice, I should be able to get the choice. I want to ride a bus full of marshmallows to uni instead of the one I get. Sadly the choice isn't there. I could put it in a request, though... so I suggest you could write a letter to the government stating that you particularly wish to get content from a site bearing your desired name of choice (because the available ones aren't to your taste). If that bus full of marshmallows existed, would you allow the bus to be taken away by the government because some of the passengers use the marshmallows to throw at people?
[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="jaydough"] It's a cultural thing. Gay marriage, drugs, et cetera, are not bad, yet they are illegal.
jaydough
Gay marriage involves with state not the entire U.S. Drugs *are* bad when it comes to health and I certenly don't want to see kids smoking cigrates. It's still illegal, and harmless.
Kids aren't allowed to smoke, a large portion of drugs are completely harmless, and it's your choice whether you use them.
1.gay marriage can't be censor sence it violiates freedom of exprotion. piracy isn't exprstion so no exptions. 2. Refering durgs that harms you not help you. ( when it comes to health)
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="jaydough"] But if I want the choice, I should be able to get the choice.
jaydough
I want to ride a bus full of marshmallows to uni instead of the one I get. Sadly the choice isn't there. I could put it in a request, though... so I suggest you could write a letter to the government stating that you particularly wish to get content from a site bearing your desired name of choice (because the available ones aren't to your taste). If that bus full of marshmallows existed, would you allow the bus to be taken away by the government because some of the passengers use the marshmallows to throw at people? No, they just properly secure it.
1.gay marriage can't be censor sence it violiates freedom of exprotion. piracy isn't exprstion so no exptions. 2. Refering durgs that harms you not help you. ( when it comes to health)alexside1
Okay, I've kind of ignored the spelling/grammar mistakes throughout the thread, but god damn. What are you saying?
Log in to comment