Which websites shouldn't be on the net? - Page 2

red_jon · December 25, 2002, 21:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Sonic
Well, I did just opened the site but it seems tencommandments.org is very OK... Probably just because I believe in what it says...

Ten commandments believes that the US constitution should be replaced with the old testament and gays and scientists put to death! How the **** can you agree with that?

Sava · December 25, 2002, 21:07

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon
Ten commandments believes that the US constitution should be replaced with the old testament and gays and scientists put to death! How the **** can you agree with that?

Many people do, they're called Christians.

Edan · December 25, 2002, 21:44

I only chose Warez and Secrets of the State websites, as those were the ones which, IMO, were clearly abusing freedom of speech because they were using it to do something illegal - the others needed to be done on a case by case basis. Promoting something illegal isn't the same as inciting something illegal - which I wouldn't be ok with. There were some website, IIRC, where terrorists posted messages to each other - that should be closed down, too (as it's being used to facilitate an illegal act) or monitored, but that, again, is a case by case basis and a lot harder to uncover.

Websites promoting hatred is fine, IMO, as long as good people exist that promote race/etc relations.

Pictures of dead people shouldn't be allowed if an illegal act was needed to make those pictures (ie, like a snuff film)

There were a few things I were suprised were missing:

1. SPAM (although I'm guessing that most of that's email, not websites)
2. sites that contain personal information about people who have not elected to have it put up (ie, a webpage of abortion doctors put up on a pro-life webpage)

Edan · December 25, 2002, 21:47

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon

Ten commandments believes that the US constitution should be replaced with the old testament and gays and scientists put to death! How the **** can you agree with that?

And the irony is that without scientists, they wouldn't be able to put up a webpage promoting the death of scientists.

Dis · December 25, 2002, 22:53

hmm, yeah. Ban CNN and BBC

in any case they don't show an actual crime taking place. They just write about it and show pictures of the aftermath.

aahz_capone · December 25, 2002, 22:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan
2. sites that contain personal information about people who have not elected to have it put up (ie, a webpage of abortion doctors put up on a pro-life webpage)

Yeah, thats about all I'd agree to. giving someone personal info without his concent is invasion of privacy.

As for websights showing government secrets, well sometimes their secrets have to be exposed because they are themselves illegal (the job of the media etc). If it really is all that important that the "enemy" don't kno then I'm sure the gov can keep it so top sectret that there is no way some yahoo could find out about it let alone publish a webpage about it.

Dis · December 25, 2002, 23:01

What's wrong with that anorexic website? It isn't actually promoting anorexia. It's just for support.

I looked in some of those photo albums. Some of those chicks look fat. They need to be anorexic

.

Yes flame me for that, I know that is not PC.

But here is where I take a stand against PC. How many people die from anorexia each year? maybe 1? Ridciculous. Only because it affects women does it get so much attention. Depression is a much more serious disorder that affect men and women and results in many, many more deaths. Anorexia does not need all the attention it gets. In fact with the increased attention they probably convert more women to anorexics.

Sarxis · December 25, 2002, 23:03

The only sites that can and should be destroyed are ones that maliciously install software on your computer without consent, like www.Quicktime.com

(Hmm.. Did I say 'can'?)

Dis · December 25, 2002, 23:05

don't forget Xupiter

Sikander · December 26, 2002, 03:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
What's wrong with that anorexic website? It isn't actually promoting anorexia. It's just for support.

I looked in some of those photo albums. Some of those chicks look fat. They need to be anorexic

.

Yes flame me for that, I know that is not PC.

But here is where I take a stand against PC. How many people die from anorexia each year? maybe 1? Ridciculous. Only because it affects women does it get so much attention. Depression is a much more serious disorder that affect men and women and results in many, many more deaths. Anorexia does not need all the attention it gets. In fact with the increased attention they probably convert more women to anorexics.

I know you are probably just trying to be controversial, but you are wrong about Anorexia / Bulimia.

"The mortality rate in anorexia is 10 to 20%."

from this site:

http://www.adha.org/CE_courses/course8/management.htm

That's a serious disease by any measure.

Dis · December 26, 2002, 03:49

I don't dispute the rate. But how many women are anorexic over depressed/suicidal? That is a much more serious problem.

The whole anorexia thing bothers me. Because I get the impression that they blame it on men. And I don't like to be made to feel responsible for that.

Sikander · December 26, 2002, 04:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I don't dispute the rate. But how many women are anorexic over depressed/suicidal? That is a much more serious problem.

The whole anorexia thing bothers me. Because I get the impression that they blame it on men. And I don't like to be made to feel responsible for that.

Feminists like to blame it on unrealistic body images perpetuated through the media, but there is no scientific data to back this up as far as I know. Some developmental psychologists note a high rate of narcissistic personalities amongst the mothers of girls with eating disorders, and to me this makes some sense (narcissists often have no idea of bounderies between themselves and others, which means potentially all sorts of problems for their children who are treated as extensions of the narcissistic parent, but need to be treated as individuals for a host of developmental reasons). It also rings true, as most of the girls I have known with this disease have very narcissistic mothers. However my personal experience does not in any way meet the standards of statistical validity, so take that for what it's worth.

I do agree that because depression is so widespread (and fairly deadly as well btw) that it is the bigger problem. But I don't want people to know someone who might be anorexic and just laugh it off. These people need treatment as soon as possible to survive with as little damage to their bodies as possible.

Dis · January 3, 2003, 03:35

Hmm that anorexic by choice site is down. I was going to bump this thread because part of it relates to the anorexia thread.

But the site I wanted to point out is down. Maybe someone forced them to shut down.

Ben Kenobi · January 3, 2003, 05:16

" 2. sites that contain personal information about people who have not elected to have it put up (ie, a webpage of abortion doctors put up on a pro-life webpage) "

Agreed Edan- even though I am prolife. Intimidation of this form is useless and wrong.

"Ten commandments believes that the US constitution should be replaced with the old testament and gays and scientists put to death! How the **** can you agree with that?" -red_jon

"Many people do, they're called Christians" - Sava

Sava- Christians are taught to love the sinner and hate the sin. This applies to gay people, regardless of what some people would prefer. They are people first, and no other person has the right to kill them.

Nubclear · January 3, 2003, 06:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Sonic

Yeah. In my opinion all sites ending with .ru should be immidietly banned - most of them falls under at least one of categories listed in the poll anyway

The Russian people are simply trying to give back to the world what their opressors so violently took

mrmitchell · January 3, 2003, 12:21

No, no, no.

Websites that install malicious software on your computer should not be shut down.

The programmers of the software should be shot down.

SlowwHand · January 3, 2003, 12:42

http://www.findagrave.com/

DaShi · January 3, 2003, 12:45

Well I'll be. Grant's actually there.

Mercator · January 4, 2003, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander

Feminists like to blame it on unrealistic body images perpetuated through the media, but there is no scientific data to back this up as far as I know.

I believe there is (some)...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/347637.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2018900.stm

Pekka · January 4, 2003, 11:55

None.

Evil Knevil · January 4, 2003, 12:11

Don't be a plonker all your life Obiwan... Homosexuality is not a sin.

Ben Kenobi · January 4, 2003, 20:35

"plonker?"

I don't seem to have that in my 'poly lexicon. Care to enlighten?

Believe it or not, I used to agree with you- longer than you might think

I had a friend in my first year of university that needed somebody to talk to. From what he taught me, I used to argue that it was natural expression of sexuality. Now, everybody knows I'm a Christian, so they leave me alone. If they came to me, I would not turn them away, although I might tell them what they do not want to hear.

What really changed my mind on this issue, was the medical evidence that people can change their sexual orientation, depending on their motivation. Until then, I treated it as one would skin colour, an essential personal characteristic. Now it seems like alcoholism. Both have inherent social problems, both are difficult to overcome, and both seem to stem from genetic predispositions.

Mercator · January 4, 2003, 21:26

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
What really changed my mind on this issue, was the medical evidence that people can change their sexual orientation, depending on their motivation. Until then, I treated it as one would skin colour, an essential personal characteristic. Now it seems like alcoholism. Both have inherent social problems, both are difficult to overcome, and both seem to stem from genetic predispositions.

I'd like to see that evidence...
On second thought, nevermind that. Alcoholism is detrimental to the person's own health as well as the well-being of people around him/her. Homosexuality has no bad effects on anyone involved, except of course those extremists whose intolerant stance towards them is exactly what is causing those social problems you're talking about.

don't even know why I'm trying to discuss this.

raghar · January 4, 2003, 22:11

Websites promoting Bush or Clinton. I have seen one and it was horrible.
What do you have against wares? I'm computer games developer and I like them.

Ben Kenobi · January 4, 2003, 22:58

"Homosexuality has no bad effects on anyone involved,"
-Mercator

Don't want to threadjack too much so I'll list increased incidence of STD's among active gay population.

Granted, this is not attributable to homosexuality per se, but to promiscuity.

It's a trope to blame intolerance for social problems- health problems like STD's remain even in tolerant cities like San Francisco, perhaps even exacerbated and encouraged.

St Leo · January 4, 2003, 23:53

"plonker?"
I don't seem to have that in my 'poly lexicon. Care to enlighten?

He meant "plonkee". A "plonker" is someone who administers a "plonk" to a "plonkee".

Ben Kenobi · January 5, 2003, 00:03

Leo, so a plonk is someone who swallows a troll hook line and sinker?

If that's so, I'm guilty as charged

Lorizael · January 5, 2003, 00:28

I think homosexuals tend to be a bit more open about sex in general, considering that they do something that is so far from the "norm". This might be the reason for the increase in promiscuity that you speak of.

But... homosexuality isn't about sex. It's about love, as corny as that sounds. I really can't imagine a worse evil than not allowing someone to love.

Dr Strangelove · January 5, 2003, 00:45

I don't think I've ever seen any websites showing dead bodies or promoting necrophilia. Why ban something that doesn't exist?

Lorizael · January 5, 2003, 01:18

Have you looked?