Put down the crack pipe.

Lol

I think this is the appropriate thread to say yeah, Superbowl, Stanley Cup, Pittsburgh owns all you bitches... now if they Pirates could just stop sucking for nearly 20 years!

>> i see that people and monkeys have a somewhat similar bone structure but fail to see how men evolved a will and are immensely smarter than monkeys if we all had the same common ancestor (planet of the apes lol)<<

OOO OOO OO I have a question for you:
How do you explain that we share more than 90% of the same DNA? What is it, 96%? Why do we share SO much of the same DNA and _coincidentally_ so much physically with these other creatures? HOW did we come to share so much of the same DNA!? I'm DYING for you to enlighten me!

And I posted something about one type of censorship which I find ridiculous while explaining why similar "censorship" (nobody is "exposed" to broadcast media like they are their physical surroundings. There's no parallel.) is not as ridiculous [, dumbass].

>>ok, how about, would you be ok, with a nazi organization funding anti-Jew propaganda through buying airspace during the commercials of a program intended for toddlers?<<

No company would sell such an organization advertising; they'd lose viewers and others advertisers the day they did it. They would go out of business and cease to be able to air such propaganda. It would take care of itself. Your examples are already prevented by the free market--How are you giving us any defense of the need for censorship by giving us examples of where it is not necessary?

>>what about an advertisement for a gun that was a war simulation on a billboard 10 feet from your bedroom window, with a high volume, that made it impossible to sleep.<<

Also already prevented, in this case by laws regarding noise pollution in residential areas. If your local government allows such signs near your residence, you should probably write them a letter.

>>silencing their message is consorship even if their method disturbs the peace.<<

Who wants to silence their message? I see no problems with gun advertisements. The sort of firearms used in crimes are verrrrry rarely the expensive firearms that would be advertised if such advertisements were on billboards. If their message does not disturb the peace or violate local residential zoning laws, let them advertise their firearm. Who cares? A picture of a 9mm on a wall or billboard isn't going to ruin my day... or effect it in any way.

>>so if what you support happened, the hosue across the street could make extra money letting some company put some uber large billboard either on his lawn or on the side of his house, no matter how wealthy you are, there could be a billboard placed somewhere that was impossible not to notice, a grotesk one, like drew carey in udnerwear, but you support people doing that?<<

Local laws (especially in residential areas) already take care of this all across the country (and globe, presumably?). Unless you live in a slum surrounded by the poor and desperate who would sell the side of their house for such a billboard (which would suggest they live in an area where nobody would pay for such an advertisement anyway) where such would actually be allowed by local elected officials (which is 0% of the places I've ever been), it's not a problem. I think anyone living in such an area should have bigger concerns than what their neighbor painted on their home and how they bought dinner today. Enforcing ridiculous and unnecessary censorship laws would require taxing people more and only make this situation worse for the person you propose censorship laws would protect. As if they're not already protected by laws in every community anyway.

>>another hypothetical, what if someone decided to write "whore" on your daughter, would you erase it and censor the person who did it, or would you tell your daughter not to wash it and to keep it visible?<<

It's fitting that your example is absolutely retarded, because that's all you've been posting: absolutely ridiculous "examples" that do not support the point you're trying to make because you've got nothing coherent to post here. There are no examples not already prohibited by other laws that violate basic decency--because those examples are beyond censorship and violate basic decency, so communities across the globe already prevent them for reasons other than censoring content. You're proposing that anyone who doesn't support censorship shouldn't have a problem with someone writing whore on their daughter or they're a hypocrite? That's retarded. Honestly.

>>The problem with your understanding is that you are thinking for yourself. You
aren't thinking about what other people might think, or how other people might
want to raise children.<<

Let them raise their children however they want. That's the idea. Get the hell out of their business. You're proposing imposing your preferences on people in order to protect them from people imposing preferences on them... Hello hypocrisy!

>>You have been given a set of examples each displaying in some way why censorship
MIGHT be important and even applicable.<<

Absolutely retarded examples which have exemplified why censorship is unnecessary--the abuses and violations of basic decency in said examples are already prevented by laws without censorship.

>>one could say someone advertising on the side of his house is defacing the neighborhood.<<

And every neighborhood has a local government and can decide what it wants to do for itself. Where do you come in?

>>sigh, because you're being irrational, im gonna have to do the most extreme example i can think of. someone expresses himself by killing people; stopping him from killing people would be censorship, do you not support stopping such an individual?<<

In case your whore example was not retarded enough, you've gone beyond it to an even more retarded "example" of the fact that you do not understand that every law man has ever created from the earliest laws are not "censorship." And if you insist that every law ever is censorship and so that must be what people defending freedom over censorship are defending, let me correct you: It's not.

How [ ]ing stupid is this? Seriously? Someone must have spiked my lunch with LSD, because I refuse to accept that anyone is this dense.

They believe it in the absense of any comparable alternative. It is the most rational theory, supporting which MUCH evidence exists. We find the preserved bones and fossils of creatures long extinct. We do NOT find the bones and fossils of creatures alive now from millions of years ago (or even just millenia). A lot of the discussion here is just plain ignorance from kids who've never had a high school science education. You make me sad. But I don't post here much because idiots post things like:

>>to believe in a god/supreme creator you can't believe in evolution....they contradict each other<<

Which is just silly. You're proposing that a god could not direct the course of his creation to such an extent (on a molecular level) that the life he desired would come to exist.

I feel bad for you, Comintern. You come in here all making sense and posting coherent and informed posts only to be greeted by the regular angry 15 year old trolls.

If you want to play with a real idea, consider how free will could be real without a god, if we're all just chemicals, biology and physics

It's Funny

Because It's Not

has trouble communicating

We can not allow our children to watch or choose not to watch ourselves programming with advertisements we don't like. Believe it or not, you don't have to watch so much TV. Really. I promise.

Everyone who wants more government oversight of TV producers should be shipped to Jersey and forgotten about.

Dirty Iluvatar is a troll.

is a cookie troll!