"i mean c'mon, writing whore on someone's daughter?, wtf moron, that could never possibly happen even in the most free and unfiltered society"

lol, you think that never happens? you're so ignorant. you've never seen a guy get wasted and then someone draw a dick on his face with a permanent marker? kids especially in middle school and highschool, writing on each other isnt uncommon.  dps is being the moron where he's saying all censorship is bad.

if you're gonna say what is and isnt censorship, what definition are you using?

> Comintern wrote:

> @Econ
"Comintern, you are just plain funny. I'm not in the same league as you? You are taking, excuse me, what philospohy? You are a very funny man, you should revert to stand-up. Non-academic sources such as the National Academy of Science, or NASA? nice one haha."

Let's see some actual stats: it i known that philosophy students have the third highest IQs after only theoretical physics and mathematics (they beat every engineering, social science and other liberal arts and physical sciences).  They score the 4th highest of any major on GRE exams. (behind only again, physics, math and i think it was material engineering)

the GRE exams are culture biased

"well that raises the question of whether removal of defacement is censorship.  I'd say no and tell her to wash her face."

what is defacement is subjective, and would be used as a guise. one could say someone advertising on the side of his house is defacing the neighborhood. one would argue that certain material defaces tv, ect. removing defacement must be considered censorship.

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?

> Archangel wrote:

> ok so it wasnt steroids, but why does that matter? it was most likely something with a similar effect.

> avogadro wrote:

> > i dont pick sides, i just attack stupid arguments

"I count 6 cases in Rugby, and 10% of the NFL. Im not wasting time investigating this, but thats what 5min dragged up. Yup they say `now banned` so perhaps they wouldnt have taken them if they were banned when those retired players were still in the game. Who knows. Just presenting the info on this one."

you have 6 cases in rugby and 3 in the nfl. there is no equivalent survey with rugby players so you cant use the survey in the comparison, are you always this stupid? also its 10% is of retired, meaning not now, the testing has probably gotten stricter acting as a deterrant to banned drug use, the survey doesnt mean anything for current league, also, banned substance does not mean its steroids, there are alot of non-steroid substances banned in athletic leagues.

> EmperorHez wrote:
the NFL may do drug tests but there's always around the tests.

but you know its more prevalent in american football then rugby how?

nah, im just using the word, [teletubbies], because you all arent euopean, so the next worst insult is to call you [teletubbies].

"We don't need armour. Your guys at the front are fat. Supremely fat. They play for 2min and then have a rest. There are 48 players on a team becase, even with those rests they still can't play an entire game, and if they defend, they probably can't attack. One guy can run and/or catch, one guy can throw, one guy can use his fat to wrestle and block the other guy, one guy can kick."

its call specialization you dumb [powerranger]. and it results in a much higher caliber of play then when people have to be on the field the majority of the game. you have people give it their all for 2 mins, and no one matches their all on a rugby game for the entire span of the game, because they have to last the game; its call comparing a sprinter to a marathon runner, the marathon runner isnt going to match the sprinter's performance at any point in his marathon. the hits in every rugby video shown here is pathetic.

> [TI] Primo wrote:

> i'd say believing in god is more convenient than believing in evolution.

its not a question of whether to believe in God or to believe in the theory of evolution; and if my comment appeared to say so, i apologize for not making what i meant more clear. both can exist and both can not exist, or one can exist and the other not exist. I was merely saying that people believe in the evolution theory because its a scientific explanation that has no scientific rivals.

"So why do the smartest people in the world believe it?"

because its convenient

".  If I'm ever so poor I'm living next to a billboard I shouldn't have children and the basement rafters are looking mighty friendly."

you are for a lack of cencorship, correct? 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?

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?