Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Fox News -Still Jerks- want wikipedia to be censored.

Page 7 of 10 [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

18 Sep 2012, 8:48 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
It's also a link to a TV Tropes article.


You still haven't addressed the fact that Wikipedia's co-founder had reported wikipedia about their servers having child pornography on them...


Have you seen this child pornography for yourself?



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

18 Sep 2012, 8:50 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
It's also a link to a TV Tropes article.


You still haven't addressed the fact that Wikipedia's co-founder had reported wikipedia about their servers having child pornography on them...


Have you seen this child pornography for yourself?


I sure hope he hasn't, that would be illegal now wouldn't it :P


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

18 Sep 2012, 8:56 pm

Vigilans wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
It's also a link to a TV Tropes article.


You still haven't addressed the fact that Wikipedia's co-founder had reported wikipedia about their servers having child pornography on them...


Have you seen this child pornography for yourself?


I sure hope he hasn't, that would be illegal now wouldn't it :P


Unless he has actually seen it, I am not going to believe him.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

18 Sep 2012, 8:58 pm

Vigilans wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
It's also a link to a TV Tropes article.


You still haven't addressed the fact that Wikipedia's co-founder had reported wikipedia about their servers having child pornography on them...


Have you seen this child pornography for yourself?


I sure hope he hasn't, that would be illegal now wouldn't it :P


.....

Dude, all of this first started when Fox News learned that the co-founder of wikipedia had sent a letter to the FBI reporting child pornography being on wikipedia.

This back and forth spat between wikipedia and Fox News was because Fox News actually reported on it, and the rest of the media was apparently turning a blind eye...

What should be asked was where were the other media outlets?



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

18 Sep 2012, 9:00 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
It's also a link to a TV Tropes article.


You still haven't addressed the fact that Wikipedia's co-founder had reported wikipedia about their servers having child pornography on them...


Your comment is utterly unrelated to what Cornflake is talking about here. Please stop spamming this thread with talking points.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

18 Sep 2012, 9:01 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
It's also a link to a TV Tropes article.


You still haven't addressed the fact that Wikipedia's co-founder had reported wikipedia about their servers having child pornography on them...


Have you seen this child pornography for yourself?


I sure hope he hasn't, that would be illegal now wouldn't it :P


.....

Dude, all of this first started when Fox News learned that the co-founder of wikipedia had sent a letter to the FBI reporting child pornography being on wikipedia.

This back and forth spat between wikipedia and Fox News was because Fox News actually reported on it, and the rest of the media was apparently turning a blind eye...

What should be asked was where were the other media outlets?


If no-one actually saw it, then it didn't happen.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

18 Sep 2012, 9:03 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
It's also a link to a TV Tropes article.


You still haven't addressed the fact that Wikipedia's co-founder had reported wikipedia about their servers having child pornography on them...


Have you seen this child pornography for yourself?


I sure hope he hasn't, that would be illegal now wouldn't it :P


.....

Dude, all of this first started when Fox News learned that the co-founder of wikipedia had sent a letter to the FBI reporting child pornography being on wikipedia.

This back and forth spat between wikipedia and Fox News was because Fox News actually reported on it, and the rest of the media was apparently turning a blind eye...

What should be asked was where were the other media outlets?


I ate them


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

18 Sep 2012, 9:15 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
It's also a link to a TV Tropes article.


You still haven't addressed the fact that Wikipedia's co-founder had reported wikipedia about their servers having child pornography on them...


Your comment is utterly unrelated to what Cornflake is talking about here. Please stop spamming this thread with talking points.


So the fact that all of this started over Fox News reporting about the co-founder of Wikipedia, reporting Child Pornography on wikipedia to the FBI, somehow makes Fox News a villain.

Master_Pedant, the facts about how all of this started aren't just merely related, they are the core of this entire issue. What you and others don't like is it exposes just how little you knew about how all of this started. Fox News reported on wikipedia having illegal material on their servers, which is something they should do as a News Organization!

It looks more like you guys want to censor Fox News, and jumped the gun thinking this would be the way to start a crusade against Fox, but in your eagerness, none of you bothered to check the facts.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

18 Sep 2012, 10:16 pm

http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/05 ... e-handled/
The original Fox article was essentially an advertising piece for filtering software. Wikipedia has had problems with out-of-bounds images in the past; they're working on it. Not everyone is as prudish as you (and no, this isn't just about kiddie porn, which decent people generally agree is evil). Get over it.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

18 Sep 2012, 10:30 pm

Ill be careful not to anger Inuyasha or else I may feel the wrath of his wind scar!! 8O


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

18 Sep 2012, 10:51 pm

LKL wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/05/wikipedia-porn-and-the-fbi-how-sexual-images-are-handled/
The original Fox article was essentially an advertising piece for filtering software. Wikipedia has had problems with out-of-bounds images in the past; they're working on it. Not everyone is as prudish as you (and no, this isn't just about kiddie porn, which decent people generally agree is evil). Get over it.


:roll:

Actually that was a later Fox article... LKL, I remember the filtering software article which I think was posted about a month after the first article.

Also LKL, you need to stop projecting...



Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

19 Sep 2012, 8:35 am

Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/05/wikipedia-porn-and-the-fbi-how-sexual-images-are-handled/
The original Fox article was essentially an advertising piece for filtering software. Wikipedia has had problems with out-of-bounds images in the past; they're working on it. Not everyone is as prudish as you (and no, this isn't just about kiddie porn, which decent people generally agree is evil). Get over it.


:roll:

Actually that was a later Fox article... LKL, I remember the filtering software article which I think was posted about a month after the first article.

Also LKL, you need to stop projecting...


And you need to stop being a passive-aggressive flamebaiting a**hole. No wonder conservatives get no respect around here - between you and Raptor, the most visible representatives of that particular political orientation look like soulless pricks.


_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

19 Sep 2012, 9:01 am

Coastt wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
The adult body has mechanisms against unwanted pregnancy


You cannot be serious?

Inuyasha was sporting the argument that making sure only adults had sex was going to wipe the unwanted pregnancy problem.

Inuyasha wrote:
The only way to guarentee no pregnency occurring is to wait until you're actually an adult.

This strange logic reminds me of Akin's . And I linked to tvtropes page of "Never live it down", because at least for me, republicans will never live Akin's comments down.


_________________
.


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Sep 2012, 9:50 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:

You still haven't addressed the fact that Wikipedia's co-founder had reported wikipedia about their servers having child pornography on them...


Have you seen this child pornography for yourself?


I sure hope he hasn't, that would be illegal now wouldn't it :P


.....

Dude, all of this first started when Fox News learned that the co-founder of wikipedia had sent a letter to the FBI reporting child pornography being on wikipedia.

This back and forth spat between wikipedia and Fox News was because Fox News actually reported on it, and the rest of the media was apparently turning a blind eye...

What should be asked was where were the other media outlets?


1. How would you know what media outlets other than Fox are covering, and why would you care?

2. People who watch normal news programs tend to be less prurient than people who watch Fox. If a Fox viewer achieves his saturation point, and the time for Rush Limbaugh to rile him up hasn't yet arrived, then he will typically either switch the channel to E! to catch up with the Kardashians, or w*k off to internet porn. Normal people don't have time for such nonsense.

3. By discussing the location of allegedly illicit material, Fox News, in fact, provides free advertising for the material. Some people who hear about the material are going to look for it, thus further debasing the moral purity of the nation.

4. By providing a link that leads to allegedly illegal material, as Fox does in the article cited above, Fox is serving as an accessory to numerous felonies. Anyone who follows the link in the Fox article may be subject to arrest and imprisonment. Rupert Murdoch could be arrested, imprisoned, and subsequently stripped of his citizenship and deported, leaving his wife and children to fend for themselves.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Sep 2012, 8:40 pm

Lord_Gareth wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/05/wikipedia-porn-and-the-fbi-how-sexual-images-are-handled/
The original Fox article was essentially an advertising piece for filtering software. Wikipedia has had problems with out-of-bounds images in the past; they're working on it. Not everyone is as prudish as you (and no, this isn't just about kiddie porn, which decent people generally agree is evil). Get over it.


:roll:

Actually that was a later Fox article... LKL, I remember the filtering software article which I think was posted about a month after the first article.

Also LKL, you need to stop projecting...


And you need to stop being a passive-aggressive flamebaiting a**hole. No wonder conservatives get no respect around here - between you and Raptor, the most visible representatives of that particular political orientation look like soulless pricks.


Actually, I get the feeling that no matter how polite I am, I'm not going to get respected unless I simply cave into the liberal group mantra all the time.

ArrantPariah wrote:
1. How would you know what media outlets other than Fox are covering, and why would you care?


Contrary to what you all would like to believe, I actually do pay attention to more than one news source.

ArrantPariah wrote:
2. People who watch normal news programs tend to be less prurient than people who watch Fox. If a Fox viewer achieves his saturation point, and the time for Rush Limbaugh to rile him up hasn't yet arrived, then he will typically either switch the channel to E! to catch up with the Kardashians, or w*k off to internet porn. Normal people don't have time for such nonsense.


Who are the Kardashians and why should I care who they are? If I'm not watching Fox News, I'm looking at other news sources, reading books, etc.

ArrantPariah wrote:
3. By discussing the location of allegedly illicit material, Fox News, in fact, provides free advertising for the material. Some people who hear about the material are going to look for it, thus further debasing the moral purity of the nation.


Fox News was trying to put pressure on wikipedia to remove the illicit content, and/or pressure on the FBI to actually do their jobs. Child Pornography is not a laughing matter.

ArrantPariah wrote:
4. By providing a link that leads to allegedly illegal material, as Fox does in the article cited above, Fox is serving as an accessory to numerous felonies. Anyone who follows the link in the Fox article may be subject to arrest and imprisonment. Rupert Murdoch could be arrested, imprisoned, and subsequently stripped of his citizenship and deported, leaving his wife and children to fend for themselves.


Under that logic, anybody that reported a crime would be arrested for being an accessory to the crime. Fox News reported on it to put public pressure on the FBI to get their act in gear and for wikipedia to remove the illegal material.

It's the responsibility of the press to report news to the public, the fact that law enforcement was sitting on their hands about it was news. The fact this situation had been going on for years and nobody did anything about it is news.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Sep 2012, 9:20 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Contrary to what you all would like to believe, I actually do pay attention to more than one news source.

The Drudge Report doesn't count.

Inuyasha wrote:
Who are the Kardashians and why should I care who they are? If I'm not watching Fox News, I'm looking at other news sources, reading books, etc.

I was talking about typical Fox viewers: not you specifically.

Inuyasha wrote:
Fox News was trying to put pressure on wikipedia to remove the illicit content, and/or pressure on the FBI to actually do their jobs.

By telling Fox viewers where to find it.

Inuyasha wrote:
Under that logic, anybody that reported a crime would be arrested for being an accessory to the crime.

Nope, not any crime: only illegal pornography. If you saw it, and reported it, then you are admitting having committed a crime. If you didn't see it, then you have nothing to report.

Inuyasha wrote:
Fox News reported on it to put public pressure on the FBI to get their act in gear and for wikipedia to remove the illegal material.

If a FBI agent looks at the illegal material, then he, too, will have committed a crime. There is simply no way around it. Anyone who sees it has to be arrested. Fox News wouldn't know about the crime if Fox News hadn't also committed the crime. Publicising the crime only gets more people to break the law.

Inuyasha wrote:
It's the responsibility of the press to report news to the public, the fact that law enforcement was sitting on their hands about it was news. The fact this situation had been going on for years and nobody did anything about it is news.


So far, no-one has admitted to having seen it.