Jump to content

The Internet is for Porn - San Fran Style


/dev/null

Recommended Posts

What I'm more concerned about is the smelly bums. I have to go there sometimes for work. When it's a nice day, the bums sleep in the park in front of City Hall. When it's raining, they are inside the library, a block away. I am not exaggerating when I say that I have to breathe through my mouth at those times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's insane. People are a bunch of puzzies these days. Are people afaid to tell someone "I'm sorry, you can't do that here, you need to leave"?

 

BTW ain't my tax dollars anymore. I've moved across the bridge.

 

I am gonna play the other side of the coin here.

 

No. Not at all, you have it backwards. It takes more guts to give people the freedom to view what they want to view. It is very easy to deny people.

 

You are right about people are puzzies, you got it backwards again. People are wimps for not minding their own business. Granting people unlimited freedom and NOT worrying what the other guy is doing takes a lot of guts. Guts most people do not have . Again, it is very easy to say: "No, you can't do that, leave."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am gonna play the other side of the coin here.

 

No. Not at all, you have it backwards. It takes more guts to give people the freedom to view what they want to view. It is very easy to deny people.

 

You are right about people are puzzies, you got it backwards again. People are wimps for not minding their own business. Granting people unlimited freedom and NOT worrying what the other guy is doing takes a lot of guts. Guts most people do not have . Again, it is very easy to say: "No, you can't do that, leave."

 

Nobody is denying one's God given right to rub one off to Bang Bus.

 

But is this something that should be funded with taxpayer money?

Edited by /dev/null
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am gonna play the other side of the coin here.

 

No. Not at all, you have it backwards. It takes more guts to give people the freedom to view what they want to view. It is very easy to deny people.

 

You are right about people are puzzies, you got it backwards again. People are wimps for not minding their own business. Granting people unlimited freedom and NOT worrying what the other guy is doing takes a lot of guts. Guts most people do not have . Again, it is very easy to say: "No, you can't do that, leave."

 

So you're saying someone has the freedom to watch porn in the presence of children? It's a damn library for God's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is denying one's God given right to rub one off to Bang Bus.

 

But is this something that should be funded with taxpayer money?

 

Maybe not, but the problem is where do you draw the line? Do you want to set a precedent that you can only check out books that the "community" likes?

 

Most involved with libraries hate that they have to deal with weirdos who dont seem to have a problem with watching porn in public, but would rather put up with that than partake in any form of censorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not, but the problem is where do you draw the line? Do you want to set a precedent that you can only check out books that the "community" likes?

 

Most involved with libraries hate that they have to deal with weirdos who dont seem to have a problem with watching porn in public, but would rather put up with that than partake in any form of censorship.

Sorry, but freedoms have limits to logic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying someone has the freedom to watch porn in the presence of children? It's a damn library for God's sake.

 

They should really just get rid of the computers since even if they use webfilters, anyone can just use an SSL proxy site to get around it.

 

And why are they letting these kids reading "The Diary of Anne Frank?!?" Do they really have to know about the evil that exists in the world? They might get nightmares! BURN IT!

 

While they're at it, they should probably just take "Rules for Radicals" off the shelves, because God-forbid one of our kids picks that up and grows up to be a.... *shudders* liberal.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is denying one's God given right to rub one off to Bang Bus.

 

But is this something that should be funded with taxpayer money?

 

 

LoL... Sure it can be funded by the taxpayers if the majority feel that it should... Not everybody is gonna win here. If you don't like you taxes going to this... Fine, it won't go to it... Think of it going elsewhere.

 

So you're saying someone has the freedom to watch porn in the presence of children? It's a damn library for God's sake.

 

That's a tough one... I think you answered your own question w/your last sentence as a sound: Yes. That is why they put blinders on the terminal. If they can't see what they are viewing... Then how do they really know what they are really viewing? It just doesn't matter what they are viewing then.

 

Sorry, but freedoms have limits to logic

 

If the terminal has shields and nobody can tell what the person is watching... Then who cares. Stop being a busy body.

Edited by ExiledInIllinois
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LoL... Sure it can be funded by the taxpayers if the majority feel that it should... Not everybody is gonna win here. If you don't like you taxes going to this... Fine, it won't go to it... Think of it going elsewhere.

 

 

 

That's a tough one... I think you answered your own question w/your last sentence as a sound: Yes. That is why they put blinders on the terminal. If they can't see what they are viewing... Then how do they really know what they are really viewing? It just doesn't matter what they are viewing then.

 

 

 

If the terminal has shields and nobody can tell what the person is watching... Then who cares. Stop being a busy body.

What if the guy whips out his dick? Or starts reaching in his pants or turns the sound on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the difference if somebody is reading a bodice ripper or viewing at a terminal nobody can see?

 

There is a line being drawn... Just not with viewing under these circumstances. Every terminal should have blinders, no matter what is being viewed.

 

What if the guy whips out his dick? Or starts reaching in his pants or turns the sound on?

Read my above post... That is where the line is being drawn. Headphones mandatory on all computers anyway. Viewing is no more than reading. Since viewing can be seen by others, that is why shield should go on all computers.

Edited by ExiledInIllinois
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Swimming pools can be dangerous for children. To protect them, one can install locks, put up fences, and deploy pool alarms. All these measures are helpful, but by far the most important thing that one can do for one’s children is to teach them to swim.” — National Research Council, Youth, Pornography, and the Internet
Edited by uncle flap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, taxpayers funded James Holmes' deadly outburst in an Aurora, CO theatre.

 

So, don't go to the theatre if you don't want to get shot with your own money.

 

Very good point!

 

For the record... Yes I am liberal... And yes I am against any form of gun control and/or I am for all form of gun control. It is is either all or nothing for everybody. The lesser of the evil is to let it all ride, people are gonna get the weapons anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LoL... Sure it can be funded by the taxpayers if the majority feel that it should... Not everybody is gonna win here. If you don't like you taxes going to this... Fine, it won't go to it... Think of it going elsewhere.

 

That's a tough one... I think you answered your own question w/your last sentence as a sound: Yes. That is why they put blinders on the terminal. If they can't see what they are viewing... Then how do they really know what they are really viewing? It just doesn't matter what they are viewing then.

 

If the terminal has shields and nobody can tell what the person is watching... Then who cares. Stop being a busy body.

 

The screens cut down the viewing angle; they DON'T make it so that only the user can view the screen.

 

E.g. My LCD screen has about a 150 degree vewing angle.

 

Should they give these computers private viewing rooms? Should the librarians be forced to bleach the spooge off the keyboards? Because you KNOW that's going to happen. At what point does it become a situation of public health and safety over a concern for an UNLIMITED freedom of Internet access?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The screens cut down the viewing angle; they DON'T make it so that only the user can view the screen.

 

E.g. My LCD screen has about a 150 degree vewing angle.

 

Should they give these computers private viewing rooms? Should the librarians be forced to bleach the spooge off the keyboards? Because you KNOW that's going to happen. At what point does it become a situation of public health and safety over a concern for an UNLIMITED freedom of Internet access?

I did say that there are lines to be drawn and you are assumingly going way past those lines.

 

I understand it is still a public space... If it becomes visable, or the audio is heard, then a line must be drawn and the person told to cease and desisit.

 

We are dealing with a lot of what ifs here. In in the name of managing the resources, the institution has to take it case by case... Cross that bridge when they get there.

 

The shields will cut the viewing area and help... That is a good thing to cut down on the busy bodies and the distractions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...