And a very quick google search confirmed what I suspected: she works for a christian organization.
I thought that we had effectively neutered the religious right.
I thought that we had effectively neutered the religious right.
How could you pay attention to American politics in the last 30 years and possibly still think this?
I really quite loathe this line of argument that the source or even the intentions behind a probably factual statement should be taken into account when evaluating the truthfulness of the statement. It's textbook ad hominem, literally argument to the person.
PH has a demonstrable problem with child porn on its service. I don't care if it's the US government, a different government, a religious fundamentalist, a competitor, a lobbying group, or some random anonymous internet user surfacing that problem so long as it's verifiably true.
Intention factors into evaluation of the speaker, not the content. To do otherwise is to discard important, actionable facts because you dislike the speaker. In other words, it discards logic.
100 or so items over three years is a success story compared to any other social network.
You need trust in the messager. If this person has religious objections ignoring that is ignoring reality. The messager is the message
Comparing to other websites is meaningless and insensitive. We are not comparing performance statistics but broken lives.
Telling the judge that your neighbor is more criminal than you won't help you in any court case.
If someone emailed you some material should your emailbox, you or all email be taken away from society? The reality of user generated content being uploaded and breaking a sites tos is all too common.
This is just an easy cop-out to avoid talking about a difficult topic.
Liberty, and freedom are under assault from both the extreme right, and the extreme left. Who it seems end up supporting similar policies for very different reasons