Apple Sued For Man's Porn Addiction 509
coolnumbr12 writes "Chris Sevier, a 36-year-old man from Tennessee, got so addicted to porn videos that his wife took his children and left him. Now he has sued Apple saying the company failed to install any filter in its devices to prevent his addiction. In a 50-page complaint, Sevier calls Apple a 'silent poisoner' responsible for the proliferation of 'arousal addiction, sex trafficking, prostitution, and countless numbers of destroyed lives.' Sevier is seeking damages from Apple, but said he we will drop the lawsuit if Apple agrees to sell devices with a 'safe mode.'"
False Flag (Score:4, Interesting)
Only in US... (Score:1, Interesting)
That's what happens when you don't have English Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_%28attorney%27s_fees%29), and you have personal bankruptcy.
There lawsuits doesn't happen in Europe for these 2 exact reasons, you'll have to pay the attorney fee's if you lose, so you have something at stake as well.
Re:What? (Score:2, Interesting)
his excuse is that he typoed facebook as fuckbook. 99.999% chance he was looking for some bitch to fuck - so the complaint is religious to the max to hide that he is that kind of a guy who had a wife and went on to look for sex dates on the internets...
I mean, who the fuck goes to fuckbook.com for porno and get real, the guy claimed he had never seen a pornographic image in his life in which case he probably got a hard on from evening news and wanked to mtv which doesn't sound sensible at all.
Let's add (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's add that the US media run the most shocking, bizarre, or outrage-causing stories they can find, regardless of the actual importance of the events. Since our population is over 300 million, you can manage to find a couple of those stories every day if you have thousands of reporters scouring the country. Then they harp on those stories for weeks. This gives the impression that everyone in the USA is some kind of freak.
What disturbs me is the number of people here who believe it -- who carry a gun because they actually believe they'll get attacked, or who think they'll get sued if someone spills hot coffee.
So perhaps stupid lawsuits like this occur (rarely) in other countries as well, but the media don't deem them newsworthy so you don't hear about them.
Re:False Flag (Score:4, Interesting)
False flag for those who do not know is what the government or any organization does to distract the not-so-smart people while a more sinister plan is enacted. In short: "Look a flying saucer!" meanwhile "BANG!" something blows up.
Incorrect:
False flag (or black flag) describes covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities, groups or nations than those who actually planned and executed them.
Re-using your example: Government agents blow up a hospital and make it appear that a flying saucer (or Al Queda, some militia group, etc.) was actually to blame.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:False Flag (Score:2, Interesting)
Reason and faith are only incompatible when they intersect to the detriment of the former.
Always has been, and always will.
There's plenty of stuff that could logically exist that we have no evidence for, and possibly never will. You can select an outcome in those cases and they would have to be based on faith.
And as for everything else, most people without recourse to proper equipment or resources have to take many of the more obscure scientific theories on faith.
No, it isn't faith. It speaks to credibility. My lack of access to a particle accellerator, but accepting the results has nothing to do with faith. The work is there and documented, and I can access it. In addition, If I accept one scientific theory and it is proven to be wrong, I'll look into it, and abandon the old for the new. Faith is much more akin to believing that the world was completely covered with water from rainfall, when it is physically impossible for that to happen, and believing that the man who built the boat put two of every creature on the boat when the dimensions of the boat would obviously not have held two of every creature on earth, and that not every species lived in the middle East, so they would have to swim across the oceans to get there - so that they wouldn't drown. Believing in impossibilities that have been proven wrong is faith. Strong faith.
Some people do not, and that is how you end up with conspiracy theories becoming prevalent in the face of scientific knowledge. Conspiracy theorists are fine with science itself, they just have no faith in the results that have been presented to them by certain authorities. That is an important difference.
Most conspiracy theorists I know are more aligned with the faith crowd. And they will believe pretty much the opposite of whatever happens to be known. Their reasonong is backwards, say that dirty so and so's belive in something, and since I don't like them, whtever they say, do or think must be wrong. I find it to be more an abberation of human behavior, and in many ways, very manipulable by cynical politicians.
Faith is not important for science, but it is important for the acceptance of the results of science, when those results are not obvious and easily repeatable by the layperson. Scientific advancement benefits as much from credulity, as you would put it, as religion does.
Well, at least you didn't pull out the old "Atheism is a religion" canard. But once again the mistake of confusing credulity for credibility. Inasmuch as we mere mortals do not have the time or the resources to investigate every facet of human knowledge, there are some things we take as credible. But if I need to learn about something, it's easy to find the work and review it.
If I need to look up a formula for some electronics application, I can do that. I know where to look, and I have pretty fair confidence the formula will be correct. Because if it isn't, the project won't work, and as likely as not, I'll contact the author so they can correct the mistake. If I had faith that the formula was correct, I'd refuse to accept that it wasn't, and that perhaps I should sacrifice a lamb or somesuch so that the circuit would work the next time.
Re:factually false (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all I said "The *Bible* teaches hate". I don't know why you chose to misinterpret what I said. The fact is that Christians could have simply omitted the old testament from their holy book. They chose to keep, and are therefore subject to criticisms of the old testament.
The "ancient Jewish scriptures" didn't simply acknowledge that hate existed. They are included in your Bible as the word of God, and command hate. If you don't think the old testament should be included in the Bible, maybe you should create your own sect of Christianity as many others have done.
Even if you did this, it wouldn't mean that Christianity was only love. It would only mean that your version of Christianity was only love. Everyone else's version would still be a mix of hate and love, until you converted them to your version.
Second of all, the new testament also has some pretty terrible stuff in it. On the whole it looks quite progressive compared to the old testament, but compared with modern sensibilities it is barbaric.
Thirdly it is all irrelevant anyway because it's not real. Religion evolves. The leaders will continue to have "divine revelations" of new scripture or new interpretations of scripture in order to continuously drag this antiquated mythology into the present, ever diluting and politically correcting it's message.
How much can you change Christianity and still have it count as Christianity? They've already gotten rid of genocide, slavery, mysogeny, through new interpretations. Maybe we can get rid of miracles and Jesus and God.
The new message can be this:
Sure Jesus was just a man. That's why his teachings were full of flaws that contradict our current knowledge and sense of morality. We modern Christians are able to fix these flaws in a way that we think Jesus (if he lived today) might approve. We still believe in the golden rule and being compassionate, but we've grown out of the idea of supernatural deities as childish and primitive.