First, Google goggles - now the world gets self-censoring specs The Committee for Purity in the Camp is reportedly selling spectacles that deliberately blur vision, leading wearers not into temptation. The glasses are, apparently, on sale in the more orthodox Jewish sections of Israel, for £25 or only a fiver for stickers one can attach to ones existing specs. The idea is to blur anything …
Never mind that - why was she out of the house on her own?! Clearly she was bringing dishonour to her family by not having a man with her to make sure she didn't give in to the urge to strip naked and participate in a mass orgy right there in the street, which everyone knows women would do given half a chance. So running her over was socially responsible and an act of kindness for her family by saving them the trouble of killing her themselves.
I thought at first that El Reg was being sarcastic, but it seems to actually exist. The Committee of Un-American Activities does spring to mind.
I wonder whether orthodox Israeli soldiers will be wearing these when they are next engaging neighbours or co-inhabitants?
I wouldn't recommend these glasses to anybody, yet it would help to see where these guys are coming from.
Many years ago, when 'Angry from Tumbridge Wells' would complain about too much leg being shown on the telly, many people responded saying "Well, just turn the telly off if you don't like it, or switch over to Songs of Praise". The same is said now about people complaining about porn on the internet, they're told to just not look at it and let those who want to look at it do just that.
Now though, all the stuff that was offensive back then is around and about us so much that if you are offended by the sight of bare thighs, bosoms or bottoms, if certain words offend you or certain ideas cause you distress, then you can't just 'switch to another channel' can you? Suddenly, you're no longer free to leave the house because you're either made red with rage or you're offended by what you may call lies.
quote: "Now though, all the stuff that was offensive back then is around and about us so much that if you are offended by the sight of bare thighs, bosoms or bottoms, if certain words offend you or certain ideas cause you distress, then you can't just 'switch to another channel' can you? Suddenly, you're no longer free to leave the house because you're either made red with rage or you're offended by what you may call lies."
Unless I am mistaken (and it is entirely possible I am) there is no defined "right to not be offended" here in the West, unlike other negative rights like the "right to not be assaulted". If someone is no longer free to leave the house because the entire country offends, I would recommend they should be looking at emigration to a country that better fits their personal moral beliefs, as the one that they are in is obviously the wrong one. It's the geographical equivalent to changing the channel.
The drawback of a free society, is that the rest of society is free to offend as it sees fit. As a comitted freetard (a 'tard that believes in freedom), I fully support them in their right to excercise that freedom, even (especially!) if it is me they are offending. After all, I am free to offend them right back, and I am also free to ignore them ;)
For the lawsuits when people realise these things have ruined their eyesight. It's essentially like wearing a prescription not suited to your vision, eventually your eyes try to adapt to the glasses then you can't see properly without them. Trouble is sooner or later these'll probably go out of production, then they'll need to pay for glasses they might not have otherwise needed.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
