<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 30 April 2011 17:42, Sergiusz Pawlowicz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sergiusz@pawlowicz.name">sergiusz@pawlowicz.name</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div class="h5">
<br>
</div></div>Again, is socially all right to kill children by remotely controlled<br>
robots, </blockquote><div><br>No, it's not - or I'd say it's not, just as it's not right to prop up a social system in which child abuse is taken as acceptable, like Afghanistan. <br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
What exactly can be acted "criminally" - as, I<br>
hope, all sensitive government networks are not connected to the<br>
internet?<div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div>Uploads to child pornography websites would be an example. You're presumably happy to leave your equipment in a state in which it can be used for that purpose.<br>
<br>On the basis of your arguments so far, you'll now say that involvement in child pornography should not be illegal, because the government is acting badly in its conduct of war. If so, I hope you have plenty of chances to meet the victims, and that they get to explain to you exactly why that's a stupdily invalid argument. Possibly with the aid of lots of sharp things - which by your argument wouldn't be wrong, as the government misuse sharp things in other circumstances. <br>
<br>Sheesh.<br><br clear="all"></div></div>David Aldred<br>
<br>