PDA

View Full Version : You've got to be kidding me...seriously



Pages : [1] 2

computation
06-22-2006, 02:56 AM
I don't know how anyone could possibly fathom the idea of suing an internet site (myspace.com - in case you haven't heard) because their kid got raped. I'm sorry, that's just stupid. I pray to God the lawsuit does not win. What happens when some underage girl gets picked up by some guy in the local mall? All of a sudden the mall is responsible for it? Does this women actually believe she should be awarded 30 million dollars for her bad parenting. That's absolutely ridiculous.


And by the way:


(Excerpt from Myspace.com terms of service)
Limitation on Liability. IN NO EVENT SHALL MYSPACE.COM BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFIT DAMAGES ARISING FROM YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES, EVEN IF MYSPACE.COM HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED HEREIN, MYSPACE.COM'S LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER AND REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF THE ACTION, WILL AT ALL TIMES BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT PAID, IF ANY, BY YOU TO MYSPACE.COM FOR THE SERVICES DURING THE TERM OF MEMBERSHIP.

cboard_member
06-22-2006, 02:58 AM
It's like if my dog bites a burglar, it's my fault and the dog has to be put down. The burglar is free to sue my ass off too.

We live in a ........ed up legal system. Well, world.

indigo0086
06-22-2006, 07:32 AM
how is this different than Jack Thompson and friends suing games because teenagers are psychos?

psychopath
06-22-2006, 01:57 PM
It isn't.

Govtcheez
06-22-2006, 02:13 PM
It isn't.
They're both stupid, but that's the only thing that they have in common. I seriously doubt anyone's saying that myspace acutally turns people into killers, which is what Jackie-boy says about games.

Yoshi
06-22-2006, 02:47 PM
Thank god I live in Canada...

In Hong Kong, if you do this, you will:

-get laughed out of court.
-get owned by the public.

Just look at the one bus person "Hong Kong Bus Uncle"... He got hired at a steak house and the public threatened to boycott the store; and everywhere he goes, he was seen as a social outcast, the wives practically talked in front of him.

Those people just need a constant dose of "Hey, look, it is the money stealers..." in front of their face and they'll never sue anything stupid again.

Govtcheez
06-22-2006, 03:05 PM
> Just look at the one bus person "Hong Kong Bus Uncle"... He got hired at a steak house and the public threatened to boycott the store

huh?

IfYouSaySo
06-22-2006, 03:22 PM
But is myspace somehow negligent for not putting proper controls in place? And if there is negligence, what sort of punitive damage is appropriate? How much does myspace make in revenue? And how much would a 30 million lawsuit hurt it, and would it hurt enough that myspace would put in place the kinds of controls that arguably should have been there from the beginning?

Devil's advocate. Sorry.

Mario F.
06-22-2006, 03:51 PM
But is myspace somehow negligent for not putting proper controls in place?

Yes. It could be so. However their disclaimer (if legally recognized) does free them from most situations. Problem was for anyone to explain to the judge exactly how could myspace have protected the girl from being rapped. Since the rape didn't take place in myspace. My space is a virtual place.


And if there is negligence, what sort of punitive damage is appropriate?

Huge!


How much does myspace make in revenue? And how much would a 30 million lawsuit hurt it, and would it hurt enough that myspace would put in place the kinds of controls that arguably should have been there from the beginning?

30 million is a lot of money. It would hurt them. It would hurt Microsoft. Even though 30 million is pocket change to them.

The whole situation is ridiculous though. Myspace cannot be liable in any way. If the rappist actually informed the girl through myspace communication channels that he was going to rape her, and forced her through these same channels for her to meet him, myspace cannot be blamed. It was not a rape. It was consensual. If on the other hand the girl was duped to meet the man, then the rape took place on a context outside myspace sphere of control. myspace is not liable.

EDIT: my opinion only. I'm in no way close to be a lawyer. Just annoyed that the parents who are supposed to be protecting the girl, not only failed at this, but in the name of money are willing to expose her to the general public after she having experienced such a drama in her life. Some parents should have never been.

Decrypt
06-22-2006, 04:11 PM
First, the income of a company does not, and should not, provide any input on the validity of a liability lawsuit.
Secondly,

is myspace somehow negligent for not putting proper controls in place?Is Zwilling-Henckels or Chicago Cutlery liable if I stab my wife when she comes home from work since they did not put the proper controls in their knives, making them unusable by malicious husbands? Absolutely not. It's a wildly exaggerated analogy, yes, but the premise is the same: Their product does not cause damage or put people in danger when used as it is intended. The only "controls" that should be in place are by the users. With knives and websites.

I don't know anything about the case in question, but since parents were referenced, my first assumption is that a minor ran off and met some pedophile they met through myspace who then raped the minor. What "controls" might have prevented such a thing?

1 - Better parenting. I know, I know. Kids these days, can't keep them in line. Too busy with work and yoga and bar-league softball. Keep track of your kids - where are they, who are they meeting with, etc. Also, teach them some common sense and responsibility, which brings me to #2:

Common sense. No one ever likes to fault the victim in any situation, but let's face it - sometimes people put themselves in stupid situations. I'm not saying it's the kid's fault. That said, doing stupid things increases your risk of becoming a bad headline. Common sense tells you that if talking to a stranger is bad when you're 5, running off to meet a stranger you met online and have to be secretive about when you're 14 is not a good idea. I take that back. Running off to meet a stranger you met online and have to be secretive about is probably never a good idea. Along that line, it's common sense to monitor what your kid is up to. The internet is a big place with lots of bad people. You should probably watch them.


Punishment is a form of control, in the sense IfYouSaySo used. It's used to keep others from performing the same action, and to keep offenders from re-offending. (Not that it works all the time, but that's the (very) basic idea.) How does suing myspace.com keep this sort of thing from happening? It doesn't. The parents suing are making myspace.com the fall guy for their mistakes, and the mistakes of their children. There's a nice parental lesson for you:
"No, honey. None of this was our fault. I didn't fail you by not keeping track of you. I didn't fail you by not teaching you to keep yourself out of dangerous situations. You didn't make a mistake by running off with a stranger. It's that evil, irresponsible myspace.com for allowing two people to contant each other over the internet! They're the bad guys, and we're going to make them pay for it!!!"

Punish the rapist (as harshly as possible). The parents aren't punshable for child abuse as the law stands, so they get off. Without the $30M.

IfYouSaySo
06-22-2006, 04:39 PM
How does suing myspace.com keep this sort of thing from happening?


By compelling myspace to come up with a reasonable scheme that will offer more protection.

Now discussing the issue, I do think that myspace has a certain responsibility, and it's a greater responsibility than many other businesses have. They are catering to children. Myspace can't assume that kids will always apply common sense. Kids are naive--i.e. they lack the life experience to know better. And if myspace is going to provide a service that kids have access to; if they're going to cater to kids, they should provide some mechanism to exclude adults from that community. It shouldn't be too hard to separate the two groups--one area for kids, and another for adults. I know there are problems with this, there are issues to be overcome, but really. Are you going to tell me that there simply isn't a solution? I'm sure if you were going to be paid 30 million dollars, you could find a solution...



First, the income of a company does not, and should not, provide any input on the validity of a liability lawsuit


Not the validity, no. But once liability has been found, I'm sure it will figure into the amount of damages to be awarded. And I doubt that $30million would ruin myspace.

IfYouSaySo
06-22-2006, 04:49 PM
Mildly related, I found this interesting article on Tort reform:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-11.htm

gcn_zelda
06-22-2006, 05:14 PM
Here's what the talk show pundits and columnists neglected to mention about the McDonalds coffee burn case:

79 year old Stella Liebeck suffered third degree burns on her groin and inner thighs while trying to add sugar to her coffee at a McDonalds drive through. Third degree burns are the most serious kind of burn. McDonalds knew it had a problem. There were at least 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at McDonalds before Liebeck's case. McDonalds had settled many claim before but refused Liebeck's request for $20,000 compensation, forcing the case into court. Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot but testified that they had never consulted with burn specialist. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees. And so the jury came back with a decision- $160,000 for compensatory damages. But because McDonalds was guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct" punitive damages were also applied. The jury set the award at $2.7 million. The judge then reduced the fine to less than half a million. Ms. Liebeck then settled with McDonalds for a sum reported to be much less than a half million dollars. McDonald's coffee is now sold at the same temperature as most other restaurants.

What the writer of this article is forgetting is that the damage to the woman was absolutely irrelevant. Because it was not McDonalds fault at all that she happened to spill coffee on herself. Edit: I suppose the previous warning does put them in a bad situation. I guess that's why this case doesn't/shouldn't set any precedents for any Myspace suits.

Let me give an example:
I buy a chainsaw. I use it and cut my leg off because I wasn't being careful. I sue Home Depot, where I bought the chainsaw. So, I have no leg now. Does that make Home Depot any more at fault?

It's the exact same concept as the Myspace thing.

You know, I don't remember people suing Yahoo! or GMail or AOL for rapings due to rendezvous set up over email.

MadCow257
06-22-2006, 05:29 PM
What the writer of this article is forgetting is that the damage to the woman was absolutely irrelevant. Because it was not McDonalds fault at all that she happened to spill coffee on herself.

I thought everyone agreed that 2.7 million was quite a reasonable suit?? 700+ previous cases and 30-50 degrees over necessary amount = reckless behavior

The chainsaw analogy is closer to the mc donalds case then this myspace thing, and even that's a stretch

My thought on the thing is this: 30 million is too much, but the suit is very valid if we can come up with a non intrusive safeguard that My Space could implement in a reasonable amount of time. This would suggest negligance on thier part, otherwise it's just the nature of the game

IfYouSaySo
06-22-2006, 05:33 PM
When I buy a cup of coffee, I expect it to be hot, but not so hot that spilling a little bit of it can cause 3rd degree burns in less than 2 seconds (clearly that's unreasonably hot, isn't it)? And that was the root cause of the injury (not the fact that it was spilled)?

Anyway, I'm not saying that the parents don't bear some responsibility. And maybe the girl was partly to blame also (poor decisions on her part). But it's also fair to say that there might be a legal basis for holding myspace responsible to some extent.

gcn_zelda
06-22-2006, 05:37 PM
When I buy a cup of coffee, I expect it to be hot, but not so hot that spilling a little bit of it can cause 3rd degree burns in less than 2 seconds (clearly that's unreasonably hot, isn't it)? And that was the root cause of the injury (not the fact that it was spilled)?

Anyway, I'm not saying that the parents don't bear some responsibility. And maybe the girl was partly to blame also (poor decisions on her part). But it's also fair to say that there might be a legal basis for holding myspace responsible to some extent.

Yeah, I conceded the McDonald's case.

I guess if they can find some way to safeguard Myspace... otherwise, I think it's kind of a pointless suit.

IfYouSaySo
06-22-2006, 05:38 PM
30 million represents 1% of myspace. So if myspace isn't willing to invest 1% in it's value to provide safeguards for children, isn't that in itself negligent?

Also, if you read the article, the 2.7 million award was a punitive damage award, and it represented 2 days of coffee sales for McDonalds. And an appeal judge reduced the settlement to less than .5 million, and the plaintiff later settled with McDonalds for much less than that even. So the 2.7 million wasn't really too much, and it wasn't really paid out. But the process resulted in McDonalds reducing the tempurature of their coffee to safe levels.

The myspace thing could work out in a similar way.

IfYouSaySo
06-22-2006, 05:44 PM
All involved are likely at fault to greater and lesser degrees, i.e. the parents are to blame (the bad parenting argument), the kid was an idiot (should have known better argument), the 19 year old she met up with clearly committed a crime, and myspace should really have had better controls in place.

The thing that is probably really ........ing people off with this is that one guilty party (the parents/the kid) will possibly profit from the mistake of another guilty party (myspace); and the larger guilt probably lies with the parents. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean that myspace isn't going to be liable.

Mario F.
06-22-2006, 05:49 PM
Exactly how do you think myspace is liable?
And what do you think myspace can do to protect itself?

And what about AIM, Messenger, Yahooo, etc...
And what about parking lot owners where the most rapes are reported to happen (parking lots, yes)?

And what about Cprog when someone here meets someone else in here and goes about rapping them?

Don't you agree the main responsible for this is the man who rapped the girl? Do you really think myspace is responsible? Do you think Cprog will one day be responsible (god forbid)?

And if the girl meets the rapist through you. If you introduce both not knowing what he was capable of? How much money are you willing to pay in compensation?

IfYouSaySo
06-22-2006, 06:05 PM
Exactly how do you think myspace is liable?


I have no idea, I'm a programmer not a lawyer.

But I have a feeling that the crux of the issue is that myspace is catering to a young audiece, but there aren't safeguards in place which try to prevent problems that it is reasonable to forsee. Of course the rapist is responsible. Read my previous post and you'll see that I believe that all involved are in some way responsible. And I think that is what bugs you--that the mom, who is to some degree responsible for what happened, is shifting the blame and attempting to profit from myspace (who might also be responsible to some degree).

In an ideal world everyone would admit some amount of guilt, and myspace would do whatever is necessary to correct the problem. But the reality is that the mom is probably dealing with some serious guilt issues and may never be capable of admitting that this was her fault, and myspace won't do a damn thing unless a lawsuit is brought against them.

Mario F.
06-22-2006, 06:25 PM
Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world. Rapists wouldn't either.

Myspace doesn't have to do a (quote) "damn thing" (end quote), because they are really not responsible, IfYouSaySo.

Look at it this way, there is no way they can stop this. It was a young girl today, but what about adults? Are you going to tell me that just because instead of a teenager we had a grown up woman being rapped, she would be somehow more responsible for what happened to her?

And what about if the teenager meet the guy on a bar? Is the bar liable? On a mall? Is the all liable? On friend's party? Is the friend responsible? And again.. if you had introduced them? Are you responsible?

IfYouSaySo
06-22-2006, 06:50 PM
I was arguing that we don't live in an ideal world, so you don't need to let me know. I was pointing out that without a lawsuit, things might not get done. I understand that you don't think anything should be done. I simply think that it couldn't hurt if something was done, and myspace is certainly in a position financially to do something about it, even if it is only within their site.

In answer to some of your questions:

What would a teenager be doing in a bar? Aren't they 21 and over where you live?

A friends party? My friends don't invite 14 year olds to their parties. The last time a random 14 year old was at the same party as I was, I was probably only 15 or 16. Generally people don't hold parties with kids and adults.

What makes you think that I would set a 14 year old up with a 19-year old? Is that something you would do? And don't take my remark as an insult, I'm just pointing out that it wouldn't happen--I wouldn't do it and neither would you.

You bring up other adults. That is a separate issue. We live in a society that thankfully tries to provide extra protections for children, on the assumption that they can't always fend for themselves. So any adult argument is really irrelevent.

A mall is also a different situation. Its a public hangout, but it's primary purpose isn't social networking. But this is your best argument, and I really don't have a complete answer to it.

Decrypt
06-22-2006, 10:39 PM
Should myspace.com have "controls" in place? Maybe. They do cater to kids, that's a good point. It would certainly be the responsible thing to do to have some kind of monitoring. You can't just have a no kid to adult interaction rule. Maybe monitoring the contacts people make. If one adult's kid-interaction to adult-interaction ratio is high, they do some investigating. Some other type of monitoring, maybe, but I don't know what. Should it be their legal obligation to do so? I'm not so sure. I really don't think so, but it's iffy at best.

IfYouSaySo, you really hit the jackpot, I think, when you say what really gets people (myself included) ........ed off is that the mother will be the one to profit from this. Not only will she not be punished for borderline neglect, she'll end up $30M richer for failing to protect her child. Job #1 on the parent must-do list.

Even without that, though, I'm still not convinced myspace.com should be held financially liable.

computation
06-22-2006, 11:46 PM
WHY should myspace be responsible at all? Why is it that people feel that myspace should take security measures? Are there any laws which say they have to? People should be thankful that they put in any safety measures at all. Maybe ethically speaking, they should have been more careful. But there is no legal statute saying that they must keep minors from communicating with adults. And if there was, just how would you propose to do that? Credit card verification? Like a 14 year old will have a credit card...Or more legitimately, that someone's parents are going to send off their credit card information to some 'unknown' company just because junior wants to publically list his favorite things and talk to 'friends'?
Or how about a signed consent form sent to myspace with a copy of the parents driver's licencse? That's worse than the credit card idea..................You might argue, "but that will let parents know what their kids are doing online...". Exactly. Congratulations. You have just realized it's the parent's sole responsibilty. There shouldn't be a need for a website to force parents to get involved with their children's internet activities. The parent's just should. Not only for their children's safety, but for their children's mental well being. Whether kids like it or not, they need the attention from their parents.... Which brings me back to the ethics. Maybe, instead of websites forcing people to know what their child is doing online, YOU SHOULD PROTECT YOUR OWN FU**ING CHILD!!!!

Thantos
06-23-2006, 12:00 AM
Anyone care to link the actual article that is the source of this discussion?

computation
06-23-2006, 12:22 AM
google: "myspace lawsuit austin"

First google return:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/06/20myspace.html

(not sure if i've read this one yet... hope it's not biased)

jEssYcAt
06-23-2006, 03:39 AM
Parents shouldn't let their kids run around online unsupervised anymore than they would let them run around a public park unsupervised. A 10-12 year old kid is just as naieve and in need of supervision online as a 3-4 year old kid at the playground. They are both places where at those ages the kid simply does not have the experience to know what is dangerous. If you don't involve yourself at least a little in what your child is doing online, you are letting him run around the playground while you take a nap or run to the store.

It is much easier for the wackjobs to pretend to be other kids online obviously, but what solution should Myspace implement? Maybe have software flag any conversation where at least 1 person is a minor and an address, phone number or time is given out, then have a moderator read the log and report anything illegal to the police? Myspace would have to hire an army of moderators to filter through all the hits they would get, and still probably wouldn't be able to keep up (maybe a "premium account" would have this feature enabled so Myspace doesn't lose their precious profit margin). Add to this that wackjobs would be applying for moderator jobs (how better to thwart that premium account protection?) Users (kids and wackjobs alike) would wise up and learn how to thwart the flagging software (and the whole security cycle begins). Any protection you can think of would suffer from these kinds of problems and seem somehow inadequate. That's not to mention the privacy concerns and identity theft issues. (Who would they hire to be moderators afterall? Would the potential moderator need a security clearance or would the Non-Disclosure agreement and honor system work here?)

The bottom line is that parents should pay attention and get involved in their kids lives (if not already involved as good parents should be). Whether the wackjob followed the kid home from the park or set up a meeting online, the fault is with the wackjob for doing the heinous act. No one has ever blamed a public park for getting their child molested, have they?

MadCow257
06-23-2006, 09:46 AM
In Hong Kong, if you do this, you will:
It will spread :( :( :( :( :( :( :(


I'm not saying it's the kid's fault.
Why not? She is 14, not 10. If you have a parent then at that age you should not go on at date (at all?) but especially with a 19 year old.


In May, after a series of e-mails and phone calls, he picked her up at school, took her out to eat and to a movie, then drove her to an apartment complex parking lot in South Austin, where he sexually assaulted her, police said. He was arrested May 19.
Sue the email! Sue the phone! Sue the apartment complex!

This was a deliberate act on the part of the girl, there was a long line of communication with someone she knew to be much older, and then agreed to go out. Speculation: she was not assualted but did so willingly, now she isn't living up to the resonsibility and is instead blaming people. To blame My Space is ...

I could see another case that has alot more basis then this one, and even then it should go back to the parent. Or just shut the site down.

Salgat
06-23-2006, 11:39 AM
Isnt the parent the one who should get sued(well, legal action :) ), seeing as how she didnt responsibly monitor her childrends actions? Can I sue the phone books if some guy uses it to find the address of someone and rape them?

Decrypt
06-23-2006, 02:23 PM
I said it wasn't her fault, meaning not entirely. As I said later in that very paragraph, she did things that put her in a bad situation. I put it in bold letters to ward off the people who would stop reading there, and say I was such a horrible person for blaming the rape on the rape victim.

It comes down to this: A 14-year-old girl made stupid decisions. A parent (or parents) failed to effectively monitor their child. A 19-year-old raped her.

He could have met her at school, the mall, a park, some other teen hangout, it doesn't matter. Three people failed this little girl. Herself, her mother, and a guy she trusted.

The girl's punishment is clear: she was raped. She's already been punished too much for a few dumb decisions. She should know that, if I may sort of quote Salem, if she's going to dance on the broken glass of dumbass decisions, she's got to expect the occasional cut.

The rapist's punishment is clear: Jail. The legal system will take care of him. Hopefully his cellmate will, too.

The mother's punishment is not as clear: Can this be considered neglect? I doubt in the legal sense, but it's not a bad question to ask. Where do we draw the line on parental neglect? If a parent doesn't provide the basic needs: food, clothes, shelter, etc. its considered neglect. What about safety? Isn't that a basic need of childhood?

Whether or not mom is punshed for this, there is no way that myspace.com should pay out $30M. Not to her, not to anyone.

And shutting the site down is ridiculous.

cboard_member
06-23-2006, 03:07 PM
The old ahluka would say something stupid like: Actually I'd better not.
But I'm not going to say that.

jmd15
06-23-2006, 04:15 PM
And what about Cprog when someone here meets someone else in here and goes about rapping them?

God, I sure hope not. Especially considering over half of us are male, that's quite disturbing. Not to be rude but isn't it "raping" and not "rapping"?

Govtcheez
06-23-2006, 06:13 PM
What do you have against rap, jmd?

jmd15
06-23-2006, 06:15 PM
Ooooh, don't get me started on rap. >: )

Govtcheez
06-23-2006, 07:57 PM
rap more like crap am i right

jmd15
06-23-2006, 08:11 PM
Close but no cigar. Rap is not music. Rap is noise. If you like rap, then you don't like music. You like noise. noise: "Sound or a sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired." So if you like unpleasant sounds, you just might be a rap fan ;).

Govtcheez
06-23-2006, 08:28 PM
Thanks for your informed opinion. You've managed to totally destroy a whole genre of music (I'm sorry, noise) in only a couple sentences! Bravo!

What do you listen to, if I may ask?

SlyMaelstrom
06-23-2006, 08:45 PM
50 Cent... but he's not rap! HE'S HIP HOP!!!He really said this... he just deleted it.

jmd15
06-23-2006, 08:50 PM
Lol!! As if Sly.. What I listen to? I listen to a number of genres. Mainly techno and rock. Overall I listen to a bit of everything(almost everything).

Govtcheez
06-23-2006, 08:52 PM
You listen to mainly techno, and you think rap is just noise? Wow.

SlyMaelstrom
06-23-2006, 08:54 PM
Hey man! Techno is life!

... after you got some E in you, that is.



Disclaimer: SlyMaelstrom does not support drug use ...or excessive consumption of water

gcn_zelda
06-23-2006, 09:26 PM
I was going to guess Bluegrass.

jmd15
06-23-2006, 09:27 PM
Mainly techno AND rock(all kinds of rock: alt, classic, etc). Techno is life I agree with that to an extent. Rap is noise because its just talking. Techno can be anything, its an expression of anything you want. Rap is just people swearing and talking about being "gangsta".

SlyMaelstrom
06-23-2006, 09:36 PM
<Any Fanboy Word> can be anything, its an expression of anything you want.I've heard this one before.

jmd15
06-23-2006, 09:47 PM
Have you now? You mean, you read my post twice?

Mad_guy
06-23-2006, 10:08 PM
Rap is just people swearing and talking about being "gangsta".
No it isn't. (And if you look at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rap), it disagree's with you. It's a disambiguation page, which I assume you can navigate, but the disambig page is the best place to point you considering how the top two links on there, which are really the only relevent ones, are both significant.) Anyway, there's a lot of bad rap, but some of the older stuff and even new is great. There's good stuff out there, such as Run DMC (It's tricky) and even new songs such as Deliverance.

jmd15
06-23-2006, 10:34 PM
Technically you're right. But 90% of it is what I described. I have to admit that there are like one or two rap songs that are TOLERABLE. However, I hate rap.

axon
06-23-2006, 10:44 PM
Rap is noise because its just talking. Techno can be anything, its an expression of anything you want. Rap is just people swearing and talking about being "gangsta".


no dude, you're a moron. Listen to some underground hip-hop, some not-so-mainstream acts and you'll see what rap is really about. Same way with techno/electronic music. I love techno, acid, and trance - but the mainstream stuff is utter garbage. You really have to look a little deeper to find the gems.

IfYouSaySo
06-23-2006, 10:51 PM
no dude, you're a moron. Listen to some underground hip-hop,


This whole line of reasoning is so funny. I guarantee, the most he would get out of it is, "You're right, that's a little better, but I would still never willingly listen to it."

jmd15
06-23-2006, 10:53 PM
Well calling me a moron puts me off to anything you have to say. I'm still standing by, 90%(or more) is just noise, garbage, and the other little bit is only TOLERABLE.