'The Interview' is a disgusting film and should be banned

Thank you for your round.I'm afraid I must fundamentally disagree with not just your position and your arguments, but even the lens through which you're looking at this topic.Firstly, the entirety of your debate is framed around colour; that is, what colour which pot is calling whose kettle. Let me make something perfectly clear: whatever the United States has done is or is doing has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the crimes against humanity being perpetrated by DPRK. You are committing the Tu Quoque fallacy, a form of Red Herring(1).It is intellectually dishonest to say that because America does something wrong, that excuses the behaviour of DPRK. Be serious. And besides, why are you exclusively talking about the States? Just because an independent production company is based there? You do know the rest of the world is sanctioning the DPRK for their crimes against the earth, right? Like it's not just the US. Even NK's one ally, China, have started massing troops on the border to stop all the NK defectors escaping into China because they're all dying. What does it tell you when the hermit kingdom's one ally starts militarising their border? Once again, saying this is merely a conflict of ideology is analogous to saying that we shouldn't stop the Holocaust because 'it's just a conflict of ideology'. There are bad people on this planet, Frank.Secondly, you claim that I have made a false statement about the North's video showing the destruction of the US because it was released by 'hackers'. The video I am talking about was released almost two years ago, in February 2013. You are conflating the recent Sony events and the hacking scandal with an actual press release from the Cabinet and Ministry of Internal Affairs in Pyongyang. The video I posted to you is an official release of the Government(2).You then claim that every first-world nation possess WMDs, which is obviously not true. There are only nine countries in the world that possess WMDs(3). Precisely none of the elected UNSC members have WMDs. Same as last election cycle. And the cycle before that(5) You are misframing the problem of nuclear proliferation. The U.S. is not actively threatening other states with nuclear violence, and even if it were, this still would not in any way validate the DPRK's behaviour.Then, in your most shameful exposition, you begin a completely false and misleading diatribe about 'revenge', which I won't even pick apart here because of its absurdity. Revenge for what? For starving their own people? For creating mass internal suffering and for running a once powerful economy into the salted dirt? For giving their civilians nothing but the assurance of anguish and death? For running forced labour camps and using mortars as a form of punishment?(4)When one ridicules an ideology, one devalues its power. That is the point. When you talk about forgiveness, that assumes that it is a grievance perpetrated against the U.S. and the West. That is not the origin of the grievance. The grievance is against what the DPRK Government is doing to its own people, not just the threats it makes to us.You have entirely missed the allegory and depth of Orwell's words in this case. The specific details about basketball etc are not the point. The point is about a totalitarian regime which is causing it's own people to waste and atrophy until the only enrichment of the soil becomes the tillers' blood and bones. You disapprove of a movie because it is 'offensive'. This does not constitute and argument. As the Hitch said, "when someone tells me they're offended by something I've said, I tell them I'm still waiting to hear what your argument is". Saying you're offended by the truth is a cop out. Not the specific details about Franco riding around in a tank listening to Katy Perry with Un. You need to dive through the superficial waters paddling the lake of ignorance and discover the murky depths below. The truth lies in the belly of the lake, being slowly digested. It is well past time to tickle the tonsils of the beast.Banning 'The Interview' would be an immoral violation of freedom of speech, and would remove an avenue of discussing serious global and internal issues. Banning media of this nature would constitute a crime against humanity.____________________________________________________________________________(1) [http://www.fallacyfiles.org...](2) [http://www.theguardian.com...] (3) [http://en.wikipedia.org...](4) [http://www.nydailynews.com...] (5) [http://en.wikipedia.org...]