I didn't take it as something wrong or offensive people assuming I'm straight. But the parent had said that the banning was ok as long as MS enforced straight people not to mention their sexuality at Xbox Live.
I was going to point something out but then I noticed it probably depends on the country. In some parts of my country (Argentina) there is "civil union" which is the closest to marriage gay couples have, but it is also allowed for straight couples (so I guess that could be your case with your girlfriend).
I think the same applies in France, where the legal figure of "civil union" is sex orientation independent.
I understand that you weren't attacking the concept of a company giving such privileges. I was just pointing some reasons why it is actually a way to balance some wrong things. For example, it is completely up to MS to recognize gay partnership. Many companies won't.
I definitely agree that MS is a gay friendly company. I heard somebody at a gay gamers forum mentioning that MS was worried about this whole issue and I found that easy to believe (even if it was a forum post about a twitter message about something that was discussed at MS:) ). I found that easy to believe because companies that big and that employ highly educated people are very conscious about their image and about being politically correct.
>It doesn't affect anything else but who you feel physically (i.e. sexually) attracted to.
It also affects who you feel emotionally attracted to. Which is not something sexual. And what you went through in the past (talking about probable things: discrimination, being closeted, coming out to your parents, public figures you can relate to).
>To most people, writing "I am Gay" (or lesbian, or bi, or whatever) in a public profile is the same as writing "I prefer it doggy-style".
That's their problem. When somebody tells me he is married and has a child I don't picture him and his wife having kinky sex, even if it is safe to assume they had sex at least once. I don't usually picture people having sex when I find out if they are straight or gay.
>To pick apart one of your examples, someone mentioning to you that they think Angelina Jolie is hot isn't a reason to say that you're gay.
I agree with your point. I must add however that one thing is acknowledging attractiveness and another thing is stating "She is hot". If a man told me "Daniel Craig is hot" I would assume he is gay in most contexts, why would he bother saying that?. Likewise, if a man told me "Angelina Jolie is hot" I would assume he is straight, also because I would expect a gay man saying "Angelina Jolie is fabulous":)
>but saying "No, I'm gay" is as bad as saying "No, I'm straight" if a straight person is asked the attractiveness of another member of the same sex.
Yes, my main point was, however, that not saying you are straight is not the same as not saying you are gay. Because people will assume you are straight.
I don't think assuming somebody is straight is bad at all. I don't blame somebody when s/he assumes I'm straight.
But for the same reason, I think it is necessary to say I'm not when the moment comes.
Also, I don't think saying I'm gay is a detail about my sexual activities more than saying I'm married would be. Hell, I could even be a virgin and still be gay. That's why I don't think it is right to ban somebody from saying s/he is gay in Xbox live.
The reason I mentioned that people assumes one is straight is because I think that's the reason banning mention of sexual orientation is strongly biased against gay people.
I never used Xbox Live... so I'm not sure... Can you state your ethnicity?
Would it be wrong for somebody to be banned because he said he is Latino?
Wouldn't people care if they banned mentioning ethnicity in Xbox Live?
Saying you are gay is not about pride, it is not about sex, it is not about romance. It is about who you are. And it can serve as a good method to say who you want to hang out with and who you don't (i.e. homophobes).
So you are gay but you think being gay is only about who you have sex with?
You must be living a very shallow life.
Also, it is interesting that you say the person is "advertising" being gay. As if she was trying to sell something. Would you say that a person "advertises" being Afroamerican? Maybe you would, and then ask not to be called bigot since you are Afroamerican...
Would it be odd identifying yourself as straight? For example, saying you are married?
I'm really asking here, since I've never used Xbox Live. But I definitely can think about reasons to identify myself as gay in a gaming community. One good reason is because I would want to play with other gay or gay friendly people who wouldn't use the word gay as an insult. That's an example I can think off with the little understanding I have about Xbox Live.
Actually, that's not the same. In the current cultural context, you are assumed to be straight.
I guess you are straight and that's why you didn't noticed. But being gay myself it is obvious to me that people always assumes I'm straight, it is obvious because I often find myself "coming out" to people. You'll think our sexual orientation is something that doesn't come up often, but actually it is. Maybe somebody tells you how hot Angelina Jolie is, or maybe asks you if you are married, or a coworker who invites you dinner and tells you that you can bring a girlfriend. Very small things that you don't even notice.
I really never found somebody who didn't make the "straight" assumption.
And that's why the headline says the problem was with somebody identifying as a lesbian. Do you really think nobody has ever identified as straight in Xbox Live? (example "I'm married" "I have a girlfriend" "I like blond chicks") Did you ever heard that was a problem?
Another common misconception is that saying you are gay is about sex. It is not. As an analogy, when you say you are married you are not saying "I'm banging a woman", even if you in fact have sex with your wife. In a similar way, saying gay is making a statement about who you are, your life experience, and in general where you come from.
No... that would be as if Microsoft gave you a link to install IE when you install Windows.
Instead of that, Microsoft installs IE without you asking for it. Microsoft built the whole OS around the browser, so there isn't a way to completely disable it. Microsoft is effectively forcing you to have IE in your computer.
Anyway, this is not about Google being or not being a monopoly doing illegal practices. If they were, I don't see why they shouldn't be punished. But that's a different issue. This is about microsoft.
Actually, I don't think they are missing the problem. I think that the actual problem is more difficult to solve (Ban windows until they offer it untangled from IE?). But the EU acknowledges that something must be done to at least counter this monopolistic practice, a pragmatic solution.
Repeat after me: This is not about microsoft having a ruling browser. This is about microsoft having a ruling OS, and using it push their browser in illegal ways.
Nobody is telling MS to offer a different browser to the people that wants to install IE. They are telling MS to offer a different browser to the people that wants to install Windows. Huge difference.
This is about Microsoft using its effective monopoly on the OS to give itself a strong headstart on the browser business.
In fact, as TFA mentions, the EU did something similar with media player. So your "notepad/calculator" idea is not so far off.
As I see it, they are acknowledging that there is real competence for IE, and that Microsoft is using the fact that they rule the desktop to make their users choose IE.
That's not a fair practice since they are not competing by offering a better product, they are instead using their monopoly status on the OS market to push their products in other areas. So the EU is punishing Microsoft for that bad behavior. Is the EU resolution the best? I don't know. Are their reasons valid? Of course they are.
>What happened to the freedom of a company to sell their own product without interference? Why should they advertise for a competing product in their own? Even more, why should they be required to bundle a competitor's product in their own?
Those freedom end the very moment the company is in a very privileged position (i.e. monopoly). All monopolies have restrictions and rules that do not apply to regular companies. Microsoft is not going to "stop making windows available", because they are not stupid kids in a fit, they are business people who know they are making billions in the EU. They'll live with it. And so should you.
I understand what you say. And I definitely think there is place to discussion and fine tuning of the law. That means putting exemptions and palliatives.
The only thing I wanted to point out is that there isn't a silver bullet in this matter. All laws will unfairly punish somebody from time to time, and all laws will unfairly leave somebody unpunished from time to time (read http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1136267&cid=26945235 to better understand what I mean).
That's where we must draw a difference between the law and morals. Morals say that you probably shouldn't turn your daughter's boyfriend to police if they happened to have sex. Law says that if you do, he will probably be put in jail.
That's the current state of the law. And it must probably change. But it takes time, and it takes enough people noticing how stupid the above scenario is in order to make a change.
Laws will change when people learn not to shout "pedophile!". Not the other way around.
Psychologists are ok. But the original parent mentioned something about "mental capacity", talking as if it was something you could set in stone. A set of rules with a yes/no outcome.
Using a psychologist is very fuzzy and I personally don't think it would help since most of the time psychologists are the ones to cast the first stone when it comes to "pedophilia". I rather use a hard law, something we all know and understand. That's very important too, knowing the rules. You wouldn't want to suddenly be facing jail because an expert determined that that 20 year old wasn't really mentally capable.
>Im going to take an unpopular view. Yes, they should.
It is ok. I wasn't making any judgment in that particular sentence. I just wanted to be sure that's what the parent had said.
>Ill quit my diatribe here, as you probably understand my viewpoint. I just want this double standard and age discrimination solved.
Double standard is quite a different topic. And that's very related to specific countries and cultures. For example, in my country (Argentina), a person under 18 can't be put in prison for murder or robbery. And age of consent is 15 (I'm reading this from http://www.ageofconsent.com/argentina.htm but I'm not sure it is quite correct).
Anyway, as you can see, the double standard here works the other way (but it is still neglectible).
I don't think 12 is a good age. But that's the problem, there's no way of getting an agreement on this issue since it depends very much on the minor.
I think about the issue in terms of false positives and false negatives. When you ask yourself, is this person morally responsible? you are asking a vary vague question. That means that when you answer yes/no, you'll have true positives and true negatives. You'll also have false positives and false negatives. When it comes to something that might hurt a person(using your definition, including mental trauma) you want to be on the safe side. When it comes to age of consent, you want to have less false positives (i.e. You don't want to say "this kid is ready to go" when in fact he isn't). And when it comes to being morally responsible of his bad actions you want to have less false positives (i.e. you don't want to imprison a children because you thought he was fully aware of his actions when in fact he wasn't).
That, in my opinion, is the source of what you called "double standard". Which, in this light, is not double standard, it is only wanting to maximize the good you do with the ages of consent you set and at the same time not being overly permissive/restrictive.
"we" (as in humankind) have tried for centuries. That's what some philosophers and more recently psychologists/psychiatrists do for a living.
>Even that is still pretty flawed
But is better. And it is something we can talk about and probably implement.
Talking about "mental capacity" on the other hand, is a byzantine discussion.
All laws are flawed, since they don't really apply to all cases even if you can pretend to. And many laws have palliatives in "Cases we "like"". Take for example murder, murder is just murder isn't it? No, it isn't... killing somebody in self defense is not the same as killing somebody in a car accident and it is not the same if you are DUI and it is not the same if you are an executioner.
Do you think those "exceptions" cover all possible cases? By no means, human beings and life itself is complex. There is no way of selecting a subset of that myriad of cases and dividing them into "right" and "wrong".
Also, you are talking under the implicit assumption that perfecting a law could take you closer to an ideal, perfect law. That's wrong. A law is a generalization of the moral of many people, you could even say it is an average. There is no platonic law to aim to. You can only modify the law to make more people happy with it. But there is a limit, the limit being the issues where you can't get an agreement. Those disagreements happen more often as you add complexity to a law.
>I'm sorry, I thought this is about morality and laws. Since when is "easier" a valid criterion here?
Actually, you can find your answer in that very paragraph. Moral is not the same as law. Moral can be fuzzy, laws can't. Moral questions are not always easy, and that's ok. But "easier" is a valid criterion when you use morals to create a law. Even more because the alternative you are proposing is not "harder" but "impossible".
Because we don't create laws to test people's willpower. We do it so we can protect people.
In this case, the law is meant to protect children. And since we set a hard limit, we get a glitch in the system, that the parent correctly pointed out.
But what he pointed out can't be solved by setting a fuzzy limit, because there is no way to determine such fuzzy limit. The parent is just trying to be smart.
I think that, as a society, we shouldn't be so hard on those who "didn't wait 5 to 6 days". That's just stupid and hypocritical. But, since the law is a good law in its spirit we should honor it by enforcing it, maybe with palliatives.
But we are currently goings toward a society that would condemn, blacklist and ostracize a 18 years old for having sex with his 17 years old girlfriend. And that's not good in my opinion.
>I did not say that there was no mental capacity restriction.
What does mental capacity means? I don't think there's even a test to decide that. Not even a definition to start thinking about how to create such test.
Your proposal is only valid from a very utopic and theoretical point of view. In practice, you can only establish one or several hard limits (16, 18 and 21) and some exceptions (mental conditions). From then, we can start talking about modifying those limits and maybe we can add some well defined complexity (as opposed to talking about fuzzy things like "mental capacity").
But what you are saying is one of those statements that sound smart but are pretty much meaningless.
>(and agreement should not have an age restriction),
I don't understand. Do you mean we should let minors do porn as long as they agree with it? And how do you know if s/he is able to decide in a meaningful way?
Actually, I think what you said is too ambiguous... you said "As long as no one is hurt" and "agree". You should now define "hurt" and "agree", which I think is the main issue here.
I understand the logics of what you say. But I think you are putting the cart in front of the horse. Nobody expects the government to be our moral compass, at least that's not the idea. The idea is the government to create or modify current laws to balance different morals and interests, that includes the majority's moral.
It is also worth mentioning that a mod chip in Argentina is about 200 ar$ (installation included).
That's why piracy is as spread in PC games as it is in console games.
I would like to see PS3 selling statistics in Argentina, since PS3 is the only console that doesn't have pirated games available.
I overheard last week a family asking a salesman what was the difference between the PS3 and the WII (both were exhibited and the graphic differences were painly obvious but they didn't seem to notice). Do you think the salesman gave any tech information? Instead he said: "You can play copied games on the Wii, you can't on the PS3". And we are talking about a high profile store located in a very important shopping.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't take it as something wrong or offensive people assuming I'm straight. But the parent had said that the banning was ok as long as MS enforced straight people not to mention their sexuality at Xbox Live.
That's why I pointed out it is not the same.
I was going to point something out but then I noticed it probably depends on the country. In some parts of my country (Argentina) there is "civil union" which is the closest to marriage gay couples have, but it is also allowed for straight couples (so I guess that could be your case with your girlfriend).
I think the same applies in France, where the legal figure of "civil union" is sex orientation independent.
I understand that you weren't attacking the concept of a company giving such privileges. I was just pointing some reasons why it is actually a way to balance some wrong things. For example, it is completely up to MS to recognize gay partnership. Many companies won't.
I definitely agree that MS is a gay friendly company. I heard somebody at a gay gamers forum mentioning that MS was worried about this whole issue and I found that easy to believe (even if it was a forum post about a twitter message about something that was discussed at MS :) ). I found that easy to believe because companies that big and that employ highly educated people are very conscious about their image and about being politically correct.
>It doesn't affect anything else but who you feel physically (i.e. sexually) attracted to.
It also affects who you feel emotionally attracted to. Which is not something sexual. And what you went through in the past (talking about probable things: discrimination, being closeted, coming out to your parents, public figures you can relate to).
>To most people, writing "I am Gay" (or lesbian, or bi, or whatever) in a public profile is the same as writing "I prefer it doggy-style".
That's their problem. When somebody tells me he is married and has a child I don't picture him and his wife having kinky sex, even if it is safe to assume they had sex at least once. I don't usually picture people having sex when I find out if they are straight or gay.
>To pick apart one of your examples, someone mentioning to you that they think Angelina Jolie is hot isn't a reason to say that you're gay.
I agree with your point. I must add however that one thing is acknowledging attractiveness and another thing is stating "She is hot". If a man told me "Daniel Craig is hot" I would assume he is gay in most contexts, why would he bother saying that?. Likewise, if a man told me "Angelina Jolie is hot" I would assume he is straight, also because I would expect a gay man saying "Angelina Jolie is fabulous" :)
>but saying "No, I'm gay" is as bad as saying "No, I'm straight" if a straight person is asked the attractiveness of another member of the same sex.
Yes, my main point was, however, that not saying you are straight is not the same as not saying you are gay. Because people will assume you are straight.
I don't think assuming somebody is straight is bad at all. I don't blame somebody when s/he assumes I'm straight.
But for the same reason, I think it is necessary to say I'm not when the moment comes.
Also, I don't think saying I'm gay is a detail about my sexual activities more than saying I'm married would be. Hell, I could even be a virgin and still be gay. That's why I don't think it is right to ban somebody from saying s/he is gay in Xbox live.
The reason I mentioned that people assumes one is straight is because I think that's the reason banning mention of sexual orientation is strongly biased against gay people.
>since I can't share my benefits with my girlfriend unless I marry her
But you CAN marry her.
I never used Xbox Live... so I'm not sure... Can you state your ethnicity?
Would it be wrong for somebody to be banned because he said he is Latino?
Wouldn't people care if they banned mentioning ethnicity in Xbox Live?
Saying you are gay is not about pride, it is not about sex, it is not about romance. It is about who you are. And it can serve as a good method to say who you want to hang out with and who you don't (i.e. homophobes).
So you are gay but you think being gay is only about who you have sex with?
You must be living a very shallow life.
Also, it is interesting that you say the person is "advertising" being gay. As if she was trying to sell something. Would you say that a person "advertises" being Afroamerican? Maybe you would, and then ask not to be called bigot since you are Afroamerican...
And you should google "internalized homophobia"
Why is it odd?
Would it be odd identifying yourself as straight? For example, saying you are married?
I'm really asking here, since I've never used Xbox Live. But I definitely can think about reasons to identify myself as gay in a gaming community. One good reason is because I would want to play with other gay or gay friendly people who wouldn't use the word gay as an insult. That's an example I can think off with the little understanding I have about Xbox Live.
Actually, that's not the same. In the current cultural context, you are assumed to be straight.
I guess you are straight and that's why you didn't noticed. But being gay myself it is obvious to me that people always assumes I'm straight, it is obvious because I often find myself "coming out" to people. You'll think our sexual orientation is something that doesn't come up often, but actually it is. Maybe somebody tells you how hot Angelina Jolie is, or maybe asks you if you are married, or a coworker who invites you dinner and tells you that you can bring a girlfriend. Very small things that you don't even notice.
I really never found somebody who didn't make the "straight" assumption.
And that's why the headline says the problem was with somebody identifying as a lesbian. Do you really think nobody has ever identified as straight in Xbox Live? (example "I'm married" "I have a girlfriend" "I like blond chicks") Did you ever heard that was a problem?
Another common misconception is that saying you are gay is about sex. It is not. As an analogy, when you say you are married you are not saying "I'm banging a woman", even if you in fact have sex with your wife. In a similar way, saying gay is making a statement about who you are, your life experience, and in general where you come from.
No... that would be as if Microsoft gave you a link to install IE when you install Windows.
Instead of that, Microsoft installs IE without you asking for it. Microsoft built the whole OS around the browser, so there isn't a way to completely disable it. Microsoft is effectively forcing you to have IE in your computer.
Anyway, this is not about Google being or not being a monopoly doing illegal practices. If they were, I don't see why they shouldn't be punished. But that's a different issue. This is about microsoft.
They are not pushing their email service in illegal ways. That's the difference.
Microsoft screwed it up. They are paying for it.
Actually, I don't think they are missing the problem. I think that the actual problem is more difficult to solve (Ban windows until they offer it untangled from IE?). But the EU acknowledges that something must be done to at least counter this monopolistic practice, a pragmatic solution.
Repeat after me:
This is not about microsoft having a ruling browser. This is about microsoft having a ruling OS, and using it push their browser in illegal ways.
Nobody is telling MS to offer a different browser to the people that wants to install IE. They are telling MS to offer a different browser to the people that wants to install Windows. Huge difference.
>telling someone what they can and can't do with their product not OK.
So you can't be told to stop doing something that is illegal? Is that what you are saying?
This is about Microsoft using its effective monopoly on the OS to give itself a strong headstart on the browser business.
In fact, as TFA mentions, the EU did something similar with media player. So your "notepad/calculator" idea is not so far off.
As I see it, they are acknowledging that there is real competence for IE, and that Microsoft is using the fact that they rule the desktop to make their users choose IE.
That's not a fair practice since they are not competing by offering a better product, they are instead using their monopoly status on the OS market to push their products in other areas. So the EU is punishing Microsoft for that bad behavior. Is the EU resolution the best? I don't know. Are their reasons valid? Of course they are.
>What happened to the freedom of a company to sell their own product without interference? Why should they advertise for a competing product in their own? Even more, why should they be required to bundle a competitor's product in their own?
Those freedom end the very moment the company is in a very privileged position (i.e. monopoly). All monopolies have restrictions and rules that do not apply to regular companies. Microsoft is not going to "stop making windows available", because they are not stupid kids in a fit, they are business people who know they are making billions in the EU. They'll live with it. And so should you.
I understand what you say. And I definitely think there is place to discussion and fine tuning of the law. That means putting exemptions and palliatives.
The only thing I wanted to point out is that there isn't a silver bullet in this matter. All laws will unfairly punish somebody from time to time, and all laws will unfairly leave somebody unpunished from time to time (read http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1136267&cid=26945235 to better understand what I mean).
That's where we must draw a difference between the law and morals. Morals say that you probably shouldn't turn your daughter's boyfriend to police if they happened to have sex. Law says that if you do, he will probably be put in jail.
That's the current state of the law. And it must probably change. But it takes time, and it takes enough people noticing how stupid the above scenario is in order to make a change.
Laws will change when people learn not to shout "pedophile!". Not the other way around.
Psychologists are ok. But the original parent mentioned something about "mental capacity", talking as if it was something you could set in stone. A set of rules with a yes/no outcome.
Using a psychologist is very fuzzy and I personally don't think it would help since most of the time psychologists are the ones to cast the first stone when it comes to "pedophilia". I rather use a hard law, something we all know and understand. That's very important too, knowing the rules. You wouldn't want to suddenly be facing jail because an expert determined that that 20 year old wasn't really mentally capable.
>Im going to take an unpopular view. Yes, they should.
It is ok. I wasn't making any judgment in that particular sentence. I just wanted to be sure that's what the parent had said.
>Ill quit my diatribe here, as you probably understand my viewpoint. I just want this double standard and age discrimination solved.
Double standard is quite a different topic. And that's very related to specific countries and cultures. For example, in my country (Argentina), a person under 18 can't be put in prison for murder or robbery. And age of consent is 15 (I'm reading this from http://www.ageofconsent.com/argentina.htm but I'm not sure it is quite correct).
Anyway, as you can see, the double standard here works the other way (but it is still neglectible).
I don't think 12 is a good age. But that's the problem, there's no way of getting an agreement on this issue since it depends very much on the minor.
I think about the issue in terms of false positives and false negatives. When you ask yourself, is this person morally responsible? you are asking a vary vague question. That means that when you answer yes/no, you'll have true positives and true negatives. You'll also have false positives and false negatives. When it comes to something that might hurt a person(using your definition, including mental trauma) you want to be on the safe side. When it comes to age of consent, you want to have less false positives (i.e. You don't want to say "this kid is ready to go" when in fact he isn't). And when it comes to being morally responsible of his bad actions you want to have less false positives (i.e. you don't want to imprison a children because you thought he was fully aware of his actions when in fact he wasn't).
That, in my opinion, is the source of what you called "double standard". Which, in this light, is not double standard, it is only wanting to maximize the good you do with the ages of consent you set and at the same time not being overly permissive/restrictive.
>Have we tried?
"we" (as in humankind) have tried for centuries. That's what some philosophers and more recently psychologists/psychiatrists do for a living.
>Even that is still pretty flawed
But is better. And it is something we can talk about and probably implement.
Talking about "mental capacity" on the other hand, is a byzantine discussion.
All laws are flawed, since they don't really apply to all cases even if you can pretend to. And many laws have palliatives in "Cases we "like"". Take for example murder, murder is just murder isn't it? No, it isn't... killing somebody in self defense is not the same as killing somebody in a car accident and it is not the same if you are DUI and it is not the same if you are an executioner.
Do you think those "exceptions" cover all possible cases? By no means, human beings and life itself is complex. There is no way of selecting a subset of that myriad of cases and dividing them into "right" and "wrong".
Also, you are talking under the implicit assumption that perfecting a law could take you closer to an ideal, perfect law. That's wrong. A law is a generalization of the moral of many people, you could even say it is an average. There is no platonic law to aim to. You can only modify the law to make more people happy with it. But there is a limit, the limit being the issues where you can't get an agreement. Those disagreements happen more often as you add complexity to a law.
>I'm sorry, I thought this is about morality and laws. Since when is "easier" a valid criterion here?
Actually, you can find your answer in that very paragraph. Moral is not the same as law. Moral can be fuzzy, laws can't. Moral questions are not always easy, and that's ok. But "easier" is a valid criterion when you use morals to create a law. Even more because the alternative you are proposing is not "harder" but "impossible".
Because we don't create laws to test people's willpower. We do it so we can protect people.
In this case, the law is meant to protect children. And since we set a hard limit, we get a glitch in the system, that the parent correctly pointed out.
But what he pointed out can't be solved by setting a fuzzy limit, because there is no way to determine such fuzzy limit. The parent is just trying to be smart.
I think that, as a society, we shouldn't be so hard on those who "didn't wait 5 to 6 days". That's just stupid and hypocritical. But, since the law is a good law in its spirit we should honor it by enforcing it, maybe with palliatives.
But we are currently goings toward a society that would condemn, blacklist and ostracize a 18 years old for having sex with his 17 years old girlfriend. And that's not good in my opinion.
>I did not say that there was no mental capacity restriction.
What does mental capacity means? I don't think there's even a test to decide that. Not even a definition to start thinking about how to create such test.
Your proposal is only valid from a very utopic and theoretical point of view. In practice, you can only establish one or several hard limits (16, 18 and 21) and some exceptions (mental conditions). From then, we can start talking about modifying those limits and maybe we can add some well defined complexity (as opposed to talking about fuzzy things like "mental capacity").
But what you are saying is one of those statements that sound smart but are pretty much meaningless.
>(and agreement should not have an age restriction),
I don't understand. Do you mean we should let minors do porn as long as they agree with it? And how do you know if s/he is able to decide in a meaningful way?
Actually, I think what you said is too ambiguous... you said "As long as no one is hurt" and "agree". You should now define "hurt" and "agree", which I think is the main issue here.
I understand the logics of what you say. But I think you are putting the cart in front of the horse. Nobody expects the government to be our moral compass, at least that's not the idea. The idea is the government to create or modify current laws to balance different morals and interests, that includes the majority's moral.
It is also worth mentioning that a mod chip in Argentina is about 200 ar$ (installation included).
That's why piracy is as spread in PC games as it is in console games.
I would like to see PS3 selling statistics in Argentina, since PS3 is the only console that doesn't have pirated games available.
I overheard last week a family asking a salesman what was the difference between the PS3 and the WII (both were exhibited and the graphic differences were painly obvious but they didn't seem to notice). Do you think the salesman gave any tech information? Instead he said: "You can play copied games on the Wii, you can't on the PS3". And we are talking about a high profile store located in a very important shopping.