Being complicit is not entrapment. Though I find it odd that people are speculating and arguing about an anecdote that is largely secondhand (and I'm not completely innocent in this regard).
No, it's scientific fact about how the brain develops. I'm sure you didn't think you were emotionally unstable, teens generally don't, doesn't mean you weren't.
Where is this "scientific fact" that you speak of? The only "emotionally unstable" teens that I've read about (either in the general media or the scientific literature) are those who 1. Have unstable or authoritarian parents or circumstances or 2. have genetic anomalies like schizophrenia or bi-polar "disorder". In the first case this emotional instability is not caused by the brain but by the environment, in the second case this emotional instability is not exclusive to an age range.
I keep hearing this... who doesn't have sex ed? I had freaking tons of sex ed when I was in middle school / high school (late 90's). Anyone that got preggo at my school was just plain stupid... either that or too lazy to show up to the one class that they apparently really needed.
Sue Johanson said this recently in a CBC interview on television (she now works in America. BTW, she also went to my high school when I was a kid). She said that "sex ed" in the States is comprised merely of abstinence education. Perhaps things have changed with the Bush administration. If you or other people could enlighten me more that would be appreciated. I certainly don't want to spread myths.
And the law really has no way to allow for this individual variation - you have to pick a number, or establish some kind of test, or something.
That really does make a lot of sense. I mean taking a test. It would certainly help with preventing teen pregnancy and it would certainly help by preventing age-of-majority couples who don't have the intelligence for breeding to raise a family. I'd give you mod points if I could.
I was actually being sarcastic when I said that. Though I think maybe I should start using emoticons more often (if only just to protect my own Karma:P)
I didn't mean to overstate anything, but it has appeared to me that girls in high school were less likely to ask (or expect) a person to buy them a drink than at a club. The percentage of adults (as opposed to teenagers) who are sleeze-bags (not just club girls) has always been statistically significant in my experience.
I think the USA is the only Western democratic country that does not have a sex education curriculum. This, in all the irony that makes up the USA, leads to yet more examples of "The law of unintended consequences"
considering shes on slashdot, is probably just as maladjusted and unattractive as everyone else.
I think you've just alienated your entire audience. Though I would agree with the "maladjusted" part because she does seem to have "issues" that are more than just points of argument.
Then the author gets off on some soapbox about people being accused of crimes, and how their information shouldn't be published... you know, we should just arrest them all Gestapo style, and when their wife/family asks what happened to them, "sorry, we're not allowed to discuss that in order to protect the accused from social embarrassment."
Your pushing your agenda too much. The author never made any reference to Nazi Germany nor, AFAIK, are there laws on the books about not informing ones family if a person is arrested (of course "terrorism" laws are a bit wacked-out, but that's not the topic).
The girl was unable to provide the necessary consent, and it was thus *shock* a crime. He shouldn't be shocked at being arrested for it, and no one should. However, he should feel lucky that he didn't get sent to jail for it.
Terms like "unable to provide the necessary consent" and "shouldn't be shocked at being arrested for it" are used, in this case, in a legal sense. Most (normal, non-neurotic) people in social situations don't think of legalese when casually interacting with other people, nor do most people feel the need to consult a law book or a lawyer in such situations. Unfortunately though they probably should, because every year more and more laws are being created.
This is one of the stereotypes and prejudices that I would like to see die, though the media shows no signs of giving this myth up. I for one only became emotionally distraught after I had to deal with the hypocrisy and craft of the adult workplace. Even with something as emotionally charged as dating; high school is often a friendlier place to meet companions than dance clubs.
It seems like you've put a lot of thought into this article. Unfortunately the thought that politicians and their electors put into such issues is trivial and ideological. I would imagine that the likelihood of any thoughtful and logical consideration towards laws and behaviours would be as likely as a politician or judge is to read this article; statistically unlikely.
I agree. Though I thought something more legally and socially acceptable would be applicable. Volunteering to be tortured or stunned for a few seconds, or even for a few minutes, doesn't have the same psychological aspects of real life coercion and imprisonment.
Any game that would be at all realistic would be a game that nobody would want to play. Spending 80 dollars for a game where you got killed and then could never revive yourself certainly wouldn't be much fun.
Re:Spycraft: The Great Game
on
Torture in Games
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The failure of most media to properly portray how horrible torture actually is (for example, on the TV show 24), and the increased focus on real-world topics like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and waterboarding, could make games the perfect venue for demonstrating the "devastating repercussions" of torture.
Unfortunately the authors premise is wrong. There is certainly no evidence that the more graphic news scenes that came out of the Vietnam War influenced anybody to stop going to war or killing, and neither did the images out of Abu Ghraib prison seem to influence people (who think torture is acceptable) to change their minds.
As a person who was in the military before, there were instructors (who illegally) imposed their own (relatively mild) forms of torture on their recruits during war games when they captured people (actually these instructors consisted largely of Special Forces people who had a history of abusing their power). Even in this more controlled and sanctioned scenario the psychological trauma caused in many people will never compare to what anybody can merely see in a video game.
If you want realism then you have to experience it for yourself. I'd rather have something more akin to what police departments do, and that is actually have volunteer officers experience the effects of tasers and pepper spray for themselves, or in the military where they have soldiers take off their gas masks in a small room with tear gas. Other than that it's all fun and games.
As for the nut-jobs, they will always be around no matter what technology they may get their rocks off with. They need more help than just keeping them away from video games.
Most people are crammed indoors on video games because those games are the only places left where certain risky or edgy behavior is legal.
Like killing zombies? The undead are the least appreciated and most demonized minority. IMHO games that sensationalize Zombie killing should be banned.
Perhaps, but the left -- in my experience -- is far more guilty of this lack of respect than the right is.
I'm sure the "left" have the same sentiments as yourself. It's often a matter of perspective. Though with the Republicans being the dominant party in power for two terms it is natural for them to get the most abuse (from both sides even).
You are right though: he is less interested in doing things the right way than he is with just sticking it to a President whose decisions he disagrees with.
I never said that. I'm not aware how you know what his motivations are. I don't remember hearing him say that.
Slashdot Mirror
it seems that he was complicit to me.
Being complicit is not entrapment. Though I find it odd that people are speculating and arguing about an anecdote that is largely secondhand (and I'm not completely innocent in this regard).
According to the Wikipedia article it seems to be quite popular (seeing as how there are Federal financial incentives) in most states.
No, it's scientific fact about how the brain develops. I'm sure you didn't think you were emotionally unstable, teens generally don't, doesn't mean you weren't.
Where is this "scientific fact" that you speak of? The only "emotionally unstable" teens that I've read about (either in the general media or the scientific literature) are those who 1. Have unstable or authoritarian parents or circumstances or 2. have genetic anomalies like schizophrenia or bi-polar "disorder". In the first case this emotional instability is not caused by the brain but by the environment, in the second case this emotional instability is not exclusive to an age range.
I keep hearing this... who doesn't have sex ed? I had freaking tons of sex ed when I was in middle school / high school (late 90's). Anyone that got preggo at my school was just plain stupid... either that or too lazy to show up to the one class that they apparently really needed.
Sue Johanson said this recently in a CBC interview on television (she now works in America. BTW, she also went to my high school when I was a kid). She said that "sex ed" in the States is comprised merely of abstinence education. Perhaps things have changed with the Bush administration. If you or other people could enlighten me more that would be appreciated. I certainly don't want to spread myths.
And the law really has no way to allow for this individual variation - you have to pick a number, or establish some kind of test, or something.
That really does make a lot of sense. I mean taking a test. It would certainly help with preventing teen pregnancy and it would certainly help by preventing age-of-majority couples who don't have the intelligence for breeding to raise a family. I'd give you mod points if I could.
Seducing her, even with the dad's knowledge and consent, was about as dumb a move as I've read about in quite a while.
How do you know the boy seduced her? Do you have more information than you are letting on?
You eat out of the bulk bins at the supermarket? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Tough times lead to food crimes.
I was actually being sarcastic when I said that. Though I think maybe I should start using emoticons more often (if only just to protect my own Karma :P)
Methinks you'v been going to the wrong clubs
I didn't mean to overstate anything, but it has appeared to me that girls in high school were less likely to ask (or expect) a person to buy them a drink than at a club. The percentage of adults (as opposed to teenagers) who are sleeze-bags (not just club girls) has always been statistically significant in my experience.
I think the USA is the only Western democratic country that does not have a sex education curriculum. This, in all the irony that makes up the USA, leads to yet more examples of "The law of unintended consequences"
you have stupid friends.
Flame.
21 dating a 17.. that's stupid.
Appeal to ridicule, petitio principii.
Humping without protection. that's retarded.
Faulty assumptions, and appeal to ridicule.
His own fault, at 21 he should have had the maturity to understand his actions.
Blaming the victim, appeal to spite, judgmental language.
considering shes on slashdot, is probably just as maladjusted and unattractive as everyone else.
I think you've just alienated your entire audience. Though I would agree with the "maladjusted" part because she does seem to have "issues" that are more than just points of argument.
Then the author gets off on some soapbox about people being accused of crimes, and how their information shouldn't be published... you know, we should just arrest them all Gestapo style, and when their wife/family asks what happened to them, "sorry, we're not allowed to discuss that in order to protect the accused from social embarrassment."
Your pushing your agenda too much. The author never made any reference to Nazi Germany nor, AFAIK, are there laws on the books about not informing ones family if a person is arrested (of course "terrorism" laws are a bit wacked-out, but that's not the topic).
The girl was unable to provide the necessary consent, and it was thus *shock* a crime. He shouldn't be shocked at being arrested for it, and no one should. However, he should feel lucky that he didn't get sent to jail for it.
Terms like "unable to provide the necessary consent" and "shouldn't be shocked at being arrested for it" are used, in this case, in a legal sense. Most (normal, non-neurotic) people in social situations don't think of legalese when casually interacting with other people, nor do most people feel the need to consult a law book or a lawyer in such situations. Unfortunately though they probably should, because every year more and more laws are being created.
So....the lesson here is? Don't fuck the underage daughter of local law inforcement when you are old enough to drink?
The lesson here is to get rid of these laws and demonize them as much as politicians exploit FUD.
aren't all teens emotionally unstable?
This is one of the stereotypes and prejudices that I would like to see die, though the media shows no signs of giving this myth up. I for one only became emotionally distraught after I had to deal with the hypocrisy and craft of the adult workplace. Even with something as emotionally charged as dating; high school is often a friendlier place to meet companions than dance clubs.
It seems like you've put a lot of thought into this article. Unfortunately the thought that politicians and their electors put into such issues is trivial and ideological. I would imagine that the likelihood of any thoughtful and logical consideration towards laws and behaviours would be as likely as a politician or judge is to read this article; statistically unlikely.
Best regards,
UTW
which is why people that actually believe in the death/resurrection teachings of their religions are so very, very dangerous.
Fortunately most people's beliefs are rather superficial, and their actual behaviours hypocritical.
I agree. Though I thought something more legally and socially acceptable would be applicable. Volunteering to be tortured or stunned for a few seconds, or even for a few minutes, doesn't have the same psychological aspects of real life coercion and imprisonment.
Any game that would be at all realistic would be a game that nobody would want to play.
Spending 80 dollars for a game where you got killed and then could never revive yourself certainly wouldn't be much fun.
The failure of most media to properly portray how horrible torture actually is (for example, on the TV show 24), and the increased focus on real-world topics like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and waterboarding, could make games the perfect venue for demonstrating the "devastating repercussions" of torture.
Unfortunately the authors premise is wrong. There is certainly no evidence that the more graphic news scenes that came out of the Vietnam War influenced anybody to stop going to war or killing, and neither did the images out of Abu Ghraib prison seem to influence people (who think torture is acceptable) to change their minds.
As a person who was in the military before, there were instructors (who illegally) imposed their own (relatively mild) forms of torture on their recruits during war games when they captured people (actually these instructors consisted largely of Special Forces people who had a history of abusing their power). Even in this more controlled and sanctioned scenario the psychological trauma caused in many people will never compare to what anybody can merely see in a video game.
If you want realism then you have to experience it for yourself. I'd rather have something more akin to what police departments do, and that is actually have volunteer officers experience the effects of tasers and pepper spray for themselves, or in the military where they have soldiers take off their gas masks in a small room with tear gas. Other than that it's all fun and games.
As for the nut-jobs, they will always be around no matter what technology they may get their rocks off with. They need more help than just keeping them away from video games.
Most people are crammed indoors on video games because those games are the only places left where certain risky or edgy behavior is legal.
Like killing zombies? The undead are the least appreciated and most demonized minority. IMHO games that sensationalize Zombie killing should be banned.
Borrow the money
You haven't been reading the news lately.
Perhaps, but the left -- in my experience -- is far more guilty of this lack of respect than the right is.
I'm sure the "left" have the same sentiments as yourself. It's often a matter of perspective. Though with the Republicans being the dominant party in power for two terms it is natural for them to get the most abuse (from both sides even).
You are right though: he is less interested in doing things the right way than he is with just sticking it to a President whose decisions he disagrees with.
I never said that. I'm not aware how you know what his motivations are. I don't remember hearing him say that.