Yet Another Metaphor About Carpenters
on
The Code Is The Design
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's always seemed to me that design and coding are more than a bit like buiding a house and using carpentry tools. The world's best carpenter won't build much of a house unless someone's done the design (even if it's just one more 3-bedroom ranch he's built many times before -- that design is imprinted in his memory.)
But, you can't live in a design, so both skills are needed.
In the end, people who stand around and argue that good carpenters don't need designs, or vice versa, miss their completion date and lose the customer.
Seems to indicate how seriously Europeans take that commission, eh?
My point wasn't the accuracy or inaccuracy of describing him as incompetent. My point was the counterproductive impact of that kind of little screed.
Why counterproductive? Because it turns off people who don't think he is incompetent (there must be some) before you have had a chance to persuade them about your position.
Needlessly alienating people whose support you need in a partisan political effort is just stupid.
the commission IS taking Microsofts money. Microsoft is one of the commission sponsers.
Then, get some of your own money and give it to the commission. Or, try to convince the rest of the world that you're virtuous and the commission is not. See if that sways the commission's decisions. Your call.
very large wads of cash in brown paper envelopes have probobly been handed over...
Probably doesn't count. Unsubstantiated allegations of corruption smell of rabblerousing. If you can prove it, do so. Otherwise, be prepared to be painted with a "They would say that, wouldn't they..." brush.
where's the option for if the other side really IS incometent, and really IS taking money from MS?
Well, first you learn to write.
Then, you learn that insulting people is just about the worst way to change their minds. It's great for rousing the rabble who are already on your side, but it sure looks like cult behavior from the outside.
Then, you make your case with logic and clarity. If people don't come onboard, blame yourself, not them.
If you really do have evidence of incompetence, bribery or corruption, present it. Otherwise, you'll soon be regarded as just one more truth-bending special interest group.
If all else fails, go into the corruption and bribery business yourself. If the really is how the game is played, then you have 3 choices: 1) Sit out the game; 2) Reform the game; 3) Play by the house rules.
...under the leadership of someone who previously failed as Portuguese prime minister and as per the suggestion of a Microsoft puppet...
Now, that's the kind of insight that gives so many of those people the great reputation they have in the Land of Adults.
Regardess of the merits, or lack thereof, on either side of this issue, that virulent phrase manages to combine the two central themes defining how many free software advocates relate to the rest of the world:
1) Anyone who disagrees with me is incompetent.
2) Anyone who disagrees with me is also taking Microsoft money.
1. Whatever price the government might pay, it would come from tax dollars, which would generate tremendous political opposition.
2. Who would make the drugs after the government bought the companies? The companies would very probably fold because their stock value would plummet, leaving the government on the hook to run nationalized drug companies at taxpayer expense.
3. It is doubtful that the government, and a lot of Americans, would consider the stuff the MPAA and RIAA are pedaling as "art" that merits saving.
4. Price controls on drugs might be a more effective measure, but would be a hard political sell. (Although Nixon did it.)
5. Since Bush has already racked up a trillion dollars in unfunded spending, maybe we should just follow the trend, write a big check, and the grandkids worry about it.
Of course it is what BofA says. No, I don't know if they've filed a police complaint. MAybe BofA is engaging in some big consipiracy. Maybe they're telling thr truth but don't really know much. Maybe it's something in between.
Who cares? Only paranoid members of the Tinfoil Brigade. This has been reported as a story about lost data tapes. Data tapes have been around for decades and, I'd guess, have been lost and stolen for decades.
You might as well ask: How do we know it wasn't aliens from the clouds of Jupiter who took the tapes?
The possibility of the unlikely doesn't eliminate the probability of the likely.
Someone steals some data tapes with your SSN and your activity on a government-sponsored credit card. You can't find evidence that anyone has used your data in any form. You can't find evidence that your identity has been stolen. You can't find evidence that you've suffered financial loss. What grounds do you have for a suit? If you seek damages -- the core of such suits -- what kinod of damage can you quantify as a result of the lost tapes? If you don't suffer identity theft and can't demonstrate financial loss, what are you going to tell the court when BofA's lawyer's challenge you to provide evidence? You might be able to get an award for stress and suffering, but little else.
All I said was I'm not certain the loss of these tapes, by itself, gives the people involved grounds for a suit. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If you know something, say so.
Presumably, you're attempting to allege contradictions in my statements. There are none, apart from your fertile imagination.
CA has a law requiring disclosure of incidents like CheckPoint. Other states don't. I think they should. I am not a society. If I can convince enough people in my state to support such a law, then my state, my society, will have such a law. No contradiction there.
Apparently, you don't believe that people, organized as societies, define what's acceptable for their society. If so, you're obligated to suggest an alternative source for those definitions. So far, all you've done is stomp your metaphorical feet.
If you think people ought to sue over CheckPoint/BofA, then say so and suggest grounds for the suit. I questioned whether grounds for a suit exist, absent a demonstration of actual financial loss. That doesn't mean, you might notice, that I like that state of affairs or agree with it. I.e., show me where I said people ought to be prohibited from suing.
Come back when you actually have something to say.
If these guys knew about the loss before CheckPoint informed the victims, and if they used that knowledge to manipulate CheckPoint stock, they ought to be prosecuted.
They certainly deserve to be fired simply because of the data loss, though. That's up to the people who own CheckPoint.
He suggested the news was "swept under the rug", which very much implies he assumed that the general press was in league with Evil Corporations to suppress this bit of news. I don't. My assumption is that data theft prior to the recent publicity about identity theft would have been covered by the specialist media, not the general media.
The CA law is good and I think it ought to be enacted in every state.
My point about lawsuits applied to BofA, not CheckPoint. But, in either case, what, precisely, would someone be able to point to as the basis for the suit? I'm sure someone can sue for financial loss resulting from identity theft stemming from the CheckPoint/BofA data loss, but I'm not sure someone could sue for potential loss if, in fact, they weren't a victim of identity theft and if they did not, in fact, suffer any financial loss.
Now, I'd love to see CheckPoint/BofA be compelled to pay each victim's cost for any actions needed to make sure their credit is secure.
If there's a way a class-action suit can move ahead, that's fine with me, too. I've no problems with lawsuits.
You're pretty insistent on attacking things people actually did not say. Next time, pay attention to what a post says, rather than leap to the same moronic and bogus conclusions AC's like you are so prone to do.
The California law is good and ought to be emulated everywhere, but the fact that CheckPoint notified California residents (and, later, everyone else) doesn't mean the story would have been picked up by the general press.
Phrases Like "could easily have been swept under the rug" imply a deliberate conspiracy to block the flow of news. The primary reason stories aren't reported in the general press is because editors and reporters think not enough people are interested.
These were data tapes. Been in use long before the Internet, and, almost certainly, have been going missing long before the Internet. Could just as well have happened with old fashioned ledgers in 1910.
For all we know, they were stolen out of the back of some truck and lifted by the overnight cleaning crew.
This is really getting out of hand. For every case like this we hear about, I wonder if there are a few that get swept under the rug?
You're hearing about this because of the flap about CheckPoint, and you heard about CheckPoint because of the current flap about identity theft.
If not for those circumstances, these stories would very likely have been reported in the business press, but otherwise below the general public's radar.
So, you have no reason to assume that the first appearance of an event on TV or in Slashdot means it never happened before.
BofA ought, of course, be held responsible for their behavior. I don't know if these cardholders can sue, since the card's were issued to them in conjunction with their federal employment. And, unless they are able to document loss as a result of the loss, I'm not sure what grounds they'd have for a suit.
That said, BofA just dug itself a big hole for the next contract recompete. Their accountablity may come in the form of losing that recompete. (Don't imagine, though, that a contract of that size will be given to some local mom-and-pop bank.)
Users -- real users, not techs, geeks, and their employers -- want, as Dvorak noted, to just buy stuff and not worry about it working.
That applies to operating systems, as well.
People do not want to have to make a choice of operating systems. People set out to buy computers, not operating systems. When was the last time you heard someone say: "I'm going over to Best Buy and get an operating system."? No, they go to Best Buy, and elswhere, to buy a copmuter. The OS is just an annoying bit that's noticeable only if it isn't preinstalled. ("Great, now I gotta go buy something else to get this thing to work?")
The need to choose between multiple operating systems -- all of which provide the same basic functionality -- will eventually be seen to be as annoying as having to choose between VHS and Beta tape formats. And just about as silly as having to buy an OS to make your TV work.
The point in contention is whether or not someone *should* be punished for a certain act.
I haven't been the one contending that point. In this context, it isn't of much interest to me. But, one individual's assessment of who should be punished for what is simply that: one individual's component opinion that is an element in society's consensus about who is, in fact, punished for certain kinds of behavior.
You seem to be arguing that that act is illegal, and (implying that anything illegal *should* be punished) therefore he should be punished.
I am not arguing about "shoulds" and "ought to be's". I've only stated that disagreeing with the social consensus -- the law -- does not absolve anyone from responsbility for violating that consensus. (Frankly, this seems to me to be the heart of civil disobedience, since Ghandi and King both understood that the act of breaking what they considered unjust laws would have little persuasive power if they would have escape the force of that law.)
Others are countering that there is nothing ("morally") wrong with breaking an unjust law, and while he most someone who does so *will* be punished, that that punishment is unjust and wrong.
The law is not the arbiter of morality, and vice versa. Remember, there is no such thing as an "unjust" law. There are only laws that some number of people believe are unjust. If that number constitutes a majority in that society, then the law will likely be changed to reflect the opinion of the majority. If not, anyone who breaks that law will likely be arrested and subjected to social condemnation. Whether that is right or wrong doesn't interest me.... just because something is wrong according to law (illegal) does not make it universally wrong by all other measures of value.
Obviously, but only the law can put you in jail. (You have pointed to basic truths that are millenia old. But none of that contradicts, or even addresses, my assertion that societies determine what is criminal in their societies, and that disagreement with that consensus, however motivated, does not make the crime "go away", nor does it absolve any individual of responsibilty for violating that social stricture. Habe you ever heard of a legal sustem that accepted "I don't think it is a crime..." as a defense?)
it was a lot of people's reaction to the problem I want banned.
Doesn't make sense.
There are people here who want child molestors summarily executed, with anyone not agreeing to it branded a child-molester.
The first clause is probably accurate, the second dubious. But, so what?
If the term cannot be agreed universally on, then there is no consensus other than "it is a crime here, so don't do it.".
Universal agreement exists on very little, and is unnecessary for the creation of law. The legal definition of a crime is that society's defintion of that crime....when laws are passed to top child porn, the image used to justify is shagging six year olds.
Obviously, because that's a vile and evil thing. What's the problem?... the law applies as that same law for shagging a sixteen year old.
Yes. Obviously, there are differences between someone who is 6 and someone who is 16, but if the law says a 16-year old is a child, then, in terms of the law, a 16-year old is a child. In some other society, the law may say different.
2. I wasn't demonizing anyone, and I don't believe I used the word "hate". Supporting the arrest and conviction of people who violate the law is not a form of hatred or demonization.
What we're talking about is whether such a law is just...
I'm not. That wasn't the issue that provoked my original response. I was provoked because I understood the original poster to argue against child abuse/pron -- as a category of criminal behavior -- because difference societies define it differently.
An individual's disagreement with a societal consensus does not absolve him of responsibility for violating that consequence. I.e., "your opinion" doesn't count. The original poster, as I understood, was attempting to defend child abuse and porn on that basis. That is, he disagreed with society's definition, therefore he should not be punished for violating the prohibtion on child abuse/porn.
I've not given my opinion about child abuse/porn law or its definition, or even if consider the current laws to be just or unjust. None of that has any bearing on my argument.
Several people have responded with comments that address something I did not, in fact, say. That is common here on Slashdot.
Debatable, but if you are looking for precision, try engineering, not the law. It is impossible to foresee with complete and specific accuracy every detail of every possible act of criminality. That's why we have juries, judges and appellate courts whose job it is to interpret the law. If the law could be made exactly precise, we'd need none of them.
you keep repeating the same basic argument -- I believe it to be this way and the facts be damned.
I have not stated what I consider child abuse or child porn to be; and very few facts have been presented in the responses. I've simply said that criminal behavior, in this case child abuse/porn, is whatever a society defines it to be, as is all crime. Whether or not I agree with that definition, as expressed in law, has no impact on the reality of its existence. Something doesn't disappear just because you, or I, disagree with it.
If not from society, where else would such definitions arise? This is not an engineering exercise; the "right" answer cannot be found in a data spec or a handbook. In fact, in that sense, there is no "right" answer, there is only the answer that society provides. If you diagree with that answer, and can persuade enough people to agree with you, then society will provide a different answer.
What we have said, REPEATEDLY, is that the laws vary worldwide, and some of them (age of consent) vary from state to state in the US as well. You cannot declare a blanket definition of child porn that fits everywhere.
I've not attempted to propose a "blanket definition" of child abuse/porn that apples globally, because, as I've said, each society defines it differenty. There is no single global society. Each society defines it as it chooses. In the U.S., our society is structured so as to give each state the ability to create differnent definitions of child abuse/porn. This reflects the social differences between the 50 states.
Despite what you might think, the laws on the books are far too vague, they need to be changed badly.
I haven't said what I think about the laws, except that the exist. If you think they're "too vague", that's another issue, but feel free to campaign to change them. AS I've said, if you convince enoguh people, then your society's definition of child abuse/porn will change.
It's the civic duty of every citizen to have an opinion and espouse it. Through that a societal definition occurs.
Of course, but, as I've repeated, one individual's diagreement with a societal consensus does not negate that consensus or absolve that individual of responsibility for violating that consensus. That's the circumstance in which one individual's opinion "doesn't count".
The point is not that "child abuse does not exist." I don't know where you got that idea, although I admit - it is an attractive Straw Man.
No staw man. It was the argument made by the post I orignally answered.
An underage person can consent to have sex on camera with as much (or more) knowledge of the consequences as an adult can...
By definition, the laws of a society say that a child is incapable of making that kind of a decision with the same knowledge of consequences as an adult.
Whether or not that is actually accurate for any given invidivual child is irrelevant. It is vastly more important that all the members of a society have the right to express their opinions as a law is created and, then, abide by their obligation to adhere to that law, than it is to excuse criminal behavior by pointing to the criminal's rather unsurprising opinion that what he did was not a crime.
... But if you then support such a law, simple because "society say so...
Why would I be compelled to support it? I didn't make that argument.
Just because you or I think it's sick that people under (insert age here) are doing something, doesn't mean they have to think it's sick, and they shouldn't be prevented from doing it. I think lots of people have disgusting tastes in food, music, and clothing...
Child abuse isn't simply "disgusting". It is a crime. Crimes, by definition, are whatever a society says they are, not what any individual member of that society says they are.
It is not you or I that prevents someone from engaging in child abuse, it is society. If society defines some form of behavior as criminal, no one should expect to engage in that behavior free of punishment simply because they believe the behavior is not criminal. E.g., if adulthood is defined as beginning at 18, then someone cannot defend sex with a 17 year old simply because he believes adulthood begins at 16.
Your opinions about other people tastes in food, music and clothing don't address criminal behavior, and you display your own odd sense of ethics by equating those insignificant behaviors with the crime of child abuse. That said, if a society made consumption of certain foods criminal, then that would, in fact, be criminal within that society....by trying to impose your beliefs on others...
How am I doing that? How could I possibly do that on an anonymous web forum like this? I've not said that anyone must believe what I've said. I have simply argued my own position: that a society determines what is and is not criminal behavior within that society, and that, therefore, the opinion of an individual member of that society "doesn't count" if the individual disagrees with the societal consensus. His behavior remains criminal.
My point is that societies, as a whole, define acceptable behavior for the members of that society. Who cares what you, or I, think about child abuse, child porn, marriage age, or whatver? Our opinions only have significance insofar as they are tiny components of the collective opinion formed by the entire society.
Logic and reason, you may have noticed, have nothing to do with this. Machines operate according to logic and reason, people do not.
I've no requirements to define child abuse or child porn. That is irrelevant. If I commit an act that society says is abuse and I don't agree, guess who wins?
As for "Middle-Easterners" and western women: I've lived in the Arab Mideast and I told them they were entitled to their opinion but that, in my opinion, they were wrong.
So get a clue and some backbone: When someone disagrees with you, it doesn't always mean you are wrong. Respecting the opinions of others doesn't require you to abandon your own beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
It's always seemed to me that design and coding are more than a bit like buiding a house and using carpentry tools. The world's best carpenter won't build much of a house unless someone's done the design (even if it's just one more 3-bedroom ranch he's built many times before -- that design is imprinted in his memory.)
But, you can't live in a design, so both skills are needed.
In the end, people who stand around and argue that good carpenters don't need designs, or vice versa, miss their completion date and lose the customer.
Seems to indicate how seriously Europeans take that commission, eh?
My point wasn't the accuracy or inaccuracy of describing him as incompetent. My point was the counterproductive impact of that kind of little screed.
Why counterproductive? Because it turns off people who don't think he is incompetent (there must be some) before you have had a chance to persuade them about your position.
Needlessly alienating people whose support you need in a partisan political effort is just stupid.
the commission IS taking Microsofts money. Microsoft is one of the commission sponsers.
Then, get some of your own money and give it to the commission. Or, try to convince the rest of the world that you're virtuous and the commission is not. See if that sways the commission's decisions. Your call.
very large wads of cash in brown paper envelopes have probobly been handed over...
Probably doesn't count. Unsubstantiated allegations of corruption smell of rabblerousing. If you can prove it, do so. Otherwise, be prepared to be painted with a "They would say that, wouldn't they..." brush.
where's the option for if the other side really IS incometent, and really IS taking money from MS?
Well, first you learn to write.
Then, you learn that insulting people is just about the worst way to change their minds. It's great for rousing the rabble who are already on your side, but it sure looks like cult behavior from the outside.
Then, you make your case with logic and clarity. If people don't come onboard, blame yourself, not them.
If you really do have evidence of incompetence, bribery or corruption, present it. Otherwise, you'll soon be regarded as just one more truth-bending special interest group.
If all else fails, go into the corruption and bribery business yourself. If the really is how the game is played, then you have 3 choices: 1) Sit out the game; 2) Reform the game; 3) Play by the house rules.
...under the leadership of someone who previously failed as Portuguese prime minister and as per the suggestion of a Microsoft puppet...
Now, that's the kind of insight that gives so many of those people the great reputation they have in the Land of Adults.
Regardess of the merits, or lack thereof, on either side of this issue, that virulent phrase manages to combine the two central themes defining how many free software advocates relate to the rest of the world:
1) Anyone who disagrees with me is incompetent.
2) Anyone who disagrees with me is also taking Microsoft money.
And when I had a card, it was from CitiBank.
Contracts of this size will not be awarded to operators who haven't demonstrated the capacity to handle tens or hundreds of thousands of accounts.
I never liked the cards because I had to pay the bills myself and then wait 2-3 for my reimbursement.
1. Whatever price the government might pay, it would come from tax dollars, which would generate tremendous political opposition.
2. Who would make the drugs after the government bought the companies? The companies would very probably fold because their stock value would plummet, leaving the government on the hook to run nationalized drug companies at taxpayer expense.
3. It is doubtful that the government, and a lot of Americans, would consider the stuff the MPAA and RIAA are pedaling as "art" that merits saving.
4. Price controls on drugs might be a more effective measure, but would be a hard political sell. (Although Nixon did it.)
5. Since Bush has already racked up a trillion dollars in unfunded spending, maybe we should just follow the trend, write a big check, and the grandkids worry about it.
Of course it is what BofA says. No, I don't know if they've filed a police complaint. MAybe BofA is engaging in some big consipiracy. Maybe they're telling thr truth but don't really know much. Maybe it's something in between.
Who cares? Only paranoid members of the Tinfoil Brigade. This has been reported as a story about lost data tapes. Data tapes have been around for decades and, I'd guess, have been lost and stolen for decades.
You might as well ask: How do we know it wasn't aliens from the clouds of Jupiter who took the tapes?
The possibility of the unlikely doesn't eliminate the probability of the likely.
Someone steals some data tapes with your SSN and your activity on a government-sponsored credit card. You can't find evidence that anyone has used your data in any form. You can't find evidence that your identity has been stolen. You can't find evidence that you've suffered financial loss. What grounds do you have for a suit? If you seek damages -- the core of such suits -- what kinod of damage can you quantify as a result of the lost tapes? If you don't suffer identity theft and can't demonstrate financial loss, what are you going to tell the court when BofA's lawyer's challenge you to provide evidence? You might be able to get an award for stress and suffering, but little else.
All I said was I'm not certain the loss of these tapes, by itself, gives the people involved grounds for a suit. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If you know something, say so.
Presumably, you're attempting to allege contradictions in my statements. There are none, apart from your fertile imagination.
CA has a law requiring disclosure of incidents like CheckPoint. Other states don't. I think they should. I am not a society. If I can convince enough people in my state to support such a law, then my state, my society, will have such a law. No contradiction there.
Apparently, you don't believe that people, organized as societies, define what's acceptable for their society. If so, you're obligated to suggest an alternative source for those definitions. So far, all you've done is stomp your metaphorical feet.
If you think people ought to sue over CheckPoint/BofA, then say so and suggest grounds for the suit. I questioned whether grounds for a suit exist, absent a demonstration of actual financial loss. That doesn't mean, you might notice, that I like that state of affairs or agree with it. I.e., show me where I said people ought to be prohibited from suing.
Come back when you actually have something to say.
Stock options are not a scam.
If these guys knew about the loss before CheckPoint informed the victims, and if they used that knowledge to manipulate CheckPoint stock, they ought to be prosecuted.
They certainly deserve to be fired simply because of the data loss, though. That's up to the people who own CheckPoint.
Why not?
He suggested the news was "swept under the rug", which very much implies he assumed that the general press was in league with Evil Corporations to suppress this bit of news. I don't. My assumption is that data theft prior to the recent publicity about identity theft would have been covered by the specialist media, not the general media.
The CA law is good and I think it ought to be enacted in every state.
My point about lawsuits applied to BofA, not CheckPoint. But, in either case, what, precisely, would someone be able to point to as the basis for the suit? I'm sure someone can sue for financial loss resulting from identity theft stemming from the CheckPoint/BofA data loss, but I'm not sure someone could sue for potential loss if, in fact, they weren't a victim of identity theft and if they did not, in fact, suffer any financial loss.
Now, I'd love to see CheckPoint/BofA be compelled to pay each victim's cost for any actions needed to make sure their credit is secure.
If there's a way a class-action suit can move ahead, that's fine with me, too. I've no problems with lawsuits.
You're pretty insistent on attacking things people actually did not say. Next time, pay attention to what a post says, rather than leap to the same moronic and bogus conclusions AC's like you are so prone to do.
The California law is good and ought to be emulated everywhere, but the fact that CheckPoint notified California residents (and, later, everyone else) doesn't mean the story would have been picked up by the general press.
Phrases Like "could easily have been swept under the rug" imply a deliberate conspiracy to block the flow of news. The primary reason stories aren't reported in the general press is because editors and reporters think not enough people are interested.
These were data tapes. Been in use long before the Internet, and, almost certainly, have been going missing long before the Internet. Could just as well have happened with old fashioned ledgers in 1910.
For all we know, they were stolen out of the back of some truck and lifted by the overnight cleaning crew.
This is really getting out of hand. For every case like this we hear about, I wonder if there are a few that get swept under the rug?
You're hearing about this because of the flap about CheckPoint, and you heard about CheckPoint because of the current flap about identity theft.
If not for those circumstances, these stories would very likely have been reported in the business press, but otherwise below the general public's radar.
So, you have no reason to assume that the first appearance of an event on TV or in Slashdot means it never happened before.
BofA ought, of course, be held responsible for their behavior. I don't know if these cardholders can sue, since the card's were issued to them in conjunction with their federal employment. And, unless they are able to document loss as a result of the loss, I'm not sure what grounds they'd have for a suit.
That said, BofA just dug itself a big hole for the next contract recompete. Their accountablity may come in the form of losing that recompete. (Don't imagine, though, that a contract of that size will be given to some local mom-and-pop bank.)
Users -- real users, not techs, geeks, and their employers -- want, as Dvorak noted, to just buy stuff and not worry about it working.
That applies to operating systems, as well.
People do not want to have to make a choice of operating systems. People set out to buy computers, not operating systems. When was the last time you heard someone say: "I'm going over to Best Buy and get an operating system."? No, they go to Best Buy, and elswhere, to buy a copmuter. The OS is just an annoying bit that's noticeable only if it isn't preinstalled. ("Great, now I gotta go buy something else to get this thing to work?")
The need to choose between multiple operating systems -- all of which provide the same basic functionality -- will eventually be seen to be as annoying as having to choose between VHS and Beta tape formats. And just about as silly as having to buy an OS to make your TV work.
The point in contention is whether or not someone *should* be punished for a certain act.
... just because something is wrong according to law (illegal) does not make it universally wrong by all other measures of value.
I haven't been the one contending that point. In this context, it isn't of much interest to me. But, one individual's assessment of who should be punished for what is simply that: one individual's component opinion that is an element in society's consensus about who is, in fact, punished for certain kinds of behavior.
You seem to be arguing that that act is illegal, and (implying that anything illegal *should* be punished) therefore he should be punished.
I am not arguing about "shoulds" and "ought to be's". I've only stated that disagreeing with the social consensus -- the law -- does not absolve anyone from responsbility for violating that consensus. (Frankly, this seems to me to be the heart of civil disobedience, since Ghandi and King both understood that the act of breaking what they considered unjust laws would have little persuasive power if they would have escape the force of that law.)
Others are countering that there is nothing ("morally") wrong with breaking an unjust law, and while he most someone who does so *will* be punished, that that punishment is unjust and wrong.
The law is not the arbiter of morality, and vice versa. Remember, there is no such thing as an "unjust" law. There are only laws that some number of people believe are unjust. If that number constitutes a majority in that society, then the law will likely be changed to reflect the opinion of the majority. If not, anyone who breaks that law will likely be arrested and subjected to social condemnation. Whether that is right or wrong doesn't interest me.
Obviously, but only the law can put you in jail. (You have pointed to basic truths that are millenia old. But none of that contradicts, or even addresses, my assertion that societies determine what is criminal in their societies, and that disagreement with that consensus, however motivated, does not make the crime "go away", nor does it absolve any individual of responsibilty for violating that social stricture. Habe you ever heard of a legal sustem that accepted "I don't think it is a crime..." as a defense?)
it was a lot of people's reaction to the problem I want banned.
...when laws are passed to top child porn, the image used to justify is shagging six year olds.
... the law applies as that same law for shagging a sixteen year old.
Doesn't make sense.
There are people here who want child molestors summarily executed, with anyone not agreeing to it branded a child-molester.
The first clause is probably accurate, the second dubious. But, so what?
If the term cannot be agreed universally on, then there is no consensus other than "it is a crime here, so don't do it.".
Universal agreement exists on very little, and is unnecessary for the creation of law. The legal definition of a crime is that society's defintion of that crime.
Obviously, because that's a vile and evil thing. What's the problem?
Yes. Obviously, there are differences between someone who is 6 and someone who is 16, but if the law says a 16-year old is a child, then, in terms of the law, a 16-year old is a child. In some other society, the law may say different.
1. Rape is not the only form of child abuse.
2. I wasn't demonizing anyone, and I don't believe I used the word "hate". Supporting the arrest and conviction of people who violate the law is not a form of hatred or demonization.
What we're talking about is whether such a law is just...
I'm not. That wasn't the issue that provoked my original response. I was provoked because I understood the original poster to argue against child abuse/pron -- as a category of criminal behavior -- because difference societies define it differently.
An individual's disagreement with a societal consensus does not absolve him of responsibility for violating that consequence. I.e., "your opinion" doesn't count. The original poster, as I understood, was attempting to defend child abuse and porn on that basis. That is, he disagreed with society's definition, therefore he should not be punished for violating the prohibtion on child abuse/porn.
I've not given my opinion about child abuse/porn law or its definition, or even if consider the current laws to be just or unjust. None of that has any bearing on my argument.
Several people have responded with comments that address something I did not, in fact, say. That is common here on Slashdot.
... those laws are so vague...
Debatable, but if you are looking for precision, try engineering, not the law. It is impossible to foresee with complete and specific accuracy every detail of every possible act of criminality. That's why we have juries, judges and appellate courts whose job it is to interpret the law. If the law could be made exactly precise, we'd need none of them.
you keep repeating the same basic argument -- I believe it to be this way and the facts be damned.
I have not stated what I consider child abuse or child porn to be; and very few facts have been presented in the responses. I've simply said that criminal behavior, in this case child abuse/porn, is whatever a society defines it to be, as is all crime. Whether or not I agree with that definition, as expressed in law, has no impact on the reality of its existence. Something doesn't disappear just because you, or I, disagree with it.
If not from society, where else would such definitions arise? This is not an engineering exercise; the "right" answer cannot be found in a data spec or a handbook. In fact, in that sense, there is no "right" answer, there is only the answer that society provides. If you diagree with that answer, and can persuade enough people to agree with you, then society will provide a different answer.
What we have said, REPEATEDLY, is that the laws vary worldwide, and some of them (age of consent) vary from state to state in the US as well. You cannot declare a blanket definition of child porn that fits everywhere.
I've not attempted to propose a "blanket definition" of child abuse/porn that apples globally, because, as I've said, each society defines it differenty. There is no single global society. Each society defines it as it chooses. In the U.S., our society is structured so as to give each state the ability to create differnent definitions of child abuse/porn. This reflects the social differences between the 50 states.
Despite what you might think, the laws on the books are far too vague, they need to be changed badly.
I haven't said what I think about the laws, except that the exist. If you think they're "too vague", that's another issue, but feel free to campaign to change them. AS I've said, if you convince enoguh people, then your society's definition of child abuse/porn will change.
It's the civic duty of every citizen to have an opinion and espouse it. Through that a societal definition occurs.
Of course, but, as I've repeated, one individual's diagreement with a societal consensus does not negate that consensus or absolve that individual of responsibility for violating that consensus. That's the circumstance in which one individual's opinion "doesn't count".
The point is not that "child abuse does not exist." I don't know where you got that idea, although I admit - it is an attractive Straw Man.
No staw man. It was the argument made by the post I orignally answered.
An underage person can consent to have sex on camera with as much (or more) knowledge of the consequences as an adult can...
By definition, the laws of a society say that a child is incapable of making that kind of a decision with the same knowledge of consequences as an adult.
Whether or not that is actually accurate for any given invidivual child is irrelevant. It is vastly more important that all the members of a society have the right to express their opinions as a law is created and, then, abide by their obligation to adhere to that law, than it is to excuse criminal behavior by pointing to the criminal's rather unsurprising opinion that what he did was not a crime.
... But if you then support such a law, simple because "society say so...
...by trying to impose your beliefs on others...
Why would I be compelled to support it? I didn't make that argument.
Just because you or I think it's sick that people under (insert age here) are doing something, doesn't mean they have to think it's sick, and they shouldn't be prevented from doing it. I think lots of people have disgusting tastes in food, music, and clothing...
Child abuse isn't simply "disgusting". It is a crime. Crimes, by definition, are whatever a society says they are, not what any individual member of that society says they are.
It is not you or I that prevents someone from engaging in child abuse, it is society. If society defines some form of behavior as criminal, no one should expect to engage in that behavior free of punishment simply because they believe the behavior is not criminal. E.g., if adulthood is defined as beginning at 18, then someone cannot defend sex with a 17 year old simply because he believes adulthood begins at 16.
Your opinions about other people tastes in food, music and clothing don't address criminal behavior, and you display your own odd sense of ethics by equating those insignificant behaviors with the crime of child abuse. That said, if a society made consumption of certain foods criminal, then that would, in fact, be criminal within that society.
How am I doing that? How could I possibly do that on an anonymous web forum like this? I've not said that anyone must believe what I've said. I have simply argued my own position: that a society determines what is and is not criminal behavior within that society, and that, therefore, the opinion of an individual member of that society "doesn't count" if the individual disagrees with the societal consensus. His behavior remains criminal.
My point is that societies, as a whole, define acceptable behavior for the members of that society. Who cares what you, or I, think about child abuse, child porn, marriage age, or whatver? Our opinions only have significance insofar as they are tiny components of the collective opinion formed by the entire society.
Logic and reason, you may have noticed, have nothing to do with this. Machines operate according to logic and reason, people do not.
I've no requirements to define child abuse or child porn. That is irrelevant. If I commit an act that society says is abuse and I don't agree, guess who wins?
As for "Middle-Easterners" and western women: I've lived in the Arab Mideast and I told them they were entitled to their opinion but that, in my opinion, they were wrong.
So get a clue and some backbone: When someone disagrees with you, it doesn't always mean you are wrong. Respecting the opinions of others doesn't require you to abandon your own beliefs.