I hate the two party system but history has shown that voting for a third party/independent only hurts one's cause.
Neither of the two major parties represent me, so voting for them is, for me, completely and utterly pointless. That would be throwing my vote away.
And the only reason this is remotely true is because enough people have this mentality. They simply give up before they even try, and since enough people are like them, their prediction comes true. Yes, the system is completely broken and skews towards the two major parties, but that's no reason to just give up.
That more abstract notion of privacy is significantly harder to guarantee
Not really. Just forbid the government from spying on everyone with cameras in public places for any reason. The government doing it and individuals doing it are quite different things, as individuals aren't everywhere at once like the government's cameras.
And it isn't really "abstract." The government does not need to be able to track everyone at once. They simply need to find someone they want to track in public places (to watch their actions), and then use the camera footage against them. If they find such an individual, that is.
In case you're serious, how exactly do you propose we select the students we should teach it to?
"we"? No, they're the ones who select the classes. In high school, that is. Up until then, all the basics are taught to them.
Do tell me more about how you envision leaving large swaths of students in intellectual darkness in order to avoid "wasting time".
If by "leaving large swaths of students in intellectual darkness," you mean, "save them some time from 'learning' things that they don't need that they'll most likely just forget extremely quickly," then that would be it. Perhaps it's anecdotal, but I don't know any people that remember garbage that they don't use after long.
And all that advanced math, science, and such that the general population seems to have such a problem with? That's mandatory right now, and yet, somehow, they don't seem to understand it or use it (most of them). If it aids them so greatly, I wonder why? All it seems to be doing to me is taking time away from classes that students do have interest in.
At any rate, it's unlikely that we'll be able to tell if such a thing is a good idea unless it's actually put into action (even on a small scale).
If you have a decent enough memory (cramming is quite simple). You don't have to have spectacular critical thinking skills for that. Of course, if you merely memorize the material and don't understand any of it, I'd say it's more likely that you'll forget it rather quickly.
Most people don't value freedom at all, happily (or at worst grouchily) submit to any demand the state has, and think something is wrong with YOU if you object.
We have to catch those criminals. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!
I never understood the "teach to the test" complaint.
They won't actually understand the material. You can teach routines and equations all you want, but that is far different from teaching why they work, how they work, and how to apply them in real life. When you teach to the test, you're just showing them a few routines that will allow them to pass the test (what to do for this type of problem, etc). Then, thanks to not actually understanding any of it, it'll likely be quickly forgotten (even more quickly than usual).
whereas you I believe would see that solution as the greater evil. Right?
Yeah.
Your choice is trivial because there is little pressure on you to make one.
I still believe they have a choice. They're creating this pressure in their own minds (even if they were born more susceptible to it). Some people are quite obviously immune to it, or at the very least, they don't starve themselves because of it.
No one is really saying, "Starve yourself if you're not this skinny." They create that message themselves by interpreting the advertisements in a certain way and then making a decision. No one is holding a gun to their head, and no one could be said to be forcing them to do anything.
The gist of your reply clearly was that freedom was a goal unto itself, in the service of which you'd accept casualties. In short, I have a hard time seeing the functional difference.
The functional difference is that I don't believe in absolute freedom. If I did, I'd believe that government shouldn't interfere with people's freedom to murder others.
True, if we go by the most reductionist interpretation possible, then everything a person does must be their (and only their own) complete responsibility, and any amount of coercion, compulsion, or what have you becomes irrelevant.
If we go the other way, then nothing anyone does is their own fault. Saw an advertisement and committed suicide? Their fault, no matter what it was. Murdered someone? Your parents' and society's fault.
I typically blame someone else if they're directly involved in some way. An example of that would be shooting someone with a gun. Not just displaying an advertisement (of which there are many) and indirectly causing certain people to starve themselves.
When people have been socialized to such an extent that their brains are literally wired to be unable to see themselves as anything other than grossly obese (even when weighing in at 80 pounds and reeking of ammonia from far-reaching starvation) then it's no longer a simple matter of choice
I don't see it as being anything other than their choice. Just because others (or advertisements) make them feel bad (or however you wish to describe it) doesn't mean it's not their choice. I can certainly choose not to starve myself, and I have.
That would happen anyway since they'd simply forget the material if they didn't become actual scientists. In fact, given all the rote memorization and teaching to the test present in public schools, they'd probably forget before they hit college.
Oh, they can't pass a test? It could be worse, since I don't find tests to be all that important. Especially with all the rote memorization and teaching to the test going on in US public schools. Too much emphasis is put on testing and grades, and No Child Left Behind worsens this. Critical thinking seems to be lacking.
They are not two separate groups of people, you utter imbecile.
They are unless you're saying all people who look at the pictures are actually rapists, but that's not true.
The best chance of tracing the images back to their source and prosecuting the scum who made them is by arresting a few paedo-feebs and sweating some information out of the fuckers by having a nice long jail term as a stick..
They can do so without convicting people looking at pictures. And they often seem to be targeting those guys, specifically.
No one mentioned anything about absolute freedom...
in that (a) you're plainly not among those actually affected and (b) the wording of it strongly suggests that as long as the rallying cry is freedom
Neither of those seem "noteworthy" to me (the former is just irrelevant as well as an assumption). As if I can't stand up for what I believe is "freedom" if I'm affected by something...
Do you really wish to take that position? It rarely ends well.
Yes, I do. And whether it ends well or not is subjective.
You have not proven that their own actions are to blame in any way, shape or form.
I can't think of anyone else who is at fault. Who is starving themselves?
And as stated repeatedly, pressuring others into self-torture inflicts measurable harm.
That could hardly be said to be happening.
then it is in the interests of society to address that issue, or society unravels.
Not really. Society is incredibly resilient. It wouldn't collapse because of a few people with anorexia. But then again, you seem to be pretending that your vision of society is the only way. It's merely one way.
Now you're bandying syntactics, and poorly.
No, I asked a question. One that you failed to answer.
In the case of video games, no correlation between them and wholesale violent behavior has been established by any reputable study, so this is a false equivalence.
Immediately afterwards, I described a situation where they were found to be "harmful" to certain individuals. And I even admitted what I'm quoting, so what was the point of repeating it?
I support restrictions, such as labeling.
Such as listing ingredients? I've said elsewhere that I have no problems with such a thing since it cannot be considered censorship as long as it doesn't censor the original message.
You think this is a voluntary decision, much like depression after repeatedly being called a "fucking nigger" by everyone and his dog would be the foolish decision of a black person in America during the sixties.
Nothing close (as direct) to the latter is happening, but yes, that's what I believe.
Btw, I once again note your attempt to reduce a multitude (the entire advertisment culture) into a single instance ("a mere advertisement") to bolster your position.
You're looking too far into things. That wouldn't bolster my position, that's simply my opinion. Maybe "slew of mere advertisements" would be slightly better? Just because I don't state the so-called problem exactly doesn't mean I don't understand it.
Because neither banning nor censorship was part of my position in the first place. You would know this, had you not been too busy erecting strawmen to actually read what I wrote.
Oh shut the fuck up with your retarded NAMBLA justifications.
Nope. I just acknowledge possibilities. I don't see any conclusive evidence that it's 100% impossible for such an event to occur. That's all I was trying to say.
You seem to be jumping to conclusions left and right, though. How amusing. Are you that emotional for the children?
Since you aspies
An internet psychologist, huh?
justify your lusts for children
If seemingly defending a certain group means that I'm a member of that group, then I must be: black, gay, a pedophile, and a host of other things.
aren't capable of understanding social norms
It could be a "social norm" to lynch black people. It isn't always preferable to go with the crowd, so don't try using that as an argument.
it's just common fucking sense
Labeling something as "common sense" doesn't make it common, obvious, or correct. It might be "common sense" that the world is flat. It means nothing when you say something is "common sense."
Your position (I think; feel free to correct) is that since the exploitation has already occurred, no further damage is being done to the exploited child, so the viewers of child pornography are not damaging that child, or any other (there's also a sprinkle of privacy violations thrown in - more on this in a moment).
The only way I could see it actually hurting the child is if they knew about it. But once something is out there, I think it's futile to try to control it. And I don't think people have a right to not be offended/angered by other people looking lustfully at a picture.
I don't believe the law enforcement resource pool is so small that this cannot be done.
It isn't small, but if we stopped wasting our time on pointless things, we could do more to catch the actual rapists.
But I'm thinking of the 10 year old girl having her life and psyche wrecked so some damaged mind can rub out that quick one.
But once the pictures are out there, I don't think it matters anymore. We just need to ensure more don't get made.
What are you talking about? Everyone values their time differently, and not everyone values each second the same way. You seem to think others should value their time in a certain way, and that's not going to happen.
This is absolutely pointless. This is a needless waste of time, and I don't think anyone enjoys it.
Additionally, as others have said, it's also the principle of the matter. And if you keep stacking on negative after negative, it'll eventually be too much for people to stand.
In a nutshell, it's more of a waste of time to gripe about it than to just put up with it. Either that, or go live in your own universe where everything caters to you.
Their criticisms are valid no matter what you think. They're their own feelings.
Oh, and there is an easy way: either pirate the movie, or don't buy it at all. To people sufficiently angered by this, they simply won't buy it.
I presume, then, that you perceive of lineups at a cashier as actively punishing people who choose to purchase items in the store instead of shoplift?
What? That's more out of necessity than anything else. You're not even considering intent.
What is the point of these commercials? There is none; they're simply needless.
But in the case of DVD's, you'll actually spend orders of magnitude more time and effort pirating it than you would have spent simply sitting through the warning. I trust you realize what such a choice of actions makes you look like.
You're not taking a number of factors into account: you don't have to pay (possibly a big reason here), you can do other things while it's downloading, you don't have to go anywhere to get the movie (assuming you did), and the warnings are nonexistent. The second one makes the whole "hassle" pretty much nonexistent. The fact that some people choose to pirate the content shows that they probably do not find buying it worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because then I'd be supporting a company that supports DRM. Instead, I'll just not buy the game at all.
I hate the two party system but history has shown that voting for a third party/independent only hurts one's cause.
Neither of the two major parties represent me, so voting for them is, for me, completely and utterly pointless. That would be throwing my vote away.
And the only reason this is remotely true is because enough people have this mentality. They simply give up before they even try, and since enough people are like them, their prediction comes true. Yes, the system is completely broken and skews towards the two major parties, but that's no reason to just give up.
That more abstract notion of privacy is significantly harder to guarantee
Not really. Just forbid the government from spying on everyone with cameras in public places for any reason. The government doing it and individuals doing it are quite different things, as individuals aren't everywhere at once like the government's cameras.
And it isn't really "abstract." The government does not need to be able to track everyone at once. They simply need to find someone they want to track in public places (to watch their actions), and then use the camera footage against them. If they find such an individual, that is.
In case you're serious, how exactly do you propose we select the students we should teach it to?
"we"? No, they're the ones who select the classes. In high school, that is. Up until then, all the basics are taught to them.
Do tell me more about how you envision leaving large swaths of students in intellectual darkness in order to avoid "wasting time".
If by "leaving large swaths of students in intellectual darkness," you mean, "save them some time from 'learning' things that they don't need that they'll most likely just forget extremely quickly," then that would be it. Perhaps it's anecdotal, but I don't know any people that remember garbage that they don't use after long.
And all that advanced math, science, and such that the general population seems to have such a problem with? That's mandatory right now, and yet, somehow, they don't seem to understand it or use it (most of them). If it aids them so greatly, I wonder why? All it seems to be doing to me is taking time away from classes that students do have interest in.
At any rate, it's unlikely that we'll be able to tell if such a thing is a good idea unless it's actually put into action (even on a small scale).
If you have a decent enough memory (cramming is quite simple). You don't have to have spectacular critical thinking skills for that. Of course, if you merely memorize the material and don't understand any of it, I'd say it's more likely that you'll forget it rather quickly.
Most people don't value freedom at all, happily (or at worst grouchily) submit to any demand the state has, and think something is wrong with YOU if you object.
We have to catch those criminals. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!
I never understood the "teach to the test" complaint.
They won't actually understand the material. You can teach routines and equations all you want, but that is far different from teaching why they work, how they work, and how to apply them in real life. When you teach to the test, you're just showing them a few routines that will allow them to pass the test (what to do for this type of problem, etc). Then, thanks to not actually understanding any of it, it'll likely be quickly forgotten (even more quickly than usual).
and we should still teach it to help those kids who will go into a field that uses it figure out that they want to do so.
We should still teach it... to those specific people. Doing it to everyone else is just a waste of time.
Hence, such reductionism is a bad thing.
I agree, and I don't think I did such a thing.
whereas you I believe would see that solution as the greater evil. Right?
Yeah.
Your choice is trivial because there is little pressure on you to make one.
I still believe they have a choice. They're creating this pressure in their own minds (even if they were born more susceptible to it). Some people are quite obviously immune to it, or at the very least, they don't starve themselves because of it.
No one is really saying, "Starve yourself if you're not this skinny." They create that message themselves by interpreting the advertisements in a certain way and then making a decision. No one is holding a gun to their head, and no one could be said to be forcing them to do anything.
The U.S. or your own government that is complying with another country's demands?
Both.
The gist of your reply clearly was that freedom was a goal unto itself, in the service of which you'd accept casualties. In short, I have a hard time seeing the functional difference.
The functional difference is that I don't believe in absolute freedom. If I did, I'd believe that government shouldn't interfere with people's freedom to murder others.
True, if we go by the most reductionist interpretation possible, then everything a person does must be their (and only their own) complete responsibility, and any amount of coercion, compulsion, or what have you becomes irrelevant.
If we go the other way, then nothing anyone does is their own fault. Saw an advertisement and committed suicide? Their fault, no matter what it was. Murdered someone? Your parents' and society's fault.
I typically blame someone else if they're directly involved in some way. An example of that would be shooting someone with a gun. Not just displaying an advertisement (of which there are many) and indirectly causing certain people to starve themselves.
When people have been socialized to such an extent that their brains are literally wired to be unable to see themselves as anything other than grossly obese (even when weighing in at 80 pounds and reeking of ammonia from far-reaching starvation) then it's no longer a simple matter of choice
I don't see it as being anything other than their choice. Just because others (or advertisements) make them feel bad (or however you wish to describe it) doesn't mean it's not their choice. I can certainly choose not to starve myself, and I have.
That would happen anyway since they'd simply forget the material if they didn't become actual scientists. In fact, given all the rote memorization and teaching to the test present in public schools, they'd probably forget before they hit college.
The public school systems aren't broken
They are, but so is the fact that more parents aren't involved. That doesn't help, either.
Now all we need to do is reform the public education system so that it actually educates rather than schools.
tl;dr: If everyone around you is doing good, and you're sinking like a stone... the problem is with you, not everyone else.
I'd say the problem is that the test scores are rather irrelevant in the way of measuring critical thinking skills.
Oh, they can't pass a test? It could be worse, since I don't find tests to be all that important. Especially with all the rote memorization and teaching to the test going on in US public schools. Too much emphasis is put on testing and grades, and No Child Left Behind worsens this. Critical thinking seems to be lacking.
They are not two separate groups of people, you utter imbecile.
They are unless you're saying all people who look at the pictures are actually rapists, but that's not true.
The best chance of tracing the images back to their source and prosecuting the scum who made them is by arresting a few paedo-feebs and sweating some information out of the fuckers by having a nice long jail term as a stick..
They can do so without convicting people looking at pictures. And they often seem to be targeting those guys, specifically.
Absolute freedom
No one mentioned anything about absolute freedom...
in that (a) you're plainly not among those actually affected and (b) the wording of it strongly suggests that as long as the rallying cry is freedom
Neither of those seem "noteworthy" to me (the former is just irrelevant as well as an assumption). As if I can't stand up for what I believe is "freedom" if I'm affected by something...
Do you really wish to take that position? It rarely ends well.
Yes, I do. And whether it ends well or not is subjective.
You have not proven that their own actions are to blame in any way, shape or form.
I can't think of anyone else who is at fault. Who is starving themselves?
And as stated repeatedly, pressuring others into self-torture inflicts measurable harm.
That could hardly be said to be happening.
then it is in the interests of society to address that issue, or society unravels.
Not really. Society is incredibly resilient. It wouldn't collapse because of a few people with anorexia. But then again, you seem to be pretending that your vision of society is the only way. It's merely one way.
Now you're bandying syntactics, and poorly.
No, I asked a question. One that you failed to answer.
In the case of video games, no correlation between them and wholesale violent behavior has been established by any reputable study, so this is a false equivalence.
Immediately afterwards, I described a situation where they were found to be "harmful" to certain individuals. And I even admitted what I'm quoting, so what was the point of repeating it?
I support restrictions, such as labeling.
Such as listing ingredients? I've said elsewhere that I have no problems with such a thing since it cannot be considered censorship as long as it doesn't censor the original message.
You think this is a voluntary decision, much like depression after repeatedly being called a "fucking nigger" by everyone and his dog would be the foolish decision of a black person in America during the sixties.
Nothing close (as direct) to the latter is happening, but yes, that's what I believe.
Btw, I once again note your attempt to reduce a multitude (the entire advertisment culture) into a single instance ("a mere advertisement") to bolster your position.
You're looking too far into things. That wouldn't bolster my position, that's simply my opinion. Maybe "slew of mere advertisements" would be slightly better? Just because I don't state the so-called problem exactly doesn't mean I don't understand it.
Because neither banning nor censorship was part of my position in the first place. You would know this, had you not been too busy erecting strawmen to actually read what I wrote.
Okay. That's slightly more agreeable if true.
Oh shut the fuck up with your retarded NAMBLA justifications.
Nope. I just acknowledge possibilities. I don't see any conclusive evidence that it's 100% impossible for such an event to occur. That's all I was trying to say.
You seem to be jumping to conclusions left and right, though. How amusing. Are you that emotional for the children?
Since you aspies
An internet psychologist, huh?
justify your lusts for children
If seemingly defending a certain group means that I'm a member of that group, then I must be: black, gay, a pedophile, and a host of other things.
aren't capable of understanding social norms
It could be a "social norm" to lynch black people. It isn't always preferable to go with the crowd, so don't try using that as an argument.
it's just common fucking sense
Labeling something as "common sense" doesn't make it common, obvious, or correct. It might be "common sense" that the world is flat. It means nothing when you say something is "common sense."
The point is, in the power differential between an adult and a prepubescent child, no "informed consent" is possible.
It's simply highly unlikely.
I guess the problem is that Stallman has never mentally and emotionally matured beyond the 12 or 13 year old phase himself
I think the problem has more to do with random insults.
That's the youngest acceptable age of a suitable partner for any adult over the age of 18.
I'm overjoyed that you're imposing your arbitrary standards upon me. The magical moral fairy speaks through you.
Your position (I think; feel free to correct) is that since the exploitation has already occurred, no further damage is being done to the exploited child, so the viewers of child pornography are not damaging that child, or any other (there's also a sprinkle of privacy violations thrown in - more on this in a moment).
The only way I could see it actually hurting the child is if they knew about it. But once something is out there, I think it's futile to try to control it. And I don't think people have a right to not be offended/angered by other people looking lustfully at a picture.
I don't believe the law enforcement resource pool is so small that this cannot be done.
It isn't small, but if we stopped wasting our time on pointless things, we could do more to catch the actual rapists.
But I'm thinking of the 10 year old girl having her life and psyche wrecked so some damaged mind can rub out that quick one.
But once the pictures are out there, I don't think it matters anymore. We just need to ensure more don't get made.
What are you talking about? Everyone values their time differently, and not everyone values each second the same way. You seem to think others should value their time in a certain way, and that's not going to happen.
This is absolutely pointless. This is a needless waste of time, and I don't think anyone enjoys it.
Additionally, as others have said, it's also the principle of the matter. And if you keep stacking on negative after negative, it'll eventually be too much for people to stand.
In a nutshell, it's more of a waste of time to gripe about it than to just put up with it. Either that, or go live in your own universe where everything caters to you.
Their criticisms are valid no matter what you think. They're their own feelings.
Oh, and there is an easy way: either pirate the movie, or don't buy it at all. To people sufficiently angered by this, they simply won't buy it.
There needs to be national standards and a national implementation.
I fear we'd just end up with something like the TSA all over again...
I presume, then, that you perceive of lineups at a cashier as actively punishing people who choose to purchase items in the store instead of shoplift?
What? That's more out of necessity than anything else. You're not even considering intent.
What is the point of these commercials? There is none; they're simply needless.
But in the case of DVD's, you'll actually spend orders of magnitude more time and effort pirating it than you would have spent simply sitting through the warning. I trust you realize what such a choice of actions makes you look like.
You're not taking a number of factors into account: you don't have to pay (possibly a big reason here), you can do other things while it's downloading, you don't have to go anywhere to get the movie (assuming you did), and the warnings are nonexistent. The second one makes the whole "hassle" pretty much nonexistent. The fact that some people choose to pirate the content shows that they probably do not find buying it worthwhile.
I don't see where he mentioned pirating content there...
But still, you automatically assumed that was the case.