You've just spent more effort and time typing a response to somebody you don't agree with than it would have took you to simply sit through the annoying message and not worry about it.
But... what if he likes replying to people? Perhaps it's more enjoyable than watching pointless commercials? There is a difference.
When you can download an entire pirated movie in less than the time it takes to sit through the warnings about piracy
Except that you can do other things while it's downloading, you don't have to pay, and there are no commercials. Furthermore, you don't have to leave the house.
It's just pointless nonsense. And whether 20 seconds is annoying to someone or not will vary from person to person.
I'm compelled to wonder how you deal with things like traffic lights where you don't happen to see anybody else around.
At least traffic lights have a somewhat valid reason for being there. This is just... pointless.
Pirated versions have no annoying commercials, you can sit around and do other things while you're downloading, you don't have to go anywhere, and you don't have to pay for anything. What's the point of these commercials?
but the possession or purchase of the stolen goods is a crime all by itself.
Yeah, but in this case, merely possessing the stolen goods is depriving someone of their property (that's still legally theirs) for a longer period of time. If the stolen goods are found, I think they should be returned, and whether or not they're punished depends on their original intentions (Did they know it was stolen?).
With child pornography, nothing is really taken. The pictures are simply copied over and over.
Not necessarily. If they merely view it without anyone knowing (especially if obtained from a second-hand source), then they're not.
In addition to the fact that it is by no means guaranteed that they're aiding further abuse, I have a problem with the fact that it's assumed that they are. They're innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Problem is, no one expects others to prove that they actually helped aid further abuse. Would it be difficult? Yes. But I don't believe that should get in the way of what I deem "justice." We can't skimp on real due process.
I don't believe in convicting people based on what might have happened in the first place. If we're going to convict people based on the fact that they viewed child pornography, and the reason that it's illegal is because it's believed that it aids further abuse, then I believe they should have to prove that the person aided in the abuse of a child in each individual case.
Actually, it's not in my opinion, in terms of legal right and wrong. It is illegal to view child pornography when you have the intent to do so. Sort of the point of the court judgement in TFA. It's wrong illegally, and since you mention, yes, it IS my opinion that it's wrong, morally, too. As for the thought crimes bit; it's not a thought crime at all. Imagining child porn would be a thought crime. Viewing actual child porn is not. There's a nice, big, clear difference there.
So basically, you just said, "It's illegal." I never said otherwise.
I don't think it should be illegal. And yes, it is a thought crime. "It's disgusting that people look at it! They're thinking of having sex with children, and therefore should be arrested!" is something I've seen people say.
On the other hand, it IS a rape (or sexual violation) of that child's image and innocence, as I said.
Oh, okay. The child's "image" and "innocence." That's a vast improvement. Completely intangible things are being... uh... "raped." Forgive me for not caring, because I really don't.
People that view (and doubly so for those that pay for) child pornography are contributing to and creating a market for the wholesale molestation of children.
Not necessarily. If they merely view it without anyone knowing (especially if obtained from a second-hand source), then they're not.
But really, I don't care if they are or aren't. I think it's 100% a waste of my tax dollars to go after basement dwellers looking at pictures lustfully (even if they paid for it). I'd much rather go after the people doing the raping.
Some things are about personal freedom and the choice to live your life the way you want; but a line gets drawn when others' rights get violated, especially those unable to defend themselves.
Right. The kids who are getting raped are having their rights violated. That is what I want to stop. I don't really think looking lustfully at a picture is violating anyone's rights. Especially when the original victim doesn't even know it's happening. Oh, and the original victim will probably be too busy getting raped, anyway, since we're wasting our tax dollars on catching basement dwellers masturbating over pictures.
But I don't think people should be arrested for thought crimes.
But every time a kid gets looked at through pedophile eyes, in pics or in person, that kid gets their innocence raped again.
Looking at a picture is not at all the same thing as raping someone. I don't really care if some guy is looking at a picture lustfully. I really don't.
Well, if they don't want others to encourage the production of more child pornographer, then they should at least have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they did just that merely by possessing an image. Someone is innocent until proven guilty, and if they want to arrest someone over child pornography, the least they could do is prove that they encouraged the production of more.
Of course, I'd prefer it if we didn't waste our tax dollars going after people who look at images to begin with...
How about you tell me how possessing child pornography is a good thing that can be justified?
In someone's opinion. But I don't believe things should be banned just because you find them gross in the first place. It's not on others to explain why something should be legal; it's on you, the person making/advocating for these laws.
Do you believe you should be allowed to posses stolen goods?
Uh... in that case, someone would have had to have their goods stolen. Legally, I think the goods should still be theirs even if someone bought them from the original thief. Therefore, if the goods are found, I think they should be returned.
Pictures of abuse are abuse themselves to the victim.
I disagree. I don't think someone masturbating to a picture hurts anyone. Once the pictures are out there, I think it's a complete waste of time, manpower, and taxpayer dollars trying to track down people merely looking at them. Go after the people who actually raped the child.
Murder victims should also be given some dignity.
I think that's even more foolish; they're dead, and therefore can't even be emotionally damaged by the pictures. You can't give them "dignity." They're simply gone, and there's no point to such a thing. If the family is offended, that's too bad.
"Sociopathy" is when you care about two things the exact same amount? Because that's what I meant. Interesting.
Furthermore, there is also always the possibility that you do feel empathy for other people, but you don't feel that banning things is the right solution. You don't have to support emotionally-driven legislation to be empathetic, you know.
If a documented correlation existed between that class of advertisment and wholesale instances of self-starvation, psychosis and malnutrition, then YES, that class of advertisment should be curtailed by a sane society.
I'll have no such thing. Your "sane," emotionally-driven society can go elsewhere. Casualties are acceptable to me if it's in the name of freedom. Especially when it's the person's own actions that are at fault. Sorry that there are people hurt by these advertisements, but they'll just have to get help.
substituting "some insane person" for a significant portion of the population
Would it be better to say that I find them foolish? Significant portion of the population? Really? Not that I care, but what is "significant"? I'd rather not let the actions of people I deem to be imbeciles decide whether or not things are censored.
We've already seen this kind of mentality with video games (although that isn't conclusively proven). If it was conclusively proven to be harmful, would you support censorship or the act of banning advertisements for those, too? What about things we know are perfectly innocent right now (such as advertisements about ice cream)? What if those kinds of advertisements were, for some reason, conclusively proven to be harmful to a "significant" (however you define that) majority of the population? And by "harmful," I mean they'd decide to do foolish things because they saw a mere advertisement.
Would you support banning or censoring those? If so (which is what I find likely), talking to you is a complete waste of time. If not, why?
Further, when this kind of thing has such a bearing on people growing up that we're constantly worried about our weight, what we eat, do we exercise enough, it builds a mental image of what we *should* look like
Such a shame. Perhaps they should stop for a moment and think. There is no magical entity that decides what you "should" look like, and fasting is simply a foolish solution to begin with.
This is dangerous for the wrong people
The "wrong people" can lock themselves away in their houses, then. I don't believe in the right to be offended, and I don't believe in the right to have things banned because you react stupidly to them.
It's disgusting and it's a facet of our everyday lives.
Maybe they'll eventually vanish from the gene pool.
Not to mention, this kind of mindset is dangerous even after a person has stopped purging or fasting - if they notice they've gained any amount of weight from eating right, it can cause a cascade of depression that will either result in action (purging, fasting again) or inaction - more depression, overeating, etc.
That mindset does indeed sound dangerous. Perhaps they, ones who are so significantly affected by mere advertisements, should get help.
Just because kids are at risk doesn't mean you should do nothing, in otder to avoid being percieved as a "ZOMGTHINKOFTHECHILDREN!!11111ONEone" type of person.
Well, that wasn't my line of thought to begin with.
He didn't really say anything other than that young people are at risk. It's as if the fact that young people are at risk changes everything.
"Sociopathy" is when you care about two things the exact same amount? Because that's what I meant. Interesting.
I'm simply not persuaded by "for the children" arguments. Sorry, but I find them completely idiotic. I'm not willing to ban things so readily. Even for the children.
You're still free to be as thin or fat as you like, how is it affecting your freedom?
I care about other people's freedom, too.
The models involved can still be stick thin if they want, they just can't inflict themselves through advertising on impressionable young people.
Do you seriously think that there should be no limitations on public advertising at all?
I don't mind demanding warnings, since that isn't actually censorship (it just makes them include something extra and doesn't censor their original message). But that is all.
Would you really want your granny or kids to see hard core animal porn (or whatever) on public billboards?
Frankly, I couldn't care less. I don't believe in the right to not be offended.
You're too recently picked from the vine to have any clue as to what's what. Others have called you a sociopath. I'll just assume you're youthfully ignorant. Enjoy growing up.:-)
I disagree with you. Therefore, you're young.
Freedom's really not worth all that much if innocent noncombatants are dieing all around you.
That's your opinion. There are too many things that would be banned simply because a child could be hurt.
You need a bit more empathy, IMHO.
You need to stop using emotionally-charged "for the children" arguments, IMHO. You don't have to be lacking in empathy to believe they're idiotic (even if some children really are hurt).
But that's just it... I don't really care if children are at risk anymore than I care if adults are at risk. You might as well be saying, "Adults are at risk!" It holds the same meaning to me. When someone is actually at risk, that is.
But when it comes to freedom, I usually take a "it's not worth it to prevent it" approach.
Under this logic, the government could censor pretty much anything. Some insane person went on a murderous rampage? Video games were the trigger. Ban video games!
This is extremely scary to me. Especially since we're considering banning/censoring things due to the stupidity of others. I don't care for such slippery slopes.
What if a collection of companies put out hundreds of ads about smoking, and such a large number of insane people became terribly addicted to nicotine that painful externalities (eg, health care costs associated with emphysema rose and became a burden; and second-hand smoke from the increasing number of cigarette smokers caused problems for people who chose not to smoke) occurred!?
Good question. Those people sound pretty dumb. They can die of lung cancer if they want.
Slashdot Mirror
You've just spent more effort and time typing a response to somebody you don't agree with than it would have took you to simply sit through the annoying message and not worry about it.
But... what if he likes replying to people? Perhaps it's more enjoyable than watching pointless commercials? There is a difference.
When you can download an entire pirated movie in less than the time it takes to sit through the warnings about piracy
Except that you can do other things while it's downloading, you don't have to pay, and there are no commercials. Furthermore, you don't have to leave the house.
2 minutes is 120 seconds. Not 20.
That's not what I meant.
It's just pointless nonsense. And whether 20 seconds is annoying to someone or not will vary from person to person.
I'm compelled to wonder how you deal with things like traffic lights where you don't happen to see anybody else around.
At least traffic lights have a somewhat valid reason for being there. This is just... pointless.
Pirated versions have no annoying commercials, you can sit around and do other things while you're downloading, you don't have to go anywhere, and you don't have to pay for anything. What's the point of these commercials?
It's too much for me when it's completely pointless, yes. Quit wasting my time.
"What, 2 minutes too much for you? There are 24 hours in a day!"
but the possession or purchase of the stolen goods is a crime all by itself.
Yeah, but in this case, merely possessing the stolen goods is depriving someone of their property (that's still legally theirs) for a longer period of time. If the stolen goods are found, I think they should be returned, and whether or not they're punished depends on their original intentions (Did they know it was stolen?).
With child pornography, nothing is really taken. The pictures are simply copied over and over.
Not necessarily. If they merely view it without anyone knowing (especially if obtained from a second-hand source), then they're not.
In addition to the fact that it is by no means guaranteed that they're aiding further abuse, I have a problem with the fact that it's assumed that they are. They're innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Problem is, no one expects others to prove that they actually helped aid further abuse. Would it be difficult? Yes. But I don't believe that should get in the way of what I deem "justice." We can't skimp on real due process.
I don't believe in convicting people based on what might have happened in the first place. If we're going to convict people based on the fact that they viewed child pornography, and the reason that it's illegal is because it's believed that it aids further abuse, then I believe they should have to prove that the person aided in the abuse of a child in each individual case.
Actually, it's not in my opinion, in terms of legal right and wrong. It is illegal to view child pornography when you have the intent to do so. Sort of the point of the court judgement in TFA. It's wrong illegally, and since you mention, yes, it IS my opinion that it's wrong, morally, too. As for the thought crimes bit; it's not a thought crime at all. Imagining child porn would be a thought crime. Viewing actual child porn is not. There's a nice, big, clear difference there.
So basically, you just said, "It's illegal." I never said otherwise.
I don't think it should be illegal. And yes, it is a thought crime. "It's disgusting that people look at it! They're thinking of having sex with children, and therefore should be arrested!" is something I've seen people say.
On the other hand, it IS a rape (or sexual violation) of that child's image and innocence, as I said.
Oh, okay. The child's "image" and "innocence." That's a vast improvement. Completely intangible things are being... uh... "raped." Forgive me for not caring, because I really don't.
People that view (and doubly so for those that pay for) child pornography are contributing to and creating a market for the wholesale molestation of children.
Not necessarily. If they merely view it without anyone knowing (especially if obtained from a second-hand source), then they're not.
But really, I don't care if they are or aren't. I think it's 100% a waste of my tax dollars to go after basement dwellers looking at pictures lustfully (even if they paid for it). I'd much rather go after the people doing the raping.
Some things are about personal freedom and the choice to live your life the way you want; but a line gets drawn when others' rights get violated, especially those unable to defend themselves.
Right. The kids who are getting raped are having their rights violated. That is what I want to stop. I don't really think looking lustfully at a picture is violating anyone's rights. Especially when the original victim doesn't even know it's happening. Oh, and the original victim will probably be too busy getting raped, anyway, since we're wasting our tax dollars on catching basement dwellers masturbating over pictures.
The fact is, enjoying child porn is wrong, period
In your opinion.
But I don't think people should be arrested for thought crimes.
But every time a kid gets looked at through pedophile eyes, in pics or in person, that kid gets their innocence raped again.
Looking at a picture is not at all the same thing as raping someone. I don't really care if some guy is looking at a picture lustfully. I really don't.
Well, if they don't want others to encourage the production of more child pornographer, then they should at least have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they did just that merely by possessing an image. Someone is innocent until proven guilty, and if they want to arrest someone over child pornography, the least they could do is prove that they encouraged the production of more.
Of course, I'd prefer it if we didn't waste our tax dollars going after people who look at images to begin with...
How about you tell me how possessing child pornography is a good thing that can be justified?
In someone's opinion. But I don't believe things should be banned just because you find them gross in the first place. It's not on others to explain why something should be legal; it's on you, the person making/advocating for these laws.
Do you believe you should be allowed to posses stolen goods?
Uh... in that case, someone would have had to have their goods stolen. Legally, I think the goods should still be theirs even if someone bought them from the original thief. Therefore, if the goods are found, I think they should be returned.
Pictures of abuse are abuse themselves to the victim.
I disagree. I don't think someone masturbating to a picture hurts anyone. Once the pictures are out there, I think it's a complete waste of time, manpower, and taxpayer dollars trying to track down people merely looking at them. Go after the people who actually raped the child.
Murder victims should also be given some dignity.
I think that's even more foolish; they're dead, and therefore can't even be emotionally damaged by the pictures. You can't give them "dignity." They're simply gone, and there's no point to such a thing. If the family is offended, that's too bad.
and enjoy it
Going after people who look at pictures is a complete waste of time. Can't go after the ones who actually make it? Such a shame.
"Sociopathy" is when you care about two things the exact same amount? Because that's what I meant. Interesting.
Furthermore, there is also always the possibility that you do feel empathy for other people, but you don't feel that banning things is the right solution. You don't have to support emotionally-driven legislation to be empathetic, you know.
If a documented correlation existed between that class of advertisment and wholesale instances of self-starvation, psychosis and malnutrition, then YES, that class of advertisment should be curtailed by a sane society.
I'll have no such thing. Your "sane," emotionally-driven society can go elsewhere. Casualties are acceptable to me if it's in the name of freedom. Especially when it's the person's own actions that are at fault. Sorry that there are people hurt by these advertisements, but they'll just have to get help.
substituting "some insane person" for a significant portion of the population
Would it be better to say that I find them foolish? Significant portion of the population? Really? Not that I care, but what is "significant"? I'd rather not let the actions of people I deem to be imbeciles decide whether or not things are censored.
We've already seen this kind of mentality with video games (although that isn't conclusively proven). If it was conclusively proven to be harmful, would you support censorship or the act of banning advertisements for those, too? What about things we know are perfectly innocent right now (such as advertisements about ice cream)? What if those kinds of advertisements were, for some reason, conclusively proven to be harmful to a "significant" (however you define that) majority of the population? And by "harmful," I mean they'd decide to do foolish things because they saw a mere advertisement.
Would you support banning or censoring those? If so (which is what I find likely), talking to you is a complete waste of time. If not, why?
Further, when this kind of thing has such a bearing on people growing up that we're constantly worried about our weight, what we eat, do we exercise enough, it builds a mental image of what we *should* look like
Such a shame. Perhaps they should stop for a moment and think. There is no magical entity that decides what you "should" look like, and fasting is simply a foolish solution to begin with.
This is dangerous for the wrong people
The "wrong people" can lock themselves away in their houses, then. I don't believe in the right to be offended, and I don't believe in the right to have things banned because you react stupidly to them.
It's disgusting and it's a facet of our everyday lives.
Maybe they'll eventually vanish from the gene pool.
Not to mention, this kind of mindset is dangerous even after a person has stopped purging or fasting - if they notice they've gained any amount of weight from eating right, it can cause a cascade of depression that will either result in action (purging, fasting again) or inaction - more depression, overeating, etc.
That mindset does indeed sound dangerous. Perhaps they, ones who are so significantly affected by mere advertisements, should get help.
Just because kids are at risk doesn't mean you should do nothing, in otder to avoid being percieved as a "ZOMGTHINKOFTHECHILDREN!!11111ONEone" type of person.
Well, that wasn't my line of thought to begin with.
He didn't really say anything other than that young people are at risk. It's as if the fact that young people are at risk changes everything.
"Sociopathy" is when you care about two things the exact same amount? Because that's what I meant. Interesting.
I'm simply not persuaded by "for the children" arguments. Sorry, but I find them completely idiotic. I'm not willing to ban things so readily. Even for the children.
I disagree. Since you provided nothing else, that's really all there is to say.
You're still free to be as thin or fat as you like, how is it affecting your freedom?
I care about other people's freedom, too.
The models involved can still be stick thin if they want, they just can't inflict themselves through advertising on impressionable young people.
Do you seriously think that there should be no limitations on public advertising at all?
I don't mind demanding warnings, since that isn't actually censorship (it just makes them include something extra and doesn't censor their original message). But that is all.
Would you really want your granny or kids to see hard core animal porn (or whatever) on public billboards?
Frankly, I couldn't care less. I don't believe in the right to not be offended.
You're too recently picked from the vine to have any clue as to what's what. Others have called you a sociopath. I'll just assume you're youthfully ignorant. Enjoy growing up. :-)
I disagree with you. Therefore, you're young.
Freedom's really not worth all that much if innocent noncombatants are dieing all around you.
That's your opinion. There are too many things that would be banned simply because a child could be hurt.
You need a bit more empathy, IMHO.
You need to stop using emotionally-charged "for the children" arguments, IMHO. You don't have to be lacking in empathy to believe they're idiotic (even if some children really are hurt).
I just don't think the mere fact that children are somehow involved or at risk is enough of a reason to do something.
But that's just it... I don't really care if children are at risk anymore than I care if adults are at risk. You might as well be saying, "Adults are at risk!" It holds the same meaning to me. When someone is actually at risk, that is.
But when it comes to freedom, I usually take a "it's not worth it to prevent it" approach.
Well, that just changes everything. Children are involved.
Somewhere in the mad stampede to protect free speech
Huh? We have such a thing? That's surprising since we have something called "free speech zones."
I wish we had such a thing. That way I could be more confident that nonsense like this would never happen in the US.
Under this logic, the government could censor pretty much anything. Some insane person went on a murderous rampage? Video games were the trigger. Ban video games!
This is extremely scary to me. Especially since we're considering banning/censoring things due to the stupidity of others. I don't care for such slippery slopes.
What if a collection of companies put out hundreds of ads about smoking, and such a large number of insane people became terribly addicted to nicotine that painful externalities (eg, health care costs associated with emphysema rose and became a burden; and second-hand smoke from the increasing number of cigarette smokers caused problems for people who chose not to smoke) occurred!?
Good question. Those people sound pretty dumb. They can die of lung cancer if they want.