When inalienable rights (or absolute to use your term) are basic things such as the right to life or self determination, the state cannot take them away.
They certainly can take away your life. Maybe not your self determination, but that's because that isn't tangible. Where do these "rights" come from? What magical entity dictates that they cannot be taken away? Can you prove that any of these "rights" are inherent?
And if you think that would be unconstitutional, you're dead wrong. The Supreme Court has in fact upheld bans on consensual oral or anal sex, in private, even between a married couple.
The supreme court can't redefine "unconstitutional." Just because they say something is constitutional (or unconstitutional), that does not mean that it really is.
California's argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence, but there is none.
I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the extreme argument of "nothing should ever be banned to kids ever because you're violating MY right to raise my kid by shadowing the little robotic automatons 24 hours a day to make sure my programming is not faulty."
Parents should be able to do whatever they please to their children. After all, children clearly have absolutely zero rights and parents are always correct.
Why is shooting somebody in the face "art", but a naked lady not?
Because the people who make laws don't like the latter, and there has been no significant movement to challenge these laws.
Actually, they cannot, at least without violating the individual's right.
Sure they can. If they take away the right that they granted the people, then it is gone. It no longer exists. There is no evidence for absolute rights, as far as I know.
Actually, rethinking that, I think you're right. That would indeed be placing restrictions on certain speech (because they handed something to someone that contained certain speech).
"Reasonable" is subjective. Also, I recall no study that has ever directly linked violent video games to real-world violence or explained why there isn't more violence despite the fact that so many people seemingly play violent video games. All I've seen is studies that link violent video games to temporary aggressive thoughts.
Limiting purchase is also limiting sale and distribution
I don't see how sales or distribution is free speech.
the speaker's rights are being infringed.
I'd say that that only applies when the government directly punishes them for their speech.
but will be punished if he hands them to some particular class of people
How is handing someone something speech? The content contained in the pamphlets is speech, of course. Punishing him for the content of the pamphlets or for anything he said would be a violation of his rights, though.
Is that your opinion, or did you actually mean to state that as a fact? I don't recall anyone explicitly proving that either things are harmful in a majority of cases (a study that shows real-world effects).
Making a purchase is NOT an expression of Free Speech.
This, along with the supreme court apparently deciding that donating to someone's political campaign is free speech, is what I don't understand. I don't see how either are speech or writing at all.
The state can and does put limits on speech where harm is likely or actual.
That doesn't mean it is constitutional (even if the supreme court allows it).
Children cannot purchase pornography, for example.
And what harm does allowing them to purchase pornography do?
The Supreme Court has also found that the state can place certain limits on tobacco advertising such as requiring that in-store ads be no lower than five feet from the floor.
Is that really considered a person's free speech? The company is merely acting for a group of people, but it isn't an actual person (which is what free speech is supposed to apply to).
While there are some exceptions, for the common good (such as not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater)
And whether the "common good" is actually "good" or not can be debated. There are people who disagree with that ban.
That isn't another imposing their right on you, but a consequence of an action taken by you.
I'd say that it's both.
In reality, that right exists with or without the constitution.
How so? What sort of authority dictates that? The right to free speech is merely your right to speak and not be arrested or punished by the government for the speech. They're the ones (as well as the people) who decides to give people that right, as far as I know.
Does anybody know of any really good studies on the subject of violent video games?
I'd also like to see one that shows real-world effects and explains why violent crime rates aren't exceptionally high despite the seemingly high amount of people that play violent video games.
The counter argument is that children dont have the same rights as adults.
Not the same rights. But where does it say anything about this specifically in the constitution (or something related)?
I have no issue with parents being required to make decisions as to which games they allow their kids to play, provided that information is out there for them to make an informed decision.
I suppose I do, then. If the money belongs to the kid, then I certainly don't see the harm in them buying the video game on their own without their parents' consent.
So, you don't want others to force their beliefs on you. But, you gladly force yours on others. How typical.
Where did my post imply that? I just said that I don't really care if someone is being abused with words. I don't see how that is forcing my belief on anyone (but, oftentimes, how is it even possible not to do this?). And, even if I did say that, where is the contradiction?
Laws themselves are just a way for society to force its beliefs on everyone, for instance. In the end, it appears that you're working towards your own goals.
And, while we're playing dumb: So much for sexual abuse then, eh?
I don't see where I was playing dumb, but what about it? What kind of "sexual abuse"?
I'd almost agree, if it wasn't for the fact that learning a language (which involves a lot of memorizing information you probably won't use) will likely increase your IQ.
And what use is that? I think people overestimate the value of IQs and far too often correlate it with actual "intelligence." No matter how high someone's IQ is, it (as far as I know) won't make them good at everything (they will have to learn from scratch anyway). I wouldn't say it's completely useless, though.
which is a generally useful thing to be able to do
Repeating what someone said? That is essential what it is, is it not? You merely need to comprehend and read/listen to what they are saying. I'd be surprised if many people didn't have this ability. The ability to be open-minded is, I think, more rare.
tells me that either you've deliberately avoided even trying those courses
Or that, despite taking them, I've found zero use in them. Also, memorization is essentially what happens (memorizing procedures and facts).
Also, if I'm looking for someone to hire, I'd much rather hire someone who's shown that sort of versatility
If I'm looking to hire, I'd much rather hire the person who is good at the position that I'm planning on hiring them for, regardless of their other skills. If I had a choice between someone who was highly specialized to do a job (which was related to that specialization) or someone who memorized (and somehow remembered) a random assortment of things but wasn't as good at the position that I was hiring for as the other person is, then, personally, I'd pick the former.
And they can -- that's what tech schools are for.
I know, but I'm arguing that these skills aren't as universally important as many people seem to believe they are (or at least, that is what I believe).
Still, even the basic liberal-arts stuff like, I don't know, english, are also invaluable to programming, which is still at least as much communication as it is math.
I wasn't speaking of the basic skills that are almost certainly necessary to function in this society. I was speaking of non-essential (depends on the individual and his/her goals) courses.
First, that's a sad individual.
That depends on who you ask.
when (not if)
Unless you can predict the future with absolute certainty, I would have used the "if." Also, I'd be willing to bet that completely losing your job and not being able to find another one in a related area doesn't happen quite as often as you think (it does happen though). And, even if it does, you'd most likely need to go back and learn specific skills (not these general classes that you're forced to take) to be able to adapt to a new profession.
I was just saying that a degree isn't necessarily needed for someone to learn how to do the job properly and efficiently. Some people can learn without that.
IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this.
In my opinion, the TSA needs to be eliminated completely. They don't appear to be doing much good, violate peoples' privacy, and even if they capture a few 'terrorists', I don't believe that forcing innocent people to be searched is worth it (especially considering the low chances of terrorist attacks in the first place). More security on the planes themselves (such as reinforced doors) is better, in my opinion.
Education is helpful for you to become a more "intelligent" individual, depending on what your goals are?
No. Whether those are the goals of the individual or not is up to them to decide. And I'd say that memorizing a bunch of information that they probably won't use is not what makes someone intelligent.
That's just it, though -- you might not be deliberately planning on a career change. Your career could just disappear.
Yes. "What if" questions. How nice. I'd rather the individual be able to choose whether they want to take that risk or not.
Now your tech degree is useless
That's nice, but what if the person in question is someone who does not enjoy other things? And, besides, English, chemistry, history, and all the other unrelated subjects probably won't help them. As I said, I believe this should be up to the individual to decide.
Slashdot Mirror
When inalienable rights (or absolute to use your term) are basic things such as the right to life or self determination, the state cannot take them away.
They certainly can take away your life. Maybe not your self determination, but that's because that isn't tangible. Where do these "rights" come from? What magical entity dictates that they cannot be taken away? Can you prove that any of these "rights" are inherent?
And if you think that would be unconstitutional, you're dead wrong. The Supreme Court has in fact upheld bans on consensual oral or anal sex, in private, even between a married couple.
The supreme court can't redefine "unconstitutional." Just because they say something is constitutional (or unconstitutional), that does not mean that it really is.
California's argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence, but there is none.
How does tradition matter in the least?
I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the extreme argument of "nothing should ever be banned to kids ever because you're violating MY right to raise my kid by shadowing the little robotic automatons 24 hours a day to make sure my programming is not faulty."
Parents should be able to do whatever they please to their children. After all, children clearly have absolutely zero rights and parents are always correct.
Why is shooting somebody in the face "art", but a naked lady not?
Because the people who make laws don't like the latter, and there has been no significant movement to challenge these laws.
Actually, they cannot, at least without violating the individual's right.
Sure they can. If they take away the right that they granted the people, then it is gone. It no longer exists. There is no evidence for absolute rights, as far as I know.
Actually, rethinking that, I think you're right. That would indeed be placing restrictions on certain speech (because they handed something to someone that contained certain speech).
If such a law tries to state that the value of something isn't subjective, but objective, then yes, no such thing exists (as far as I know).
but if you ask people to read it, you're going to jail
Not because you asked them to read it, but because you gave it to them.
"Reasonable" is subjective. Also, I recall no study that has ever directly linked violent video games to real-world violence or explained why there isn't more violence despite the fact that so many people seemingly play violent video games. All I've seen is studies that link violent video games to temporary aggressive thoughts.
Do we want 8-year olds to save their lunch money and play Grand Theft Auto?
Honestly, I couldn't care less. I don't see the harm in it.
which is that "freedom of speech" allows restriction of speech to children
How so?
is a sound one
Doesn't that depend on who you ask?
However, most nations have agreed on certain basic or inalienable rights.
But they're not inalienable. They can be taken away by those same nations.
Limiting purchase is also limiting sale and distribution
I don't see how sales or distribution is free speech.
the speaker's rights are being infringed.
I'd say that that only applies when the government directly punishes them for their speech.
but will be punished if he hands them to some particular class of people
How is handing someone something speech? The content contained in the pamphlets is speech, of course. Punishing him for the content of the pamphlets or for anything he said would be a violation of his rights, though.
and it's impacting our society for the worse.
Is that your opinion, or did you actually mean to state that as a fact? I don't recall anyone explicitly proving that either things are harmful in a majority of cases (a study that shows real-world effects).
protect their kids
Protection usually implies harm. I wonder where that harm is?
well then you opinion holds little weight anyway.
This is likely true even if you live in America as long as you're severely outnumbered by the opposition.
Making a purchase is NOT an expression of Free Speech.
This, along with the supreme court apparently deciding that donating to someone's political campaign is free speech, is what I don't understand. I don't see how either are speech or writing at all.
The state can and does put limits on speech where harm is likely or actual.
That doesn't mean it is constitutional (even if the supreme court allows it).
Children cannot purchase pornography, for example.
And what harm does allowing them to purchase pornography do?
The Supreme Court has also found that the state can place certain limits on tobacco advertising such as requiring that in-store ads be no lower than five feet from the floor.
Is that really considered a person's free speech? The company is merely acting for a group of people, but it isn't an actual person (which is what free speech is supposed to apply to).
While there are some exceptions, for the common good (such as not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater)
And whether the "common good" is actually "good" or not can be debated. There are people who disagree with that ban.
That isn't another imposing their right on you, but a consequence of an action taken by you.
I'd say that it's both.
In reality, that right exists with or without the constitution.
How so? What sort of authority dictates that? The right to free speech is merely your right to speak and not be arrested or punished by the government for the speech. They're the ones (as well as the people) who decides to give people that right, as far as I know.
Does anybody know of any really good studies on the subject of violent video games?
I'd also like to see one that shows real-world effects and explains why violent crime rates aren't exceptionally high despite the seemingly high amount of people that play violent video games.
The counter argument is that children dont have the same rights as adults.
Not the same rights. But where does it say anything about this specifically in the constitution (or something related)?
I have no issue with parents being required to make decisions as to which games they allow their kids to play, provided that information is out there for them to make an informed decision.
I suppose I do, then. If the money belongs to the kid, then I certainly don't see the harm in them buying the video game on their own without their parents' consent.
So, you don't want others to force their beliefs on you. But, you gladly force yours on others. How typical.
Where did my post imply that? I just said that I don't really care if someone is being abused with words. I don't see how that is forcing my belief on anyone (but, oftentimes, how is it even possible not to do this?). And, even if I did say that, where is the contradiction?
Laws themselves are just a way for society to force its beliefs on everyone, for instance. In the end, it appears that you're working towards your own goals.
And, while we're playing dumb: So much for sexual abuse then, eh?
I don't see where I was playing dumb, but what about it? What kind of "sexual abuse"?
I'd almost agree, if it wasn't for the fact that learning a language (which involves a lot of memorizing information you probably won't use) will likely increase your IQ.
And what use is that? I think people overestimate the value of IQs and far too often correlate it with actual "intelligence." No matter how high someone's IQ is, it (as far as I know) won't make them good at everything (they will have to learn from scratch anyway). I wouldn't say it's completely useless, though.
which is a generally useful thing to be able to do
Repeating what someone said? That is essential what it is, is it not? You merely need to comprehend and read/listen to what they are saying. I'd be surprised if many people didn't have this ability. The ability to be open-minded is, I think, more rare.
tells me that either you've deliberately avoided even trying those courses
Or that, despite taking them, I've found zero use in them. Also, memorization is essentially what happens (memorizing procedures and facts).
Also, if I'm looking for someone to hire, I'd much rather hire someone who's shown that sort of versatility
If I'm looking to hire, I'd much rather hire the person who is good at the position that I'm planning on hiring them for, regardless of their other skills. If I had a choice between someone who was highly specialized to do a job (which was related to that specialization) or someone who memorized (and somehow remembered) a random assortment of things but wasn't as good at the position that I was hiring for as the other person is, then, personally, I'd pick the former.
And they can -- that's what tech schools are for.
I know, but I'm arguing that these skills aren't as universally important as many people seem to believe they are (or at least, that is what I believe).
Still, even the basic liberal-arts stuff like, I don't know, english, are also invaluable to programming, which is still at least as much communication as it is math.
I wasn't speaking of the basic skills that are almost certainly necessary to function in this society. I was speaking of non-essential (depends on the individual and his/her goals) courses.
First, that's a sad individual.
That depends on who you ask.
when (not if)
Unless you can predict the future with absolute certainty, I would have used the "if." Also, I'd be willing to bet that completely losing your job and not being able to find another one in a related area doesn't happen quite as often as you think (it does happen though). And, even if it does, you'd most likely need to go back and learn specific skills (not these general classes that you're forced to take) to be able to adapt to a new profession.
I was just saying that a degree isn't necessarily needed for someone to learn how to do the job properly and efficiently. Some people can learn without that.
IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this.
In my opinion, the TSA needs to be eliminated completely. They don't appear to be doing much good, violate peoples' privacy, and even if they capture a few 'terrorists', I don't believe that forcing innocent people to be searched is worth it (especially considering the low chances of terrorist attacks in the first place). More security on the planes themselves (such as reinforced doors) is better, in my opinion.
Education is helpful for you to become a more "intelligent" individual, depending on what your goals are?
No. Whether those are the goals of the individual or not is up to them to decide. And I'd say that memorizing a bunch of information that they probably won't use is not what makes someone intelligent.
That's just it, though -- you might not be deliberately planning on a career change. Your career could just disappear.
Yes. "What if" questions. How nice. I'd rather the individual be able to choose whether they want to take that risk or not.
Now your tech degree is useless
That's nice, but what if the person in question is someone who does not enjoy other things? And, besides, English, chemistry, history, and all the other unrelated subjects probably won't help them. As I said, I believe this should be up to the individual to decide.