I didn't know leaking trade secrets, like say, a crypto key, was a free speech issue.
Writing and talking are considered speech. By extension, so is communicating with people over the internet. The constitution claims to protect free speech (from the government). The government ignores this and does as they wish anyway. If anything, your "lawyer friends" were warning you that the constitution is no longer relevant.
though this would have to be separate from the gaming networks to avoid the sort of cheating that is so widespread in online PC games.
It isn't widespread if the games are securely made and properly moderated. It's just that console developers expect the console to do everything for them. But, really, playing a game in a way that other people don't like is inherently bad in the first place.
And are none of the "negative consequences" subjective?
Not if you're explaining to them how to live a healthy life (as most people want). I thought that much should have been obvious. If they want to kill themselves and hate life, then they are free to go do that.
but I'm really trying to show how hard it is to fulfil any role of care without allowing your beliefs to rub off on the person you're caring for.
I never claimed that none of your beliefs should rub off of them. That would be ridiculous. At the very least you should assume that your child wants to live a healthy life and teach them how to do so. That does not mean forcing them to believe pointless opinionated garbage such as religion, political beliefs, or opinions on someone else.
What's your point? You think everyone should have their kids indoctrinated by cheekyjohnson?
Where did I say that? I do, however, believe that people should relay facts that have evidence to support them (facts are not a personal belief with no evidence supporting them).
You're a bad parent if you think mere facts are all that a child needs.
And you're a bad parent if you believe that kids need to be indoctrinated with absolutely pointless personal beliefs (religion, politics, your opinion on someone). Yet, it happens all of the time.
Children imitate[1] what they observe.
But you can also teach them not to do so. Herd mentality is quite annoying. Not only that, but this doesn't mean they need to be indoctrinated.
That's the whole duty and responsibility of being a parent.
Sorry, but a parent's responsibility is not indoctrinating their child with their pointless personal beliefs. It is to take care of the child (stepping out in the road mindlessly greatly increases your chances of being hit by a car, which could potentially kill you, etc) and to relay facts to them. Unless, of course, you wish to tell me why children need to be indoctrinated to believe opinionated garbage.
I could easily make a remark about your parents failing to provide you with the knowledge to explain yourself, but that would be a mere assumption. Why do you say that?
They might not need to know how is works, but it certainly helps. What you say is true, but as I said, they are not much more technologically knowledgeable than their parents.
Well, until your son Bootlick Bob gets his sister Hippie Hannah arrested by reporting her for saying something nasty and oh so easily misinterpretable about the President at the dinner table... but maybe it takes a family who lived through a civil war to observe what happens in the extreme case. (OK, the worst case is that they join opposing sides and shoot at each other, a disturbing feature of several civil wars.)
If the situation is that dire then there really isn't much to do. Those were their choices.
Anyway, your "logical argument" would rely on various premises which come down to a subjective moral code.
Oh, sorry. What I meant to say is: I would describe all of the things that I perceive to be negative consequences that could result from such decisions and explain my reasoning. If they don't accept that, then it doesn't matter.
If you want, I can argue that mental activity is just a subset of biological activity;-).
Which is also undoubtedly affected to your surroundings and by those around you.
The extent to which genetics have an effect can be argued, but the effect is clearly not insignificant. And you are still living through your biological children by virtue of having passed around half your genes to them, even if you make no effort after conception.
I suppose so.
Of course, the average non-absent parent does so much more "living through them" than that.
I agree. I believe that there is too much worthless indoctrination being done by 'parents'.
Most people have bases for living which are far more complex and involved than, "Well, I don't want to be raped and murdered or run over by a car... apart from that, whatever happens is cool."
What?
Will you try to do anything about it?
I would attempt to dissuade them from such behaviors by forming a logical argument. Apart from that, no.
All these reasons are just nature manifesting the default desire of sexual beings to pass on their genes, which is passing on the essence of your existence to someone else.
Which has nothing to do with their personal beliefs.
Living through your children is the very reason for having your own children, by definition
When you speak like that, it seems as though that is what you meant. You have to specifically try to live through your child to have that great of an effect. Genes aren't all that is required.
When you responded to the comment a few posts above, you really made it seem to me as if you were speaking of what they were mentally trying to do, not biologically.
Really? Some people keep talking about how kids today are so good with technology, but that's not necessarily true in my experience. Most of them merely know how to access their Facebook accounts, use a proxy, and point and click. That's pretty much it. They don't know the details about anything. They might know slightly more than their parents, but that isn't saying much. Most people just seem to be technologically illiterate.
Who decides which activities you can get up to online are dangerous? Who decides which activities you get up to as a result of things you do online (e.g. meeting up) are dangerous?
I would think that the person themselves would be deciding that. If there's a 0.00001% chance of being harmed by doing something, it's probably not worth worrying about. The parents are worrying far too much over what happens to an abysmally small number of people (compared to the population at large).
But the chance of that is very small.
I agree. That's why it's a waste of time worrying so much over such things.
How? Building a few gadgets and maintaining a few services is not worth dangerously overpopulating the planet and conceiving children who will have parents that do not have time to raise them. Not to mention that if there were less people, there would likely be less demand for such things.
I have no idea. Generalizing all biological parents into people that wish to live through their children isn't really an answer, though. The answer likely varies. Perhaps they ignorantly believe that it's more 'natural' and that is important to them. Perhaps it was a mistake. Perhaps they, for their own reasons (which doesn't excuse the selfishness of contributing to overpopulation, I think), feel more happy watching their own child grow (which doesn't necessarily imply living through them) from birth.
Living through your children is the very reason for having your own children, by definition:
Whose definition? Yours?
it's what you do when you pass on your genes.
Genes don't determine every single aspect of one's behavior. Most of it is learned. However, just because that is what is biologically happening, that absolutely does not mean that the parents are actively and mentally trying to live through their child. They may just like children. They may want them to grow up in their own way. It depends entirely on the person, and there is no absolute truth to this matter as you attempted to let on.
If your interest was merely to pass on love and support and promote independence, but you weren't interested in creating a variant of a miniature you, you'd choose to adopt.
As I said above, genes don't entirely determine a person's behavior. I really do believe that people should adopt (not that you can't indoctrinate an adopted child), but to say that all biological parents are attempting to live through their children is quite the generalization.
The smallest risk or problem is inflated into something bigger than it need be.
"Your relationship with others" is rarely a concern when there's a power imbalance and you're the one with way more power.
I suppose it does not matter to a tyrant who does not care for others and does not care if others help them.
Depending on how you define "abuse", yes.
The taking away of their freedom, violation of their privacy, and the fact that they may change the rules to eliminate those that oppose them at any time (the elimination of privacy helps in this regard). Giving anyone this kind of power will surely not have a good result for the people being monitored.
he could have a terrible alcoholic father and realize how much he loathes selfishness and violence, becoming the kindest person you would ever meet.
It's possible if they have strong willpower, but this does not usually happen.
"don't hit your sister because you'll get a spanking" placeholder transmutes into "don't hit your sister because that is fundamentally wrong."
Neither of those are very good explanations. Neither answer the question of "why." Besides that, there are far better methods of attempting to reach an agreement with someone than physical abuse.
their judgment is stupid and will continue to be stupid long after they leave the nest.
That really depends on the person, now doesn't it?
So is paranoia, which is inefficient beyond belief. The result is that you end up wasting a great amount of time and resources on pointless endeavors whilst only succeeding in worsening your relationship with others.
This is why monitoring happens and is especially in demand by modern Western governments and the modern Western parents who both want to efficiently give the impressions of freedom.
They succeed in giving the impression of freedom in the eyes of people who I believe are imbeciles, but it is a mere illusion. If the government, who can change the rules as they please, is allowed to spy on its own citizens and treat each and every one of them as criminals, then abuse will surely follow.
That wasn't my point. Obviously, they might agree that their pointless, comfy little lifestyles are more important than things such as freedom, but that absolutely does not mean that they like what is happening. It certainly doesn't help that they aren't willing to protest, but my point was that that doesn't mean that they like that fact.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't know leaking trade secrets, like say, a crypto key, was a free speech issue.
Writing and talking are considered speech. By extension, so is communicating with people over the internet. The constitution claims to protect free speech (from the government). The government ignores this and does as they wish anyway. If anything, your "lawyer friends" were warning you that the constitution is no longer relevant.
though this would have to be separate from the gaming networks to avoid the sort of cheating that is so widespread in online PC games.
It isn't widespread if the games are securely made and properly moderated. It's just that console developers expect the console to do everything for them. But, really, playing a game in a way that other people don't like is inherently bad in the first place.
It's GeoHot's fault that their games are so insecure! Relying on someone or something else to secure your own game is completely intelligent!
Good job working in the standard anti-religion troll.
Where did I do that? I merely said that religion isn't provable (to our knowledge) and therefore shouldn't be taught as a fact.
In reality it is very possible to present only partial facts in order to force your personal beliefs one someone.
I also suggest against doing that.
Such people are still alive. They just aren't ignorant and know the consequences of mindlessly having children like an imbecile.
And are none of the "negative consequences" subjective?
Not if you're explaining to them how to live a healthy life (as most people want). I thought that much should have been obvious. If they want to kill themselves and hate life, then they are free to go do that.
but I'm really trying to show how hard it is to fulfil any role of care without allowing your beliefs to rub off on the person you're caring for.
I never claimed that none of your beliefs should rub off of them. That would be ridiculous. At the very least you should assume that your child wants to live a healthy life and teach them how to do so. That does not mean forcing them to believe pointless opinionated garbage such as religion, political beliefs, or opinions on someone else.
What's your point? You think everyone should have their kids indoctrinated by cheekyjohnson?
Where did I say that? I do, however, believe that people should relay facts that have evidence to support them (facts are not a personal belief with no evidence supporting them).
You're a bad parent if you think mere facts are all that a child needs.
And you're a bad parent if you believe that kids need to be indoctrinated with absolutely pointless personal beliefs (religion, politics, your opinion on someone). Yet, it happens all of the time.
Children imitate[1] what they observe.
But you can also teach them not to do so. Herd mentality is quite annoying. Not only that, but this doesn't mean they need to be indoctrinated.
That's the whole duty and responsibility of being a parent.
Sorry, but a parent's responsibility is not indoctrinating their child with their pointless personal beliefs. It is to take care of the child (stepping out in the road mindlessly greatly increases your chances of being hit by a car, which could potentially kill you, etc) and to relay facts to them. Unless, of course, you wish to tell me why children need to be indoctrinated to believe opinionated garbage.
I could easily make a remark about your parents failing to provide you with the knowledge to explain yourself, but that would be a mere assumption. Why do you say that?
There is nothing wrong with keyloging YOUR kid.
So you say. The laws may be conveniently written to be ageist, but that does not mean that they are somehow 'right'.
They might not need to know how is works, but it certainly helps. What you say is true, but as I said, they are not much more technologically knowledgeable than their parents.
Well, until your son Bootlick Bob gets his sister Hippie Hannah arrested by reporting her for saying something nasty and oh so easily misinterpretable about the President at the dinner table... but maybe it takes a family who lived through a civil war to observe what happens in the extreme case. (OK, the worst case is that they join opposing sides and shoot at each other, a disturbing feature of several civil wars.)
If the situation is that dire then there really isn't much to do. Those were their choices.
Anyway, your "logical argument" would rely on various premises which come down to a subjective moral code.
Oh, sorry. What I meant to say is: I would describe all of the things that I perceive to be negative consequences that could result from such decisions and explain my reasoning. If they don't accept that, then it doesn't matter.
If you want, I can argue that mental activity is just a subset of biological activity ;-).
Which is also undoubtedly affected to your surroundings and by those around you.
The extent to which genetics have an effect can be argued, but the effect is clearly not insignificant. And you are still living through your biological children by virtue of having passed around half your genes to them, even if you make no effort after conception.
I suppose so.
Of course, the average non-absent parent does so much more "living through them" than that.
I agree. I believe that there is too much worthless indoctrination being done by 'parents'.
Most people have bases for living which are far more complex and involved than, "Well, I don't want to be raped and murdered or run over by a car... apart from that, whatever happens is cool."
What?
Will you try to do anything about it?
I would attempt to dissuade them from such behaviors by forming a logical argument. Apart from that, no.
All these reasons are just nature manifesting the default desire of sexual beings to pass on their genes, which is passing on the essence of your existence to someone else.
Which has nothing to do with their personal beliefs.
Living through your children is the very reason for having your own children, by definition
When you speak like that, it seems as though that is what you meant. You have to specifically try to live through your child to have that great of an effect. Genes aren't all that is required.
When you responded to the comment a few posts above, you really made it seem to me as if you were speaking of what they were mentally trying to do, not biologically.
Really? Some people keep talking about how kids today are so good with technology, but that's not necessarily true in my experience. Most of them merely know how to access their Facebook accounts, use a proxy, and point and click. That's pretty much it. They don't know the details about anything. They might know slightly more than their parents, but that isn't saying much. Most people just seem to be technologically illiterate.
Who decides which activities you can get up to online are dangerous? Who decides which activities you get up to as a result of things you do online (e.g. meeting up) are dangerous?
I would think that the person themselves would be deciding that. If there's a 0.00001% chance of being harmed by doing something, it's probably not worth worrying about. The parents are worrying far too much over what happens to an abysmally small number of people (compared to the population at large).
But the chance of that is very small.
I agree. That's why it's a waste of time worrying so much over such things.
How? Building a few gadgets and maintaining a few services is not worth dangerously overpopulating the planet and conceiving children who will have parents that do not have time to raise them. Not to mention that if there were less people, there would likely be less demand for such things.
I have no idea. Generalizing all biological parents into people that wish to live through their children isn't really an answer, though. The answer likely varies. Perhaps they ignorantly believe that it's more 'natural' and that is important to them. Perhaps it was a mistake. Perhaps they, for their own reasons (which doesn't excuse the selfishness of contributing to overpopulation, I think), feel more happy watching their own child grow (which doesn't necessarily imply living through them) from birth.
OK, but who decides what is a danger?
Facts. If I get hit by a car, that will endanger my health.
IOW, who decides what is potentially harmful?
Again, facts. Suddenly running out in the middle of the road greatly increases your chances of being hit by a car.
what is actually harmful?
Something that harms you in a way that you cannot avoid (your health, for example).
Living through your children is the very reason for having your own children, by definition:
Whose definition? Yours?
it's what you do when you pass on your genes.
Genes don't determine every single aspect of one's behavior. Most of it is learned. However, just because that is what is biologically happening, that absolutely does not mean that the parents are actively and mentally trying to live through their child. They may just like children. They may want them to grow up in their own way. It depends entirely on the person, and there is no absolute truth to this matter as you attempted to let on.
If your interest was merely to pass on love and support and promote independence, but you weren't interested in creating a variant of a miniature you, you'd choose to adopt.
As I said above, genes don't entirely determine a person's behavior. I really do believe that people should adopt (not that you can't indoctrinate an adopted child), but to say that all biological parents are attempting to live through their children is quite the generalization.
Deployed effectively
The smallest risk or problem is inflated into something bigger than it need be.
"Your relationship with others" is rarely a concern when there's a power imbalance and you're the one with way more power.
I suppose it does not matter to a tyrant who does not care for others and does not care if others help them.
Depending on how you define "abuse", yes.
The taking away of their freedom, violation of their privacy, and the fact that they may change the rules to eliminate those that oppose them at any time (the elimination of privacy helps in this regard). Giving anyone this kind of power will surely not have a good result for the people being monitored.
That's not a very logical reason, and it certainly doesn't lessen the impact of overpopulation or the fact that they will be terrible parents.
he could have a terrible alcoholic father and realize how much he loathes selfishness and violence, becoming the kindest person you would ever meet.
It's possible if they have strong willpower, but this does not usually happen.
"don't hit your sister because you'll get a spanking" placeholder transmutes into "don't hit your sister because that is fundamentally wrong."
Neither of those are very good explanations. Neither answer the question of "why." Besides that, there are far better methods of attempting to reach an agreement with someone than physical abuse.
their judgment is stupid and will continue to be stupid long after they leave the nest.
That really depends on the person, now doesn't it?
"Trust" is an overused concept, I think.
So is paranoia, which is inefficient beyond belief. The result is that you end up wasting a great amount of time and resources on pointless endeavors whilst only succeeding in worsening your relationship with others.
This is why monitoring happens and is especially in demand by modern Western governments and the modern Western parents who both want to efficiently give the impressions of freedom.
They succeed in giving the impression of freedom in the eyes of people who I believe are imbeciles, but it is a mere illusion. If the government, who can change the rules as they please, is allowed to spy on its own citizens and treat each and every one of them as criminals, then abuse will surely follow.
That wasn't my point. Obviously, they might agree that their pointless, comfy little lifestyles are more important than things such as freedom, but that absolutely does not mean that they like what is happening. It certainly doesn't help that they aren't willing to protest, but my point was that that doesn't mean that they like that fact.