This kid is either going to be in jail or forced by the courts to wear a tracking device for most of his life.
I see that you can peer into the future. Impressive! Shall we imprison every individual who looks like they might be a future murderer? If he does, then that is his choice. No need for a nanny state.
He might as well get used to it.
Because getting people used to their rights being violated is a good thing, right?
Kids who are on the slippery slope toward delinquency need to be shown what its like to be punished
Yeah! The same goes for potential criminals and everyone else. Honestly, I think people need mandatory security cameras installed inside of their homes. That way, crime will surely be reduced!
It isn't theft. It's copying (or copyright infringement, depending on the situation). He just used the wrong term for it. It does, however, endanger someone's privacy.
That last one would be the one that would upset many politicians and large companies.
No, it would violate an individual's right to free speech. Because money is speech (somehow)! Sure, it causes so many problems and the average person has no chance against people with seemingly unlimited supplies of money (outside of unrealistic boycotting, which may or may not work), but it's speech somehow, and therefore we can't make that a crime!
Please! Any information the government deems as a secret is no longer considered free speech. Sure, that doesn't make sense at all but it's completely true!
I've seen some of my favorite games bashed by almost every review I saw. Just because a few people say it is bad, that doesn't mean you'll think it's bad.
justify
I don't think that there's really a need to do this, to be honest. Just as 'good' is subjective, so is 'bad'. The only people I think are idiots are people who say that copyright infringement is wrong and yet continue to infringe upon copyright just so they can have entertainment which they don't even need.
What are you, eleven?
I don't think that there's really a need for ad hominems or assumptions, to be honest.
but if they don't like the price that a chef or a brewer or a parking lot operator asks for what they do, we should continue to hold people accountable for ripping them off when the only excuse is
But, in those cases, the person's time/money is being used, and they are directly harmed. Not so in the case of copyright infringement (you could argue potential profit since I don't feel like arguing about that right now, but if they have no money to begin with, there was nothing to be had).
Why would would want to waste your time watching something which, according to you, is only $5 worth of entertainment?
Or perhaps they just want to save money? Perhaps people just like paying less because that means that they have more money to spend on other, more important, things? No! Impossible! Clearly he doesn't like the entertainment! If you're not willing to pay obscene amounts of money for something, it clearly means you don't like it!
angry sounding, defensive opinion from someone who likes to pirate entertainment.
I don't see why he would even bother posting his comment for this reason considering the fact that most 'pirates' don't even do the things mentioned in the article.
Quite a lot of parents do not know best, yes, but that doesn't warrant a nanny state, and it certainly doesn't warrant bans/censorship because of what a few people do.
It's not sensible, intelligent, well-educated slashdot-reading parents that are the problem.
I'm sure those are few in number. Much like children who are clinically insane.
it does not resolve the issue of parent's who dump the children in front of electronic babysitter's only to have them run amok once their thought processes and judgements have been distorted.
Most of the time that doesn't happen, anyway, but people who don't have time to be parents shouldn't be having kids. They do, yes, but don't blame entertainment for human stupidity.
now that result's in innocent victims.
Sure. Sometimes. There are absolutely no perfect solutions. Banning/censoring entertainment for children because of what a small number of people do isn't an ideal solution, either. There'll be victims, but a few people shouldn't be able to harm the population at large due to their stupid behavior.
It is about protecting everyone else from 'impressionable' children who go on to become violent offenders.
Almost never happens. But, hey, as I said above, there are no perfect solutions. Censoring everything for the population at large (even just children) is so idiotic and irresponsible that I can't believe anyone supports such idiocy.
Damn, those percentages are a bitch, even 1 in 10,000 children at risk means, yumpin yiminy, 30,700 (US) victims of those violent children.
I'd bet that most of said children wouldn't even hurt others in the first place. But, as I said above, it doesn't even matter.
does not help them understand the reality and consequences of violence.
No, but it does help them understand that the fictional entertainment isn't real, which is a separate job from teaching them that bad things happen in the world.
At what age do you think this is true then? In my experience, most children under about eight aren't entirely sure of the difference.
In your experience, yes. I could tell the difference when I was five. And it's even easier if your parental figures are doing their job (which doesn't involve being a paranoid idiot that buys into propaganda and bans/censors everything) and tell children who aren't certain that it is fiction. Of course, I already explained that in my other reply.
Children, especially young children, do not have the same ability as adults to separate fact and fiction.
Some do, some don't. Hence, the parents.
I watched violent movies when I was a child. I knew they weren't real. Not only that, but I wasn't afraid of them, either. What is 'inappropriate' for some isn't inappropriate to others. Judge based on the person, not based on their age. That's just stereotypical and idiotic. You won't know until you try.
In short: some will like it, some won't. Don't pretend to know the future.
Because non-psychotic parents don't generally consider swamping kids with inappropriate material is the best way to educate and develop their minds and characters.
Inappropriate how? And, it isn't used to educate them. No one ever claimed that. Not once. It's used for entertainment purposes. I'd also like to say that "non-psychotic parents" don't keep their children in little bubbles all of their lives, but that would mean I would be calling quite a few people psychotic.
Most abusive family relationships involve children having inappropriate access to violent films, porn and so on. Abusers know that desensitizing children helps to make abuse easier.
Ah, I see. So if an abysmally small portion of the population abuses something, it's wrong. Yes, there are people like that. But most people aren't like that. Keeping children in little bubbles isn't going to protect them, and they certainly won't turn into murders. You can claim that they would be 'desensitized' all you like, but most people that are subjected to violent entertainment (read: most of the population at large) would still react normally if put in a situation that involved murder, rape, etc. Especially if it involved them. Children are easy to abuse because it's typically a trusted authority figure abusing them (not to mention that they are easily frightened).
Slashdot Mirror
This kid is either going to be in jail or forced by the courts to wear a tracking device for most of his life.
I see that you can peer into the future. Impressive! Shall we imprison every individual who looks like they might be a future murderer? If he does, then that is his choice. No need for a nanny state.
He might as well get used to it.
Because getting people used to their rights being violated is a good thing, right?
Kids who are on the slippery slope toward delinquency need to be shown what its like to be punished
Yeah! The same goes for potential criminals and everyone else. Honestly, I think people need mandatory security cameras installed inside of their homes. That way, crime will surely be reduced!
(a way out of school)
It's called homeschooling.
How does that apply to this situation?
It isn't theft. It's copying (or copyright infringement, depending on the situation). He just used the wrong term for it. It does, however, endanger someone's privacy.
So what?
You may not care, but other people do.
The government already has my SSN, bank account numbers and credit card numbers.
If the situation is bad, you shouldn't make it worse. Some people merely like being secure.
If I must purchase something, I try to purchase it from the least evil company. If there's no other options, and I really need something, that is.
It's truly horrible to have others playing games in ways that you don't like.
The act of giving money can be considered speech
It can? I would call that an action.
The problem is not that money isn't speech -- of course it is
How?
That last one would be the one that would upset many politicians and large companies.
No, it would violate an individual's right to free speech. Because money is speech (somehow)! Sure, it causes so many problems and the average person has no chance against people with seemingly unlimited supplies of money (outside of unrealistic boycotting, which may or may not work), but it's speech somehow, and therefore we can't make that a crime!
Please! Any information the government deems as a secret is no longer considered free speech. Sure, that doesn't make sense at all but it's completely true!
Who cares about the constitution? Well, you and I likely do, but the government as of late doesn't seem to.
I choose to boycott.
If you're not going to give them your money anyway, what's the difference (except that downloading would provide more entertainment, of course)?
I've seen some of my favorite games bashed by almost every review I saw. Just because a few people say it is bad, that doesn't mean you'll think it's bad.
justify
I don't think that there's really a need to do this, to be honest. Just as 'good' is subjective, so is 'bad'. The only people I think are idiots are people who say that copyright infringement is wrong and yet continue to infringe upon copyright just so they can have entertainment which they don't even need.
What are you, eleven?
I don't think that there's really a need for ad hominems or assumptions, to be honest.
but if they don't like the price that a chef or a brewer or a parking lot operator asks for what they do, we should continue to hold people accountable for ripping them off when the only excuse is
But, in those cases, the person's time/money is being used, and they are directly harmed. Not so in the case of copyright infringement (you could argue potential profit since I don't feel like arguing about that right now, but if they have no money to begin with, there was nothing to be had).
morally
Subjective.
Why would would want to waste your time watching something which, according to you, is only $5 worth of entertainment?
Or perhaps they just want to save money? Perhaps people just like paying less because that means that they have more money to spend on other, more important, things? No! Impossible! Clearly he doesn't like the entertainment! If you're not willing to pay obscene amounts of money for something, it clearly means you don't like it!
angry sounding, defensive opinion from someone who likes to pirate entertainment.
I don't see why he would even bother posting his comment for this reason considering the fact that most 'pirates' don't even do the things mentioned in the article.
The problem is, we have elected the wolves.
That's a republic for you! This is exactly what you get when you give too much power to either side. Corruption.
Not surprised at all. We have to protect the children, after all!
Quite a lot of parents do not know best, yes, but that doesn't warrant a nanny state, and it certainly doesn't warrant bans/censorship because of what a few people do.
It's not sensible, intelligent, well-educated slashdot-reading parents that are the problem.
I'm sure those are few in number. Much like children who are clinically insane.
it does not resolve the issue of parent's who dump the children in front of electronic babysitter's only to have them run amok once their thought processes and judgements have been distorted.
Most of the time that doesn't happen, anyway, but people who don't have time to be parents shouldn't be having kids. They do, yes, but don't blame entertainment for human stupidity.
now that result's in innocent victims.
Sure. Sometimes. There are absolutely no perfect solutions. Banning/censoring entertainment for children because of what a small number of people do isn't an ideal solution, either. There'll be victims, but a few people shouldn't be able to harm the population at large due to their stupid behavior.
It is about protecting everyone else from 'impressionable' children who go on to become violent offenders.
Almost never happens. But, hey, as I said above, there are no perfect solutions. Censoring everything for the population at large (even just children) is so idiotic and irresponsible that I can't believe anyone supports such idiocy.
Damn, those percentages are a bitch, even 1 in 10,000 children at risk means, yumpin yiminy, 30,700 (US) victims of those violent children.
I'd bet that most of said children wouldn't even hurt others in the first place. But, as I said above, it doesn't even matter.
does not help them understand the reality and consequences of violence.
No, but it does help them understand that the fictional entertainment isn't real, which is a separate job from teaching them that bad things happen in the world.
At what age do you think this is true then? In my experience, most children under about eight aren't entirely sure of the difference.
In your experience, yes. I could tell the difference when I was five. And it's even easier if your parental figures are doing their job (which doesn't involve being a paranoid idiot that buys into propaganda and bans/censors everything) and tell children who aren't certain that it is fiction. Of course, I already explained that in my other reply.
Children, especially young children, do not have the same ability as adults to separate fact and fiction.
Some do, some don't. Hence, the parents.
I watched violent movies when I was a child. I knew they weren't real. Not only that, but I wasn't afraid of them, either. What is 'inappropriate' for some isn't inappropriate to others. Judge based on the person, not based on their age. That's just stereotypical and idiotic. You won't know until you try.
In short: some will like it, some won't. Don't pretend to know the future.
Because non-psychotic parents don't generally consider swamping kids with inappropriate material is the best way to educate and develop their minds and characters.
Inappropriate how? And, it isn't used to educate them. No one ever claimed that. Not once. It's used for entertainment purposes. I'd also like to say that "non-psychotic parents" don't keep their children in little bubbles all of their lives, but that would mean I would be calling quite a few people psychotic.
Most abusive family relationships involve children having inappropriate access to violent films, porn and so on. Abusers know that desensitizing children helps to make abuse easier.
Ah, I see. So if an abysmally small portion of the population abuses something, it's wrong. Yes, there are people like that. But most people aren't like that. Keeping children in little bubbles isn't going to protect them, and they certainly won't turn into murders. You can claim that they would be 'desensitized' all you like, but most people that are subjected to violent entertainment (read: most of the population at large) would still react normally if put in a situation that involved murder, rape, etc. Especially if it involved them. Children are easy to abuse because it's typically a trusted authority figure abusing them (not to mention that they are easily frightened).