Plenty of children play violent games, yet most of them aren't anymore violent than anyone else. Funny, that.
Besides, even most children can differentiate between fiction and reality (as long as a trusted authority figure isn't lying to them, of course). And, if it so happens that they can't, the parent needn't ban the entertainment outright. Instead, they should do their jobs as a parent and educate their child so that they know it is fiction. I think this post sums that up well enough. Outright banning/censoring things to 'protect' their minds is not only pointless, but idiotic.
Granted, my young son wont be playing any of the "If you beat up the hooker, her pimp will come and you can kill him to take his money, then buy a better motor for your getaway car so you can run over people and rob banks" video games.
It appears from your posts that your school experience consisted entirely of memorizing facts and regurgitating them rather than actually learning the "how" and "why".
Well, yes, but that isn't my main point at all.
The view of the world you posit above could be made far simpler. Just don't go to school at all until you know what you are going to do.
Not quite. Schools would teach the absolute necessities until high school (perhaps even continuing to teach them, if necessary).
It is a recipe for disaster and you are advocating laziness or lunacy - your pick.--
Remember everybody, anyone who suggests that playing violent video games 18 hours a day everyday might have any negative consequences what so ever is obviously a deluded Christian fanatic who just wants to censor everything.
Oh, I'm sure it would have negative consequences. Besides lack of sleep, they probably wouldn't get much exercise or sunlight. Or even have time to work or do anything productive.
But... there is credible evidence! Some studies show a link between violent entertainment and temporary aggression! I mean, sure, 99% of the time that doesn't result in actual physical violence (except in cases of disturbed individuals), and even children aren't that insane, but still... they must be banned/censored for the children! If there's even a chance that something could cause harm, it must be immediately banned! Anyone who disagrees with me is a terrorist and loves harming children.
I'd like to think I don't, but you are falling back into the same dichotomy I just destroyed in what you're quoting.
I feel like we're not really having a dialog anymore -- you're just quoting what you think is relevant and repeating your previous argument.
Where did you come to this conclusion? I said that, as long as you're in control (and you take care not to get stressed out), I don't see a problem with it. Where did I repeat my previous arguments (besides about being able to do things without anger or sadness)? It's just that most people can't control themselves, which is why I advise against it.
The point is that a broad education provides a foundation for confronting new ideas, and new concepts.
More like it wastes time and increases the rate of failures in the school system. If people want to confront new ideas and concepts that they don't even need, then they can choose to do that.
Based on your statements, am I right to say that you think students should only be exposed to those things that will be "useful" to them?
Of course. Everything else should be optional. The people who "aren't sure" can just take all of the classes they're being forced to take now, even though, as I mentioned, that is useless since they'll just forget it all anyway. I guess that's more for people attached to the current inefficient system.
Who gets to judge what will be useful?
The person. It's based on their preferred profession.
Is a 15 year old capable of knowing which skills they will need over the next two or three decades?
I've seen plenty of college students constantly change their desired profession. It's not much different here. Besides, as I said a few posts back:
Sure, not everyone knows what job they wish to possess at that point in time, but forcing them to take useless subjects will not help this. You forget information that you don't use rather quickly, so you'll have to relearn it either way. The consequences of doing such things far outweigh the nonexistent benefits.
For that matter, do most high schoolers know exactly what they are going to do for a living?
I'm not sure of the exact number. Some do, however, and they are given no choice in the matter. If people are really so attached to being forced to learn things that they don't need that they will quickly forget, then they can just take all of the normal classes, like right now.
the subjects that form the foundation of all modern knowledge should be given the most emphasis.
That's completely useless since people that don't need it will just forget it.
I never thought I would use Chemistry in the Computer Science field, but then I started working on protein folding prediction and I was suddenly happy to have had it.
Many students are forced to take classes that they do not need (because, supposedly, they will be more prepared later on if they happen to need it). However, let's say that that is true in some cases. How many people do you believe will remember more than a few things about a subject they haven't used or remembered in years? There's not many. Many of them would have to research it again, therefore making their first effort almost useless and that time could have been spent doing more important things. It's simply not efficient.
It's just useless to a lot of people. The more time they spend on that (provided they don't need it, of course), the less time they have to learn other important things.
What are 'important subjects?' What is the criteria you are using to select them?
I already answered this. Things that nearly everyone would use. I even listed a few.
How does too much learning become a bad thing?
It's not about "too much learning," but more about wasting time on irrelevant subjects. Should we force everyone to learn about every profession in existence based on the slim chance that they would want it? No. That would be a colossal waste of time, increase the rate of failures (people not interested in certain subjects will likely do worse, and since we are talking about irrelevant subjects, there is no meaning to this), waste time learning irrelevant things that could be used learning more important things (something I've already explained). Not to mention that they will quickly forget the information that they do not use and have to relearn it anyway if they wish to change their ideal profession. Basically, everything I stated in my previous post.
Like anything the student in question isn't going to use, for instance. It really depends on the person and what they wish to be. I'm speaking of high school, of course. As for the essentials, those would be subjects such as the native language(s) of your country, basic math, fractions, history, health, etc. Things that everyone uses or should know. Most people don't need to learn about things such as chemistry, extremely advanced math, and a variety of other subjects that they are forcing upon them.
All they are doing is increasing the rate of failures, making students have less time to spend on important subjects, and further diminishing the reputation of the country's education. Sure, not everyone knows what job they wish to possess at that point in time, but forcing them to take useless subjects will not help this. You forget information that you don't use rather quickly, so you'll have to relearn it either way. The consequences of doing such things far outweigh the nonexistent benefits.
If you feel happy you do not respond logically, you see the world through pink glasses.
Which is not what I said to do. I said that, when the situation permits it, feeling happy does no harm.
Been moved by feeling is not worng.
It is when you're being irrational. Tell me, who do you believe is more likely to spout illogical arguments: someone who is perfectly calm and who can think clearly, or someone whose mind is clouded with anger and is constantly interrupting and insulting the other person? You'd likely pick the second person because instead of calming down and trying to come up with a logical argument, they let their anger control them and became irrational and impossible to deal with. This is a bad thing, and so many people fall victim to this. The same goes for sadness (and probably other emotions if you let them control your actions at the wrong times).
People don't realize how far our educational system has fallen.
Maybe it just got bloated with more garbage than there was previously, forcing students to spend more time on useless subjects and less on important ones that everybody uses.
So you're not going to try to change anything until someone else changes it first?
I didn't say that. I said, "They'll start listening once the other 99% of the population starts doing the same." Meaning, until more people start doing something, all I can do is attempt to get them to do something (or try to do things on my own, but that's unlikely to be successful).
One of my favorite phrases, with the implication that politicians are somehow not people
There is no such implication unless you're just looking for things to purposely misinterpret. Obviously that means "people not in the government" in this case.
Yeah! Because there's no middle ground, right? Either the people have all of the power, or the government has all of the power! When someone says they want a more democratic country, what they are really saying is "I love the tyranny of the majority!" It's not like checks and balances could still exist. Right?
Each side tries to do what they think is best for America
I believe you mean themselves.
promoting human rights
Taking away freedom and privacy in exchange for a false sense of security, you mean.
When was the last time you complained to your representatives about defense spending?
They'll start listening once the other 99% of the population starts doing the same. That said, they aren't really our "representatives" at all. People who are so easily bought by corporations do not deserve such a title.
Participate in it.
I'd love to, but a few changes need to be made first to reduce corruptions. More power to the people, for one.
The only way there could be would be if whoever in the supply chain is responsible for this leak were to say, trip up and fall out of a third floor window into a skip full of broken glass and dogshit.
A fitting punishment for someone who stole nonexistent profit.
Seriously? I'm not. I don't like nanny states very much.
do you really want to see 200 million people going through withdrawl by banning it again?
I don't see drug users doing that, either.
a huge majority of the population don't have the self control needed to quit an addicted substance.
Too bad for them, then. I don't want to waste time, resources, and money attempting to save people who are essentially only hurting themselves (and occasionally, due to their own actions, others).
Do you really want roads full of crack heads?
Making something legal won't cause everyone to abuse it. Just like everyone isn't constantly drunk (not even a majority), everyone likely wouldn't be constantly abusing crack.
Do you want to die because a stoner's reaction was so slowed down that he didn't actually press the break and plowed through an intersection?
I've never heard of a car accident caused specifically by marijuana. However, there is a solution for this: don't allow people to drive while under the influence (just like we do with alcohol). Sure, some people will still do it, but that's simply the best solution.
Those who do drugs in anyform may be members of society but they really aren't fully functional members.
Wow. That is quite the stereotypical statement. I guess that means that my hard working family members who use marijuana aren't fully functional, despite paying their bills and taxes and receiving no sort of government funding, huh? No, someone can use drugs but still be considered a fully functional member of society. Enough with the assumptions and generalizations.
Just look at Charlie Sheen.
One example isn't going to prove that everyone who uses drugs isn't a fully functional member of society. It's going to take... everyone who uses drugs.
90% of American's thinks that's a good thing. Apparently you do too.
Straw man argument. I never said anything of the sort. I just said that we shouldn't be wasting time, money, and resources attempting (and failing) to stop people from hurting themselves (they will do that no matter what) whilst also helping fund criminals.
Wait. Are you actually telling me that a degree doesn't instantly mean that someone knows what they're doing and that perhaps testing these people to make sure they know what they're doing may be a good solution? Unthinkable!
On the flip side, one could argue that if people constantly protested every stupid and pointless law by breaking them, it would result in enough people breaking laws that arereasonable to cause problems for society.
Then it wouldn't really be civil disobedience, now would it (at least not in the eyes of the majority)? Every unjust law should eventually be challenged.
More to the point, if civil disobedience were common, its effectiveness would diminish, just as the effectiveness of street protests in the U.S. has diminished significantly.
How so? People would still see that unjust laws are being challenged all the same.
Were people not breaking the laws left and right, the drug cartels would not have funding, and none of this would be an issue.
And marijuana would still be illegal all the while they try to make claims that since no one breaks the law, that must mean they agree with it.
Banning pot is more like banning starchy vegetables. Sure, you'll make a lot of people mad when they can't buy French fries, but at least you're improving health instead of diminishing it.
It's like protecting people from themselves (while allowing criminals who likely do worse things to be funded through the illegal selling of drugs, of course) and putting people who wouldn't hurt a fly in jail. So, when are those cigarette and alcohol bans going take place? Most forms of entertainment cause people to be lazy. Those should be banned, too. We don't need them, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
"Except in cases of disturbed individuals" isn't much of a limitation really. there are a lot of people out there who count as disturbed (or worse).
By "a lot," do you mean "an abysmally small portion of the population"?
and doubtless would support a total ban.
I'd expect nothing less from illogical humans.
1% of video game uses that trigger temporary aggression result in actual physical violence
Among people who would probably go insane given the smallest push. Again, it isn't worth worrying about. Your last statement is correct.
If a bank used an armored car made of cardboard to transport money, would you blame the inevitable robbers, or the bank?
Both.
Ah, I see. It seems I misinterpreted you, then. Though, most children can still tell the difference between fiction and reality.
Plenty of children play violent games, yet most of them aren't anymore violent than anyone else. Funny, that.
Besides, even most children can differentiate between fiction and reality (as long as a trusted authority figure isn't lying to them, of course). And, if it so happens that they can't, the parent needn't ban the entertainment outright. Instead, they should do their jobs as a parent and educate their child so that they know it is fiction. I think this post sums that up well enough. Outright banning/censoring things to 'protect' their minds is not only pointless, but idiotic.
Children getting their hands on such material is always a concern, and rightly so
Why?
Granted, my young son wont be playing any of the "If you beat up the hooker, her pimp will come and you can kill him to take his money, then buy a better motor for your getaway car so you can run over people and rob banks" video games.
Why?
It appears from your posts that your school experience consisted entirely of memorizing facts and regurgitating them rather than actually learning the "how" and "why".
Well, yes, but that isn't my main point at all.
The view of the world you posit above could be made far simpler. Just don't go to school at all until you know what you are going to do.
Not quite. Schools would teach the absolute necessities until high school (perhaps even continuing to teach them, if necessary).
It is a recipe for disaster and you are advocating laziness or lunacy - your pick.--
Neither. I advocate efficiency.
Remember everybody, anyone who suggests that playing violent video games 18 hours a day everyday might have any negative consequences what so ever is obviously a deluded Christian fanatic who just wants to censor everything.
Oh, I'm sure it would have negative consequences. Besides lack of sleep, they probably wouldn't get much exercise or sunlight. Or even have time to work or do anything productive.
But... there is credible evidence! Some studies show a link between violent entertainment and temporary aggression! I mean, sure, 99% of the time that doesn't result in actual physical violence (except in cases of disturbed individuals), and even children aren't that insane, but still... they must be banned/censored for the children! If there's even a chance that something could cause harm, it must be immediately banned! Anyone who disagrees with me is a terrorist and loves harming children.
I'd like to think I don't, but you are falling back into the same dichotomy I just destroyed in what you're quoting.
I feel like we're not really having a dialog anymore -- you're just quoting what you think is relevant and repeating your previous argument.
Where did you come to this conclusion? I said that, as long as you're in control (and you take care not to get stressed out), I don't see a problem with it. Where did I repeat my previous arguments (besides about being able to do things without anger or sadness)? It's just that most people can't control themselves, which is why I advise against it.
The point is that a broad education provides a foundation for confronting new ideas, and new concepts.
More like it wastes time and increases the rate of failures in the school system. If people want to confront new ideas and concepts that they don't even need, then they can choose to do that.
Based on your statements, am I right to say that you think students should only be exposed to those things that will be "useful" to them?
Of course. Everything else should be optional. The people who "aren't sure" can just take all of the classes they're being forced to take now, even though, as I mentioned, that is useless since they'll just forget it all anyway. I guess that's more for people attached to the current inefficient system.
Who gets to judge what will be useful?
The person. It's based on their preferred profession.
Is a 15 year old capable of knowing which skills they will need over the next two or three decades?
I've seen plenty of college students constantly change their desired profession. It's not much different here. Besides, as I said a few posts back:
Sure, not everyone knows what job they wish to possess at that point in time, but forcing them to take useless subjects will not help this. You forget information that you don't use rather quickly, so you'll have to relearn it either way. The consequences of doing such things far outweigh the nonexistent benefits.
For that matter, do most high schoolers know exactly what they are going to do for a living?
I'm not sure of the exact number. Some do, however, and they are given no choice in the matter. If people are really so attached to being forced to learn things that they don't need that they will quickly forget, then they can just take all of the normal classes, like right now.
the subjects that form the foundation of all modern knowledge should be given the most emphasis.
That's completely useless since people that don't need it will just forget it.
I never thought I would use Chemistry in the Computer Science field, but then I started working on protein folding prediction and I was suddenly happy to have had it.
Many students are forced to take classes that they do not need (because, supposedly, they will be more prepared later on if they happen to need it). However, let's say that that is true in some cases. How many people do you believe will remember more than a few things about a subject they haven't used or remembered in years? There's not many. Many of them would have to research it again, therefore making their first effort almost useless and that time could have been spent doing more important things. It's simply not efficient.
Why is Chemistry too much information?
It's just useless to a lot of people. The more time they spend on that (provided they don't need it, of course), the less time they have to learn other important things.
What are 'important subjects?' What is the criteria you are using to select them?
I already answered this. Things that nearly everyone would use. I even listed a few.
How does too much learning become a bad thing?
It's not about "too much learning," but more about wasting time on irrelevant subjects. Should we force everyone to learn about every profession in existence based on the slim chance that they would want it? No. That would be a colossal waste of time, increase the rate of failures (people not interested in certain subjects will likely do worse, and since we are talking about irrelevant subjects, there is no meaning to this), waste time learning irrelevant things that could be used learning more important things (something I've already explained). Not to mention that they will quickly forget the information that they do not use and have to relearn it anyway if they wish to change their ideal profession. Basically, everything I stated in my previous post.
Like anything the student in question isn't going to use, for instance. It really depends on the person and what they wish to be. I'm speaking of high school, of course. As for the essentials, those would be subjects such as the native language(s) of your country, basic math, fractions, history, health, etc. Things that everyone uses or should know. Most people don't need to learn about things such as chemistry, extremely advanced math, and a variety of other subjects that they are forcing upon them.
All they are doing is increasing the rate of failures, making students have less time to spend on important subjects, and further diminishing the reputation of the country's education. Sure, not everyone knows what job they wish to possess at that point in time, but forcing them to take useless subjects will not help this. You forget information that you don't use rather quickly, so you'll have to relearn it either way. The consequences of doing such things far outweigh the nonexistent benefits.
"The clam one"?
It just prove your bias toward some type of emotion.
Well, of course. Anger and sadness can lead to stress, just like relying on any emotion can lead to irrationality. Neither are wise decisions.
It lead to the support of a relaxed, psychopath, torturer and the condemnation of it's victim that is overwhelmed by his pain.
What?
What i am trying to explain is that you are never fully rational.
I never claimed that we were, either. I just said you should try to be rational to the best of your ability.
You're probably trolling at this point, but it doesn't matter.
If you feel happy you do not respond logically, you see the world through pink glasses.
Which is not what I said to do. I said that, when the situation permits it, feeling happy does no harm.
Been moved by feeling is not worng.
It is when you're being irrational. Tell me, who do you believe is more likely to spout illogical arguments: someone who is perfectly calm and who can think clearly, or someone whose mind is clouded with anger and is constantly interrupting and insulting the other person? You'd likely pick the second person because instead of calming down and trying to come up with a logical argument, they let their anger control them and became irrational and impossible to deal with. This is a bad thing, and so many people fall victim to this. The same goes for sadness (and probably other emotions if you let them control your actions at the wrong times).
People don't realize how far our educational system has fallen.
Maybe it just got bloated with more garbage than there was previously, forcing students to spend more time on useless subjects and less on important ones that everybody uses.
So you're not going to try to change anything until someone else changes it first?
I didn't say that. I said, "They'll start listening once the other 99% of the population starts doing the same." Meaning, until more people start doing something, all I can do is attempt to get them to do something (or try to do things on my own, but that's unlikely to be successful).
One of my favorite phrases, with the implication that politicians are somehow not people
There is no such implication unless you're just looking for things to purposely misinterpret. Obviously that means "people not in the government" in this case.
Yeah! Because there's no middle ground, right? Either the people have all of the power, or the government has all of the power! When someone says they want a more democratic country, what they are really saying is "I love the tyranny of the majority!" It's not like checks and balances could still exist. Right?
Each side tries to do what they think is best for America
I believe you mean themselves.
promoting human rights
Taking away freedom and privacy in exchange for a false sense of security, you mean.
When was the last time you complained to your representatives about defense spending?
They'll start listening once the other 99% of the population starts doing the same. That said, they aren't really our "representatives" at all. People who are so easily bought by corporations do not deserve such a title.
Participate in it.
I'd love to, but a few changes need to be made first to reduce corruptions. More power to the people, for one.
The only way there could be would be if whoever in the supply chain is responsible for this leak were to say, trip up and fall out of a third floor window into a skip full of broken glass and dogshit.
A fitting punishment for someone who stole nonexistent profit.
I am all for banning alcohol
Seriously? I'm not. I don't like nanny states very much.
do you really want to see 200 million people going through withdrawl by banning it again?
I don't see drug users doing that, either.
a huge majority of the population don't have the self control needed to quit an addicted substance.
Too bad for them, then. I don't want to waste time, resources, and money attempting to save people who are essentially only hurting themselves (and occasionally, due to their own actions, others).
Do you really want roads full of crack heads?
Making something legal won't cause everyone to abuse it. Just like everyone isn't constantly drunk (not even a majority), everyone likely wouldn't be constantly abusing crack.
Do you want to die because a stoner's reaction was so slowed down that he didn't actually press the break and plowed through an intersection?
I've never heard of a car accident caused specifically by marijuana. However, there is a solution for this: don't allow people to drive while under the influence (just like we do with alcohol). Sure, some people will still do it, but that's simply the best solution.
Those who do drugs in anyform may be members of society but they really aren't fully functional members.
Wow. That is quite the stereotypical statement. I guess that means that my hard working family members who use marijuana aren't fully functional, despite paying their bills and taxes and receiving no sort of government funding, huh? No, someone can use drugs but still be considered a fully functional member of society. Enough with the assumptions and generalizations.
Just look at Charlie Sheen.
One example isn't going to prove that everyone who uses drugs isn't a fully functional member of society. It's going to take... everyone who uses drugs.
90% of American's thinks that's a good thing. Apparently you do too.
Straw man argument. I never said anything of the sort. I just said that we shouldn't be wasting time, money, and resources attempting (and failing) to stop people from hurting themselves (they will do that no matter what) whilst also helping fund criminals.
Facts are also not a good way to give children an incentive to follow your lead.
Teaching them facts, however, is important.
When has "because I said so!" ever worked on you?
It hasn't. Begging the question shouldn't work on anyone.
Wait. Are you actually telling me that a degree doesn't instantly mean that someone knows what they're doing and that perhaps testing these people to make sure they know what they're doing may be a good solution? Unthinkable!
On the flip side, one could argue that if people constantly protested every stupid and pointless law by breaking them, it would result in enough people breaking laws that arereasonable to cause problems for society.
Then it wouldn't really be civil disobedience, now would it (at least not in the eyes of the majority)? Every unjust law should eventually be challenged.
More to the point, if civil disobedience were common, its effectiveness would diminish, just as the effectiveness of street protests in the U.S. has diminished significantly.
How so? People would still see that unjust laws are being challenged all the same.
Were people not breaking the laws left and right, the drug cartels would not have funding, and none of this would be an issue.
And marijuana would still be illegal all the while they try to make claims that since no one breaks the law, that must mean they agree with it.
Banning pot is more like banning starchy vegetables. Sure, you'll make a lot of people mad when they can't buy French fries, but at least you're improving health instead of diminishing it.
It's like protecting people from themselves (while allowing criminals who likely do worse things to be funded through the illegal selling of drugs, of course) and putting people who wouldn't hurt a fly in jail. So, when are those cigarette and alcohol bans going take place? Most forms of entertainment cause people to be lazy. Those should be banned, too. We don't need them, after all.