I don't hate teenagers. I hate humans that are arrogant, naive, and ignorant. You might say "many teenagers are that way," but in my experience, I've found that the average member of society has all three of those traits, not just teenagers. However, I'd never even think about becoming an educator (due to how badly the 'educational' system is handled as of now).
They are? What about home school? Alright, that's not always possible. But there's one thing that kids aren't forced to do: be offended by words. If they are, then that is ultimately their own fault.
If the teacher insults him, he can't even shoot back because that would jeopardize his grades which could have severe repercussions for his future career.
I do disagree with this, though. A teacher found failing students because of their opinions really should be fired.
You may not feel it's appropriate, but this is the reality of the world we live in. The school could be facing lawsuits like this, whether the plaintiffs are just trying to make a buck, or if they feel it's the only way to make sure it doesn't happen again, they are still open to liability issues surrounding this.
I know it's a reality, but that doesn't make it logical.
But words are how we communicate, they are how we express our thoughts and feelings. They are how we transmit facts and opinions, so the "Just words" argument really doesn't work.
It works just fine. I think about it like this: do not let yourself be controlled by negative emotions. Positive ones are okay.
Never once did I say "ignore facts and opinions" or anything of the sort. I said to not let yourself be offended (and thereby be controlled by negative emotions) by mere words. Respond to things logically, not emotionally.
So it's more than just words
By definition, it isn't.
Even for people that will just "shrug it off," there's still damage that hits in ways we don't always see for a long time.
Fine. By "shrug it off," I meant to not let yourself get offended in the first place. They absolutely are just words, and there is no need to be offended by them. I don't care if it was a speech by Hitler, or by this teacher. Actually, getting angry or sad doesn't help any situation. As I said above, respond logically, not emotionally.
Frankly though, if i were a school administrator, trying to keep students in school, or attract more students to the school, i would argue that she is damaging the public image of the institution and thus financially harming it.
Couldn't the employer he was talking about in his post claim the exact same thing?
That makes complete sense. Minors can say whatever they like, but not an adult! The adult might hurt some feels of people too weak-minded to understand that they don't have to be offended by mere words.
If a minor did the same thing, why shouldn't they be held to the same standard (not that I believe either should be fired/suspended)? What is the logical reason for this?
But... that would mean that kids actually need to take a step out of their bubbles that society desperately wants to keep them in! Unacceptable! Censor violent media for children, fire teachers who state their opinions about their students, and blame everything but the child for their behavior! Learning that you don't have to be offended by mere words is just... unacceptable!
1) This opens the school up for a big "emotional distress" lawsuit, and
Oh, no! Someone said mean words to me! For some reason, I absolutely must get offended by this!
Even for teens, teachers are still enough of an authority that for a student to realize this is being said about them in a very public forum (not just the teacher's lounge, for example) could have repercussions for decades.
Decades? No, even for a moment? Why are some people so afraid of words? If there's anything people need to be taught, it's that you do not need to be offended by mere words, and indeed, it is far more efficient not to be. If you made a mistake, don't make the same one again. If you didn't, shrug it off. Whining about things (especially words) and getting offended doesn't change anything.
But... that's impossible! Video games are more violent than ever! Could it be that... video games don't cause violence in anyone but disturbed individuals? No, no! That would make too much sense. To your post, I say: correlation does not equal causation! Yeah. That'll show you.
If you put children into this world, it is YOUR duty to educate them, to give them values and to teach them behaviour.
Sadly, many parents seem to think that good parenting means to force pointless personal beliefs (religious beliefs, political beliefs, blatant propaganda, etc) down their children's throats. It's startling how facts rarely come into play.
Because they don't hurt them. Even minors can tell the difference between fiction and reality. Imagine the state that the population would be in if normal people couldn't even differentiate between fiction and reality and if fiction truly could make people violent. There would be far, far more violence than there is now. Yet, there isn't. Only a small minority of the population is violent, and yet most people are subjected to violent media. Funny, that.
We have R and NC-17 movies that as a society we have agreed that minors should not be allowed to see.
As a society? Who is that? I disagree completely. Unless you have an actual reason to keep these things from them (and so far, no one does), then just let them watch/play the media.
But we have to be honest that the studies, show there is a correlation between violent media and increased aggression.
No, they absolutely do not. The closest I have ever seen a study get to correlating violence with violent media is correlating temporary violent thoughts with violent media. 99% of the time, those thoughts do not translate into actual physical violence except in the case of an already disturbed individual (I would guess).
However, the 12-17 YOs who are the real target of this genre don't have those coping mechanisms (they haven't finished forming in the brain).
Who are you even talking about? This is ridiculous. A majority of minors aren't even violent, yet many of them are subjected to violent media. Again, that's funny.
they haven't finished forming in the brain
Are you serious? They might be going through some changes, but they are not so idiotic as to not be able to differentiate between fiction and reality.
I certainly don't care if some mom buys their child violent video games. It won't hurt them in the least, anyway (unless they are already insane, but such people make up an abysmally small percentage of the population).
I know know that you are totally insane or just a just a troll.
Another ad hominem, but this time coupled with "all of my opponents are completely wrong and insane!" Of course you think I'm wrong. If you didn't, we wouldn't be having this argument. What good does it do to state that (besides attempting to provoke me)?
Beyond reason or logic and willing to live in the abstract with any grasp of practicality.
Another ad hominem. And one without explanation, at that. I can't possibly respond to you properly if I do not know your reasoning. I could easily just discount you as "insane" or call you a troll because you believe that the government should have those powers, but that would be completely useless. If you're not going to at least explain your reasoning, then don't post at all.
Compared to that, the power to prevent me from watching Doctor Who a month before it airs in North America seems pretty minor.
Ah, I see. He has worse powers so that makes these powers okay for him to have. Is that it? Because that makes no sense. If he had the power to call for the assassination of US citizens without any due process, that does not mean that it's okay just because he has control over 5,000 nuclear warheads or can do worse things.
I completely disagree with the use of drafts. I am not a slave of the government just because I live in this country.
limiting travel outside the country
Again, I completely disagree. This is like assuming that everyone is a criminal.
Wow so you really think that it would have been wrong for the US government to open a nice think envelope or big package addressed to and address in Berlin in 1943? Really? Or to tap a phone call being made to Germany? Or even just cut off communications?
Yes. There is no excuse for infringing upon someone's rights.
You sir are a wack attack and can not be reached with reason or example.
That's a nice ad hominem, but what purpose did it serve?
Please just keep shaking in fear controlled by those that use that fear. You are well in their power.
"Questioning those in power" does not equate to "shaking in fear controlled by those that use that fear."
Have extreme fear over corner cases that don't matter is insane.
I wouldn't call the government's ability to restrict free speech a "corner case." Whether that be restricting letters, phone calls, or even the internet, that is not a power that the government should have under any circumstances. I'll take my chances while having those freedoms over giving such powers to an abusive government.
So far the record of abuse of that power over the last 80 or so years has been zero.
Really? I consider the mere fact that they use the power as abuse because it is a power that they should not have. And even if they technically haven't abused it by your terms yet, that doesn't mean they won't.
Just as people feel that some forces are using exaggerated fear of terrorism as a tool control so are some other groups are using unfounded fear of the government to control you.
If you aren't afraid of your government then you aren't a very good citizen. Always, always assume that your government is composed of money-grubbing, corrupt ignoramuses who could care less about you. It's paranoid, yes, but trusting them will bring far worse results (as we see now). Lobbying, allowing torture, pointless wars, secrecy, etc. Basically, always question the government and its decisions.
I mean really go back to 1943 and do you a think that a letter dropped in the mail box in the US addressed to Germany should have just been delivered unopened or at all?
Sure. You do not truly have freedom if your government can take it from you on a whim (even if they declare an 'emergency').
I hate to ask you this but just what power do you think the government wouldn't have in an all out war situation?
Fighting for 'freedom' is sort of pointless when the government is able to take it away when it pleases. I don't care if there is an 'emergency'. The government should never have such powers. They can and will abuse them.
Of course! He endangered national security, was a terrorist, and failed to think of the children! How could you seemingly support such a person?
So no, that right isn't really respected.
Well, there's a good excuse for that! In some places, people have it far worse than us. Therefore, as long as we aren't as bad off as them, our government should be able to abuse us as they please. Don't you dare complain about this...
If any kill switch is invoked it would tend to be a boarder kill switch.
Phew! That makes me feel better knowing that the government only has the power to cut us off from the rest of the world internet-wise. That power is necessary and they should totally have it.
Yeah, then try going up to the next woman, and forcing her to sit in a chair in your house until you tell her she can get up.
Children are under no obligation to do this, either. You have no choice in the matter after you get hit.
Punishment is about associating bad behavior with discomfort.
What a terrible method, then. I remember being hit as a child. All it did was instill within me the sense that people who do something that I dislike should be harmed, as well as extreme amounts of anger and hatred.
You claim that causing physical discomfort for a long term benefit is bad, and then argue for vaccination.
The difference being that one is a (terrible and ineffective) method for bad parents to control their children, and the other one is an effective method of preventing disease, not a method of control. Oh, and explaining things logically can also help a great deal.
If you aren't patient, then you really shouldn't be a parent.
So, you go ahead and keep feeling good about the mental abuse you put your children through.
Thank you for demonstrating why government should not interfere with parental decisions. YOU would have half of America's parents arrested because that's how many have spanked their children.
Ah, I see. So if a large majority of the population did something like, say, murdered people, they shouldn't be locked away (or at least punished) simply because a lot of people are doing it?
Kids go silent. Learning gets done.
How incredibly naive. When I was a child, I was hit, and the only thing I learned from it was "hitting someone is okay if they do something that you do not like." I also felt hatred and anger and at one time even resorted to hitting someone else purely because of this. No, this is merely the action of a bad parent. If you feel you must resort to this, try another method.
but I have NEVER seen a virus-like program load up its own bittorrent engine and start seeding the blu-ray of avatar or download child porn.
That doesn't mean that it couldn't be done. Innocent until/unless proven guilty should always be applied, civil suit or not. Otherwise you will run a far greater risk of innocent people being caught in the crossfire, which is far worse than 'bad' people getting away with it. Either prove it or get out.
Unfortunately, these are civil issues, not criminal issues, so the ideas of "innocent until proven guilty", "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", "you are entitled to an attorney, and if you can not afford one, one will be appointed to you" and even "you have the right to remain silent" do not apply.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't hate teenagers. I hate humans that are arrogant, naive, and ignorant. You might say "many teenagers are that way," but in my experience, I've found that the average member of society has all three of those traits, not just teenagers. However, I'd never even think about becoming an educator (due to how badly the 'educational' system is handled as of now).
I meant that the fact that there would ever be a lawsuit in the first place is illogical.
Kids are forced to go to school
They are? What about home school? Alright, that's not always possible. But there's one thing that kids aren't forced to do: be offended by words. If they are, then that is ultimately their own fault.
If the teacher insults him, he can't even shoot back because that would jeopardize his grades which could have severe repercussions for his future career.
I do disagree with this, though. A teacher found failing students because of their opinions really should be fired.
You may not feel it's appropriate, but this is the reality of the world we live in. The school could be facing lawsuits like this, whether the plaintiffs are just trying to make a buck, or if they feel it's the only way to make sure it doesn't happen again, they are still open to liability issues surrounding this.
I know it's a reality, but that doesn't make it logical.
But words are how we communicate, they are how we express our thoughts and feelings. They are how we transmit facts and opinions, so the "Just words" argument really doesn't work.
It works just fine. I think about it like this: do not let yourself be controlled by negative emotions. Positive ones are okay.
Never once did I say "ignore facts and opinions" or anything of the sort. I said to not let yourself be offended (and thereby be controlled by negative emotions) by mere words. Respond to things logically, not emotionally.
So it's more than just words
By definition, it isn't.
Even for people that will just "shrug it off," there's still damage that hits in ways we don't always see for a long time.
Fine. By "shrug it off," I meant to not let yourself get offended in the first place. They absolutely are just words, and there is no need to be offended by them. I don't care if it was a speech by Hitler, or by this teacher. Actually, getting angry or sad doesn't help any situation. As I said above, respond logically, not emotionally.
Frankly though, if i were a school administrator, trying to keep students in school, or attract more students to the school, i would argue that she is damaging the public image of the institution and thus financially harming it.
Couldn't the employer he was talking about in his post claim the exact same thing?
That makes complete sense. Minors can say whatever they like, but not an adult! The adult might hurt some feels of people too weak-minded to understand that they don't have to be offended by mere words.
If a minor did the same thing, why shouldn't they be held to the same standard (not that I believe either should be fired/suspended)? What is the logical reason for this?
But... that would mean that kids actually need to take a step out of their bubbles that society desperately wants to keep them in! Unacceptable! Censor violent media for children, fire teachers who state their opinions about their students, and blame everything but the child for their behavior! Learning that you don't have to be offended by mere words is just... unacceptable!
1) This opens the school up for a big "emotional distress" lawsuit, and
Oh, no! Someone said mean words to me! For some reason, I absolutely must get offended by this!
Even for teens, teachers are still enough of an authority that for a student to realize this is being said about them in a very public forum (not just the teacher's lounge, for example) could have repercussions for decades.
Decades? No, even for a moment? Why are some people so afraid of words? If there's anything people need to be taught, it's that you do not need to be offended by mere words, and indeed, it is far more efficient not to be. If you made a mistake, don't make the same one again. If you didn't, shrug it off. Whining about things (especially words) and getting offended doesn't change anything.
But... that's impossible! Video games are more violent than ever! Could it be that... video games don't cause violence in anyone but disturbed individuals? No, no! That would make too much sense. To your post, I say: correlation does not equal causation! Yeah. That'll show you.
If you put children into this world, it is YOUR duty to educate them, to give them values and to teach them behaviour.
Sadly, many parents seem to think that good parenting means to force pointless personal beliefs (religious beliefs, political beliefs, blatant propaganda, etc) down their children's throats. It's startling how facts rarely come into play.
Why are minors being allowed to purchase them?
Because they don't hurt them. Even minors can tell the difference between fiction and reality. Imagine the state that the population would be in if normal people couldn't even differentiate between fiction and reality and if fiction truly could make people violent. There would be far, far more violence than there is now. Yet, there isn't. Only a small minority of the population is violent, and yet most people are subjected to violent media. Funny, that.
We have R and NC-17 movies that as a society we have agreed that minors should not be allowed to see.
As a society? Who is that? I disagree completely. Unless you have an actual reason to keep these things from them (and so far, no one does), then just let them watch/play the media.
But we have to be honest that the studies, show there is a correlation between violent media and increased aggression.
No, they absolutely do not. The closest I have ever seen a study get to correlating violence with violent media is correlating temporary violent thoughts with violent media. 99% of the time, those thoughts do not translate into actual physical violence except in the case of an already disturbed individual (I would guess).
However, the 12-17 YOs who are the real target of this genre don't have those coping mechanisms (they haven't finished forming in the brain).
Who are you even talking about? This is ridiculous. A majority of minors aren't even violent, yet many of them are subjected to violent media. Again, that's funny.
they haven't finished forming in the brain
Are you serious? They might be going through some changes, but they are not so idiotic as to not be able to differentiate between fiction and reality.
The statistics simply aren't on your side.
I certainly don't care if some mom buys their child violent video games. It won't hurt them in the least, anyway (unless they are already insane, but such people make up an abysmally small percentage of the population).
I know know that you are totally insane or just a just a troll.
Another ad hominem, but this time coupled with "all of my opponents are completely wrong and insane!" Of course you think I'm wrong. If you didn't, we wouldn't be having this argument. What good does it do to state that (besides attempting to provoke me)?
Beyond reason or logic and willing to live in the abstract with any grasp of practicality.
Another ad hominem. And one without explanation, at that. I can't possibly respond to you properly if I do not know your reasoning. I could easily just discount you as "insane" or call you a troll because you believe that the government should have those powers, but that would be completely useless. If you're not going to at least explain your reasoning, then don't post at all.
Compared to that, the power to prevent me from watching Doctor Who a month before it airs in North America seems pretty minor.
Ah, I see. He has worse powers so that makes these powers okay for him to have. Is that it? Because that makes no sense. If he had the power to call for the assassination of US citizens without any due process, that does not mean that it's okay just because he has control over 5,000 nuclear warheads or can do worse things.
the draft
I completely disagree with the use of drafts. I am not a slave of the government just because I live in this country.
limiting travel outside the country
Again, I completely disagree. This is like assuming that everyone is a criminal.
Wow so you really think that it would have been wrong for the US government to open a nice think envelope or big package addressed to and address in Berlin in 1943? Really? Or to tap a phone call being made to Germany? Or even just cut off communications?
Yes. There is no excuse for infringing upon someone's rights.
You sir are a wack attack and can not be reached with reason or example.
That's a nice ad hominem, but what purpose did it serve?
Please just keep shaking in fear controlled by those that use that fear. You are well in their power.
"Questioning those in power" does not equate to "shaking in fear controlled by those that use that fear."
Have extreme fear over corner cases that don't matter is insane.
I wouldn't call the government's ability to restrict free speech a "corner case." Whether that be restricting letters, phone calls, or even the internet, that is not a power that the government should have under any circumstances. I'll take my chances while having those freedoms over giving such powers to an abusive government.
So far the record of abuse of that power over the last 80 or so years has been zero.
Really? I consider the mere fact that they use the power as abuse because it is a power that they should not have. And even if they technically haven't abused it by your terms yet, that doesn't mean they won't.
Just as people feel that some forces are using exaggerated fear of terrorism as a tool control so are some other groups are using unfounded fear of the government to control you.
If you aren't afraid of your government then you aren't a very good citizen. Always, always assume that your government is composed of money-grubbing, corrupt ignoramuses who could care less about you. It's paranoid, yes, but trusting them will bring far worse results (as we see now). Lobbying, allowing torture, pointless wars, secrecy, etc. Basically, always question the government and its decisions.
I mean really go back to 1943 and do you a think that a letter dropped in the mail box in the US addressed to Germany should have just been delivered unopened or at all?
Sure. You do not truly have freedom if your government can take it from you on a whim (even if they declare an 'emergency').
I hate to ask you this but just what power do you think the government wouldn't have in an all out war situation?
Fighting for 'freedom' is sort of pointless when the government is able to take it away when it pleases. I don't care if there is an 'emergency'. The government should never have such powers. They can and will abuse them.
No charges, no due process, no probable cause.
Of course! He endangered national security, was a terrorist, and failed to think of the children! How could you seemingly support such a person?
So no, that right isn't really respected.
Well, there's a good excuse for that! In some places, people have it far worse than us. Therefore, as long as we aren't as bad off as them, our government should be able to abuse us as they please. Don't you dare complain about this...
If any kill switch is invoked it would tend to be a boarder kill switch.
Phew! That makes me feel better knowing that the government only has the power to cut us off from the rest of the world internet-wise. That power is necessary and they should totally have it.
Yeah, then try going up to the next woman, and forcing her to sit in a chair in your house until you tell her she can get up.
Children are under no obligation to do this, either. You have no choice in the matter after you get hit.
Punishment is about associating bad behavior with discomfort.
What a terrible method, then. I remember being hit as a child. All it did was instill within me the sense that people who do something that I dislike should be harmed, as well as extreme amounts of anger and hatred.
You claim that causing physical discomfort for a long term benefit is bad, and then argue for vaccination.
The difference being that one is a (terrible and ineffective) method for bad parents to control their children, and the other one is an effective method of preventing disease, not a method of control. Oh, and explaining things logically can also help a great deal.
If you aren't patient, then you really shouldn't be a parent.
So, you go ahead and keep feeling good about the mental abuse you put your children through.
What?
Thank you for demonstrating why government should not interfere with parental decisions. YOU would have half of America's parents arrested because that's how many have spanked their children.
Ah, I see. So if a large majority of the population did something like, say, murdered people, they shouldn't be locked away (or at least punished) simply because a lot of people are doing it?
Kids go silent. Learning gets done.
How incredibly naive. When I was a child, I was hit, and the only thing I learned from it was "hitting someone is okay if they do something that you do not like." I also felt hatred and anger and at one time even resorted to hitting someone else purely because of this. No, this is merely the action of a bad parent. If you feel you must resort to this, try another method.
but I have NEVER seen a virus-like program load up its own bittorrent engine and start seeding the blu-ray of avatar or download child porn.
That doesn't mean that it couldn't be done. Innocent until/unless proven guilty should always be applied, civil suit or not. Otherwise you will run a far greater risk of innocent people being caught in the crossfire, which is far worse than 'bad' people getting away with it. Either prove it or get out.
Unfortunately, these are civil issues, not criminal issues, so the ideas of "innocent until proven guilty", "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", "you are entitled to an attorney, and if you can not afford one, one will be appointed to you" and even "you have the right to remain silent" do not apply.
This was a terrible, terrible idea.
The difference being that that information endangered the lives of so many innocent people.
In fact, here's a list of all of the people who actually died because of those leaks: