"This is a guy who doesnt even know how to connect an external USB hard drive to his PC"
Sadly, a great number of people appear to be completely technologically inept. Ignorant to how things work, it is so easy for them to be taken advantage of (such as your brother in law).
Like the one that doesn't exist? Access to a stable internet connection has become important to the lives of many (some even having jobs that revolve around it). Competition has failed (no surprise there). I mean, sure, the government having complete control over it isn't good either, but something must be done.
They just make things up as they go. "We don't believe that the founding fathers actually wanted people to be able to criticize the government, so let's just make that unprotected speech!"
Oh, of course. I didn't know they could just interpret the constitution as they like. I don't recall seeing that wording in there...
# Obscenity # Fighting words
Wow, yeah. Obscenity. As defined by who? What if someone finds the word "the" obscene? Does that not count because others would deem it 'silly'? The only opinions that count are those of the majority or a few judges? Such a great idea!
Now all we have to do is watch the new politicians get lobbied into oblivion and try to strip away our rights while very, very few things besides that actually change!
"unless you yourself value artificial life over human beings"
It depends on if the artificial life has feelings or not. They don't now, but people pretending that humans are the most important entities in existence is wearing thin.
"I would never seek out nor allow a robot to tell me or my children what to do or learn, ever."
What if they are more intelligent than a human could ever be? It's a "what if" question, nothing more. That would just be stubborn.
I take it it's even worse than the American schools that force you to take classes which have nothing to do with your desired profession instead of teaching the basics early on and in high school letting them take classes which are relevant to them, then?
"Even the workers in fast food restaurants tend to have degrees."
"Despite what you and your friends might tell each other, every day fewer and fewer people know jack shit about technology and what it's capable of."
Especially when people begin believing that they are computer literate simply because they can access their Facebook account (I'm not kidding, someone told me this before).
"There are multiple justifications for covert snooping on children."
Like there are "multiple justifications" for doing so on the citizens, only the snooper in this case would be the government.
"To protect the emotional well being of the child"
Anyone who gets hurt over mere text is weak to begin with.
"To give them a sense or at least an illusion they are free."
They are free, no matter how much you don't want it to be true. Also, it isn't exactly "covert snooping" since the next time you bring something up that happened to them online, they will know that you've been snooping.
"Another justification for covert snooping is smart children who will have no difficulty circumventing overt verifying."
They will have no problem circumventing either method of snooping. Hey, you did say smart.
"Do you think there is no value is allowing a child to believe in some fictional concepts like Santa for a while"
No, there isn't. I don't believe in deception, I'm sorry.
"Also, if they can believe a fictional character from a movie is real"
I don't know how often that is true, but I would think it would be because movies actually look somewhat realistic.
"However don't believe that you have the right or responsibility to berate someone else because they believe their child is not mature enough."
I do have the right. It's called "freedom of speech." I don't have the right to force it upon them, but I will say that if worse comes to worse, I advocate the use of disobedience of the child if the parents become needlessly controlling and censor out the opposing view.
"They are not harming the child and thus they are entitled to raise them as they see fit."
This isn't about video games specifically, but censorship harms everyone, child or not.
"However, I have more compassion than you apparently do"
Humans generally run almost entirely on illogical emotions, so this comes as no surprise.
"You must be pretty young to so easily remember being 5 or 6 years old so vividly."
Actually, no. I just have a fairly good memory. Especially of things such as my first consoles.
"I'd wager a guess that your average child"
So... you believe they can't differentiate between fiction and reality? *sigh*
"Take a child to Disney world and they're convinced that the characters they see people dressed up in are the actual characters."
The same thing applies for fiction concepts such as Santa. If a trusted adult is actively lying to them about a fictional character being real, a younger child will likely, of course, believe it. This is not the case with video games and the like. Not the case at all. They certainly wouldn't watch a movie and shoot up a building or have their entire life destroyed by a few nightmares because of a game.
"Since preventing them from playing the game does not harm them, there is no reason for the parent to not have the authority to deny the child the game."
Sure it does. It gives them less control over their own lives and a perceived lack of power.
"Nice way of deflecting my question."
I answered it soon after.
"You seem to believe that children cannot be lastingly affected by anything they see or experience."
They aren't. Nightmares are small-time and temporary if the parent explains that the content is not real (which they wouldn't need to do if the child wasn't insane, since even small children know that).
"do you really want your 5 year old running around at someone else's house pretending they are Dante and smacking that person's child thinking they are just playing a game?"
I really don't care.
"Not every child is you or I"
As it turns out, most of the mentally stable ones who haven't been indoctrinated by insane parents (like anti video game activists) are, however.
"they may not understand death very well"
How could they not? It only takes a few words to clear it up for them. You cease to live.
"like when your child asks what happened to the family pet and why can't they wake up"
The best thing to do would be to tell the truth rather than lying.
"describing the difference between the use of the word "die" in the context of the game and in the context of real life."
Come on, now. It's a nightmare, not a truck running them over.
"If the child wants to disregard the parent and play the game anyways"
They should find out it's bad for them by themselves. If they have already done that before, they will likely know that it had bad results last time. If they haven't, the parent doesn't know what effects it will have on them, and since it's not a life/death situation, should let them try it out.
Slashdot Mirror
"This is a guy who doesnt even know how to connect an external USB hard drive to his PC"
Sadly, a great number of people appear to be completely technologically inept. Ignorant to how things work, it is so easy for them to be taken advantage of (such as your brother in law).
"If you don't like it, get a another provider"
Like the one that doesn't exist? Access to a stable internet connection has become important to the lives of many (some even having jobs that revolve around it). Competition has failed (no surprise there). I mean, sure, the government having complete control over it isn't good either, but something must be done.
"patently offensive"
Who decides what is offensive and what is not? I don't find much of anything offensive, so why are other people making this decision for me?
"artistic"
Again, completely subjective.
They just make things up as they go. "We don't believe that the founding fathers actually wanted people to be able to criticize the government, so let's just make that unprotected speech!"
"Not all speech is protected:"
Oh, of course. I didn't know they could just interpret the constitution as they like. I don't recall seeing that wording in there...
# Obscenity
# Fighting words
Wow, yeah. Obscenity. As defined by who? What if someone finds the word "the" obscene? Does that not count because others would deem it 'silly'? The only opinions that count are those of the majority or a few judges? Such a great idea!
Now all we have to do is watch the new politicians get lobbied into oblivion and try to strip away our rights while very, very few things besides that actually change!
"he’d put his daughter through a meat grinder"
Who wouldn't do that?
"and you believe he’s being serious about the $4500 computer?"
It's possible to put together a $4,500 computer, though.
I could, but it would be pretty hard to do unless you're going for a computer packed with as much garbage as possible.
"unless you yourself value artificial life over human beings"
It depends on if the artificial life has feelings or not. They don't now, but people pretending that humans are the most important entities in existence is wearing thin.
"I would never seek out nor allow a robot to tell me or my children what to do or learn, ever."
What if they are more intelligent than a human could ever be? It's a "what if" question, nothing more. That would just be stubborn.
"educated to a high level"
I take it it's even worse than the American schools that force you to take classes which have nothing to do with your desired profession instead of teaching the basics early on and in high school letting them take classes which are relevant to them, then?
"Even the workers in fast food restaurants tend to have degrees."
That pretty much just proves my point.
"So Steam fails me at that point, when my offline time has run out and I have to connect in order to use it again."
Doesn't Steam have an offline mode? Does it need to "phone home" every once in a while, or something?
"Loaded guns aren't necessarily about murder of humans."
But killing everything else on the planet is perfectly acceptable unless humans say otherwise, right?
I am business?
"Despite what you and your friends might tell each other, every day fewer and fewer people know jack shit about technology and what it's capable of."
Especially when people begin believing that they are computer literate simply because they can access their Facebook account (I'm not kidding, someone told me this before).
"such as TV"
Watching television is a hobby. Doing so a lot does not imply bad parenting.
"does not mean you let them do anything they want without oversight or supervision"
I think the government should apply this line of thinking to citizens.
"There are multiple justifications for covert snooping on children."
Like there are "multiple justifications" for doing so on the citizens, only the snooper in this case would be the government.
"To protect the emotional well being of the child"
Anyone who gets hurt over mere text is weak to begin with.
"To give them a sense or at least an illusion they are free."
They are free, no matter how much you don't want it to be true. Also, it isn't exactly "covert snooping" since the next time you bring something up that happened to them online, they will know that you've been snooping.
"Another justification for covert snooping is smart children who will have no difficulty circumventing overt verifying."
They will have no problem circumventing either method of snooping. Hey, you did say smart.
"Do you think there is no value is allowing a child to believe in some fictional concepts like Santa for a while"
No, there isn't. I don't believe in deception, I'm sorry.
"Also, if they can believe a fictional character from a movie is real"
I don't know how often that is true, but I would think it would be because movies actually look somewhat realistic.
"However don't believe that you have the right or responsibility to berate someone else because they believe their child is not mature enough."
I do have the right. It's called "freedom of speech." I don't have the right to force it upon them, but I will say that if worse comes to worse, I advocate the use of disobedience of the child if the parents become needlessly controlling and censor out the opposing view.
"They are not harming the child and thus they are entitled to raise them as they see fit."
This isn't about video games specifically, but censorship harms everyone, child or not.
"However, I have more compassion than you apparently do"
Humans generally run almost entirely on illogical emotions, so this comes as no surprise.
They also don't understand the concept of death because it isn't explained to them. If it was explained to them, they would obviously understand it.
"You must be pretty young to so easily remember being 5 or 6 years old so vividly."
Actually, no. I just have a fairly good memory. Especially of things such as my first consoles.
"I'd wager a guess that your average child"
So... you believe they can't differentiate between fiction and reality? *sigh*
"Take a child to Disney world and they're convinced that the characters they see people dressed up in are the actual characters."
The same thing applies for fiction concepts such as Santa. If a trusted adult is actively lying to them about a fictional character being real, a younger child will likely, of course, believe it. This is not the case with video games and the like. Not the case at all. They certainly wouldn't watch a movie and shoot up a building or have their entire life destroyed by a few nightmares because of a game.
"You apparently know nothing of child psychology."
Enough to know that nightmares from a game don't last forever. Seriously, what the fuck?
"Most children at that age have only just grasp the difference and might still believe that some of their favorite characters are actual real people."
Where did you get this from? Every friend I had growing up knew that video games, movies, and other media weren't real.
"Since preventing them from playing the game does not harm them, there is no reason for the parent to not have the authority to deny the child the game."
Sure it does. It gives them less control over their own lives and a perceived lack of power.
"Nice way of deflecting my question."
I answered it soon after.
"You seem to believe that children cannot be lastingly affected by anything they see or experience."
They aren't. Nightmares are small-time and temporary if the parent explains that the content is not real (which they wouldn't need to do if the child wasn't insane, since even small children know that).
"do you really want your 5 year old running around at someone else's house pretending they are Dante and smacking that person's child thinking they are just playing a game?"
I really don't care.
"Not every child is you or I"
As it turns out, most of the mentally stable ones who haven't been indoctrinated by insane parents (like anti video game activists) are, however.
"they may not understand death very well"
How could they not? It only takes a few words to clear it up for them. You cease to live.
"like when your child asks what happened to the family pet and why can't they wake up"
The best thing to do would be to tell the truth rather than lying.
"describing the difference between the use of the word "die" in the context of the game and in the context of real life."
Most sane children already know the difference.
"The parent's opinion should have weight."
Weight, but not absolute authority. Authority must always be questioned.
"Experience?"
We all have experience with this, I believe.
"At the age of 5, how would you know that?"
I smashed my hand with a hammer before while pounding a nail into a block of wood. Go figure.
"explaining why it was bad?"
Sounds like a good idea. But we are talking about a video game, not getting run over by a truck.
"but if you believe that the child will just 'learn from their mistake' by having a nightmare"
Even small children have the capability of learning from their mistakes as I did.
"How very Darwinian of you."
Come on, now. It's a nightmare, not a truck running them over.
"If the child wants to disregard the parent and play the game anyways"
They should find out it's bad for them by themselves. If they have already done that before, they will likely know that it had bad results last time. If they haven't, the parent doesn't know what effects it will have on them, and since it's not a life/death situation, should let them try it out.
Oh, I know there are many people who think that way, but I was just saying that it's a bad mentality to have if you want them to think for themselves.
"I expected you would understand a sarcastic appeal to authority"
I did, but I chose to comment on it, anyway.
"can we agree to disagree on that?"
Fine.