"which showed that there was a positive correlation"
Not really. Imagine being in a room (especially at a very young age) and someone shows you an activity that appears to be fun and will damage nothing more than an inanimate object that is fine to damage. They didn't go out and shoot people with guns, they replicated an activity that appeared to be fun (or at least one that would pass the time). An activity that hurt no one.
"A kid needs a certain set of rules to develop in."
To keep them safe from physical harm, yes. Running with sharp objects increases your chances of getting severely injured, etc.
"Those rules are set by parents, based upon their own experiences in life."
Yet many parents choose to indoctrinate their children with their own religion, beliefs, and as I said before, pointlessly disallowing them from consuming certain media.
"you're probably still a teenager"
Nope.
"In that case, no worries, you'll understand later."
Even if I was a teenager, the entire "you'll understand when you're older" argument is both unnecessary and idiotic. You claim that the opposing side is being stubborn and is therefore immature when you yourself have not changed your views. Such a statement is merely an easy way out of an argument and nothing more. If you can't peer into the future, I would suggest not using it.
"If that's not the case, then please do explain to everyone once and for all how to raise a kid?"
Attempting to protect them from physical harm is fine. Helping them protect themselves from physical harm is fine as well. However, censoring information and indoctrinating them is what I am against. It seems to be so abundant because they are so easy to take advantage of.
If by that you mean more pointless censorship, then yes. That is exactly what it would do. Why not just leave the decision in the hands of the player, and not parents or government? I mean, if the parents already believe that video games don't cause violence (or if they do but don't have evidence) and are willing to buy a game, why would they refuse to buy a violence one? It's simply pointless.
"We censor stuff to kids all the time because we believe that every parent should have the right to restrict what their child does and sees."
Where do people get this idea? Oh, wait. This is a great opportunity for personal indoctrination! You can make your child become whatever you want them to, even a replica of yourself! Embody within them your exact beliefs and censor out everything else! What a great idea to create people with minds of their own. No, that is fiction. In reality, censorship is an obscenity in and of itself.
"Right now we've got a system that works"
Really? I disagree. Video games don't cause violence, yet the only ones who claim that they do are people who are themselves detached from reality. Anyone can differentiate between a video game and reality.
As such, there is no point leaving the decision of what games a child can and can't buy in the hands of the parents. Why would there be? If you believe that video games don't cause violence, there isn't, and you're an idiot. If you believe that they do and have no evidence, you're also an idiot. Again, the decision should be in the hands of the player because it's pointless to have it otherwise.
The only people detached from reality are those that truly believe that people can't differentiate between reality and a video game. That is something anyone can do.
"Leaving it up to the parent works both ways"
I don't understand this line of thinking. Usually people such as this acknowledge that video games don't make people violent (which they don't), yet they still say a parent should be able to control what video games their children buy (I know it is their money, but it still makes no sense). Why would the parent need to disallow their child from buying a violent video game if they already acknowledge that they don't cause violence? It makes no sense beyond indoctrination and control. The same goes for people spouting this garbage and yet provide no evidence.
The decision should be in the hands of the player, not parents, and certainly not the government. It's completely pointless to have it any other way, and censorship is absolutely disgusting.
"I don't think it will, but some people do think this."
Where is their evidence of this? Oh, wait, they have none! They want to ban something that many, many people enjoy when they don't even have any evidence. Funny, that. The law shouldn't be made up of worthless opinions, but facts.
The only people truly detached from reality are those that believe that people can't differentiate between reality and a video game (something anyone is able to do). As such, it doesn't need to be in the hands of parents, as this article suggests. It should be in the hands of the player. If video games don't do any harm, then why does it suggest that it be in the hands of the parent? What is the point of that beyond indoctrination and control? Nothing. If they would refuse to buy violent video games for their child yet would still buy games that aren't labeled as violent and still acknowledge that video games don't cause violence, they're idiots.
I didn't know that they had a case to begin with! I guess I was foolish to assume that you needed some sort of evidence before you, you know, ban something that many people enjoy.
"Lance Ulanoff says the decision should rest in parents' hands"
No, the decision (unless the parent is the one paying, but even then, it's pointless to not buy violent video games if they would buy another game for them anyway) should be in the hands of the person who wants to play the game. If you truly believe that video games have no effect, then why say it should be in the hands of someone other than the player? In reality, the only people who are 'detached' from reality are the ones who believe that people can't differentiate between reality and a video game.
There is no need for parents to censor what their children play, either. They are just games. Even a five year old knows this. No harm comes from playing a game.
"Do you really think piracy is invisible and as such means no one knows about it?"
No, but the chance of a random person noticing that someone is a pirate is slim to none.
"And do you really want to change things when you have consistently claimed throughout this conversation that nothing can be done about the situation?"
I don't believe I said anything of the sort.
"and everyone that's taken your position has given the same responses you have."
Sounds familiar.
"Single individuals have started movements that have changed laws here in the US several times."
Yes.
"Do you just not feel as passionately about your cause as you claim you do?"
I do, but I can't speak for others. I really just don't think that trying to get every pirate in the world to stop pirating things is necessary or will even help. You can't judge an entire movement by a few people who won't listen. The real answer is education and getting people who won't be corrupted by a few pieces of paper into power.
All of your examples are irrelevant due to the fact that none of those were used as extensively as oil is.
"And the Oil-Age will not end because we run out of oil, but because something better will come along."
Yes, I believe that you are correct. However, all my comment meant to imply was that procrastinating (as the above poster seemed to imply) until things become an actual problem will likely just escalate the problem and make things worse than if we found a solution earlier. I don't believe the world will end or anything like that, but we shouldn't wait until something becomes a problem before we attempt to fix it.
Straw men? You and him seem to be the only ones who are are assuming things from a single line of text.
"Yes it's great to reduce pollution, but as the person who responded to you said you are in a world where everything is a dire emergency when in reality real life is more gradual."
Yes, everything is in a dire emergency. Some far more than others. An uncaring attitude is not what we need. We don't need everyone to be in a constant state of panic (I never said they should be, either), but we should contemplate future problems our actions may cause, and if it turns out it is a bad decision, attempt to find an alternate route.
"You never had to. It's implied in everything you say."
A single line of dialogue that had nothing to do with what was implied? Right.
"After all, anyone who doesn't agree with you about pollution MUST want to dump raw pollution into the ocean as fast as possible"
Straw men, you say?
"When you call everyone else idiots, how are you not saying you are smarter?"
I didn't call everyone else idiots. I called people who don't care about the future idiots, at least in that regard.
"And another example, people are not as afraid as you and are therefore "uncaring"."
I was obviously speaking of people who are, in fact, uncaring. Again, I said nothing about people being in a constant state of panic.
"The biggest problem the world has is the damned fools that think they, and only they, can see the future"
I never said anything like that. I was merely implying that people who think "oh, we have plenty of oil" or "oh, the oceans are big so that makes it okay to pollute them with garbage" are idiots. They actually don't have any sense of the future.
"They refuse to believe that anyone else is smart"
Again, I never said that.
"Give it a rest, smarty pants. Get on with your life. Stop living a daily nightmare, you will just scare yourself to death."
Yeah... it's much more comfortable to live in the now, uncaring. If no one worried about the future, there would be no warnings. Why investigate possible harm that a certain action could cause? We should just live in the now! No, oil won't magically vanish, but finding a better solution more quickly instead of procrastinating is preferred.
"Right, because high school students make such good choices about their futures."
Did you read my comment?
"If people later change their mind about their desired profession, that is their own choice. They do that currently, and many of them have to relearn what they need for their desired profession, anyway, because when you don't use something, it is easily forgettable (even in a short amount of time). Sadly, many people think that more mandatory classes and tedious work will somehow make everyone more intelligent, but in reality, much of their time goes to waste memorizing this information which is not useful to them (which they forget soon enough because they do not use it, anyway)."
"From what I can see you really don't care if the law is changed or not."
More assumptions. As a pirate, of course I do. It's silly to think otherwise.
"You don't believe it can be changed, so you're not even going to try."
I never said that. I said that I believed the only way that it can be changed is by enlightening people. It won't be easy due to the fact that people believe that pirates steal the single most important object in existence: money. They don't see the act of piracy as a right. They see it as thievery. It also isn't nearly widespread enough for people to even care. Not many people care about changing the law anymore, as all they care about is their little lives. As I said before, ceasing to commit acts which are already practically invisible to the public in the first place won't do much of anything other than cut off sources of free education and entertainment from many people.
"So you know *at age 16* what you want to do for the rest of your life?"
I did, but I recognize that not everyone else does. I actually already answered this complaint in my comment.
"Being multi-skilled makes changing paths much easier."
I can guarantee you that a majority of people forget information that they do not use very, very quickly. As such, they will have to relearn the information, anyway. This makes the wasted time due to being forced to take useless classes, lesser knowledge in needed areas due to the useless classes taking up their time, and the increase in failures due to the useless classes all not worth the risk.
"Doing math makes students smarter because solving hard problems improves problems solving ability."
So does doing things that are relevant to them.
"improves critical thinking skills."
Same as above.
"You seem to think that the only reason to study advanced math is if you will use it directly."
I do, and as we can see with the current educational system, these skills you think it brings about in people don't seem to manifest themselves. You do not require advanced math to think critically, nor do you need it to solve problems. In fact, those manifest themselves by using basic logic.
"they will hopefully benefit from the learning process itself."
Might as well teach them about every subject in existence, then. It could benefit them, after all. Failures? Wasting time? Doing better in areas that they actually need? None of that matters!
Did you just question authority figures? Everyone (except for terrorists and juvenile delinquents, of course) knows that authority figures are always right and should never be questioned!
This could be found out through other means. They don't need to waste the time of the majority of people and increase the rate of failures in the education system (by making mandatory classes which people are not interested in and do not need) to figure out who is intelligent and who is not. It only makes the educational system inefficient.
"most individuals don't need to be able to read more than the back of a cereal packet"
I don't think that there's anyone who doesn't use the native language(s) of their country and still participates in society. The same applies to basic math.
"have any clue about any foreign languages"
You're right.
"be able to write anything their spell-checkers won't fix"
Unless they don't want to waste a tremendous amount of their time, of course. Being fluid in the native language(s) of your country is a must.
"manual skills: such as cooking (we've got microwaves), handyman (can drive to the home centre)"
These are personal choices. They are useful, but should not be mandatory.
"So what's the point in staying at school past age 10?"
To learn information that you will need for your desired profession.
Not really. By the time people reach high school (which will be after they are taught the essentials), they will likely have a greater idea of what their profession will be. It will be explained to them how each specific subject (such as advanced mathematics) will apply to their desired profession and the classes could give more projects that are relevant to this. Forcing people to learn things that they do not need will not only waste their time (as they will quickly forget the information) but will also increase the amount of failures in the education system.
Yes, I agree. For the people who want professions that deal in mathematics, better examples and projects could be given to utilize it. This is but one of the many ways that the education system could be improved.
Slashdot Mirror
"which showed that there was a positive correlation"
Not really. Imagine being in a room (especially at a very young age) and someone shows you an activity that appears to be fun and will damage nothing more than an inanimate object that is fine to damage. They didn't go out and shoot people with guns, they replicated an activity that appeared to be fun (or at least one that would pass the time). An activity that hurt no one.
"Violent games or movies do not have an effect on people past a certain age"
I must be a murderer, then, because I began watching violent movies and played violent video games at no older than the age of five.
"It has been proven that young children replicate violence they witness."
But they don't grab a gun and slaughter an entire building full of people when they know the media is not real, as even a five year old would.
"Those who saw the video abused the same toy"
The video likely gave them an idea that sounded fun to them. An idea which would only damage an inanimate object which was okay to damage.
The people who are detached from reality are those that believe that people can't differentiate between reality and a video game.
"Kids buying 'R' rated movies are a problem for parents"
Since movies or games don't cause violence, it's a problem for no one. No need for parents to censor harmless things.
"A kid needs a certain set of rules to develop in."
To keep them safe from physical harm, yes. Running with sharp objects increases your chances of getting severely injured, etc.
"Those rules are set by parents, based upon their own experiences in life."
Yet many parents choose to indoctrinate their children with their own religion, beliefs, and as I said before, pointlessly disallowing them from consuming certain media.
"you're probably still a teenager"
Nope.
"In that case, no worries, you'll understand later."
Even if I was a teenager, the entire "you'll understand when you're older" argument is both unnecessary and idiotic. You claim that the opposing side is being stubborn and is therefore immature when you yourself have not changed your views. Such a statement is merely an easy way out of an argument and nothing more. If you can't peer into the future, I would suggest not using it.
"If that's not the case, then please do explain to everyone once and for all how to raise a kid?"
Attempting to protect them from physical harm is fine. Helping them protect themselves from physical harm is fine as well. However, censoring information and indoctrinating them is what I am against. It seems to be so abundant because they are so easy to take advantage of.
Or at least, that is what bad parents believe. There seems to be an overabundance of those.
If by that you mean more pointless censorship, then yes. That is exactly what it would do. Why not just leave the decision in the hands of the player, and not parents or government? I mean, if the parents already believe that video games don't cause violence (or if they do but don't have evidence) and are willing to buy a game, why would they refuse to buy a violence one? It's simply pointless.
"We censor stuff to kids all the time because we believe that every parent should have the right to restrict what their child does and sees."
Where do people get this idea? Oh, wait. This is a great opportunity for personal indoctrination! You can make your child become whatever you want them to, even a replica of yourself! Embody within them your exact beliefs and censor out everything else! What a great idea to create people with minds of their own. No, that is fiction. In reality, censorship is an obscenity in and of itself.
"Right now we've got a system that works"
Really? I disagree. Video games don't cause violence, yet the only ones who claim that they do are people who are themselves detached from reality. Anyone can differentiate between a video game and reality.
As such, there is no point leaving the decision of what games a child can and can't buy in the hands of the parents. Why would there be? If you believe that video games don't cause violence, there isn't, and you're an idiot. If you believe that they do and have no evidence, you're also an idiot. Again, the decision should be in the hands of the player because it's pointless to have it otherwise.
The only people detached from reality are those that truly believe that people can't differentiate between reality and a video game. That is something anyone can do.
"Leaving it up to the parent works both ways"
I don't understand this line of thinking. Usually people such as this acknowledge that video games don't make people violent (which they don't), yet they still say a parent should be able to control what video games their children buy (I know it is their money, but it still makes no sense). Why would the parent need to disallow their child from buying a violent video game if they already acknowledge that they don't cause violence? It makes no sense beyond indoctrination and control. The same goes for people spouting this garbage and yet provide no evidence.
The decision should be in the hands of the player, not parents, and certainly not the government. It's completely pointless to have it any other way, and censorship is absolutely disgusting.
"I don't think it will, but some people do think this."
Where is their evidence of this? Oh, wait, they have none! They want to ban something that many, many people enjoy when they don't even have any evidence. Funny, that. The law shouldn't be made up of worthless opinions, but facts.
The only people truly detached from reality are those that believe that people can't differentiate between reality and a video game (something anyone is able to do). As such, it doesn't need to be in the hands of parents, as this article suggests. It should be in the hands of the player. If video games don't do any harm, then why does it suggest that it be in the hands of the parent? What is the point of that beyond indoctrination and control? Nothing. If they would refuse to buy violent video games for their child yet would still buy games that aren't labeled as violent and still acknowledge that video games don't cause violence, they're idiots.
I didn't know that they had a case to begin with! I guess I was foolish to assume that you needed some sort of evidence before you, you know, ban something that many people enjoy.
"Lance Ulanoff says the decision should rest in parents' hands"
No, the decision (unless the parent is the one paying, but even then, it's pointless to not buy violent video games if they would buy another game for them anyway) should be in the hands of the person who wants to play the game. If you truly believe that video games have no effect, then why say it should be in the hands of someone other than the player? In reality, the only people who are 'detached' from reality are the ones who believe that people can't differentiate between reality and a video game.
There is no need for parents to censor what their children play, either. They are just games. Even a five year old knows this. No harm comes from playing a game.
"Do you really think piracy is invisible and as such means no one knows about it?"
No, but the chance of a random person noticing that someone is a pirate is slim to none.
"And do you really want to change things when you have consistently claimed throughout this conversation that nothing can be done about the situation?"
I don't believe I said anything of the sort.
"and everyone that's taken your position has given the same responses you have."
Sounds familiar.
"Single individuals have started movements that have changed laws here in the US several times."
Yes.
"Do you just not feel as passionately about your cause as you claim you do?"
I do, but I can't speak for others. I really just don't think that trying to get every pirate in the world to stop pirating things is necessary or will even help. You can't judge an entire movement by a few people who won't listen. The real answer is education and getting people who won't be corrupted by a few pieces of paper into power.
All of your examples are irrelevant due to the fact that none of those were used as extensively as oil is.
"And the Oil-Age will not end because we run out of oil, but because something better will come along."
Yes, I believe that you are correct. However, all my comment meant to imply was that procrastinating (as the above poster seemed to imply) until things become an actual problem will likely just escalate the problem and make things worse than if we found a solution earlier. I don't believe the world will end or anything like that, but we shouldn't wait until something becomes a problem before we attempt to fix it.
Straw men? You and him seem to be the only ones who are are assuming things from a single line of text.
"Yes it's great to reduce pollution, but as the person who responded to you said you are in a world where everything is a dire emergency when in reality real life is more gradual."
Yes, everything is in a dire emergency. Some far more than others. An uncaring attitude is not what we need. We don't need everyone to be in a constant state of panic (I never said they should be, either), but we should contemplate future problems our actions may cause, and if it turns out it is a bad decision, attempt to find an alternate route.
"You never had to. It's implied in everything you say."
A single line of dialogue that had nothing to do with what was implied? Right.
"After all, anyone who doesn't agree with you about pollution MUST want to dump raw pollution into the ocean as fast as possible"
Straw men, you say?
"When you call everyone else idiots, how are you not saying you are smarter?"
I didn't call everyone else idiots. I called people who don't care about the future idiots, at least in that regard.
"And another example, people are not as afraid as you and are therefore "uncaring"."
I was obviously speaking of people who are, in fact, uncaring. Again, I said nothing about people being in a constant state of panic.
"The biggest problem the world has is the damned fools that think they, and only they, can see the future"
I never said anything like that. I was merely implying that people who think "oh, we have plenty of oil" or "oh, the oceans are big so that makes it okay to pollute them with garbage" are idiots. They actually don't have any sense of the future.
"They refuse to believe that anyone else is smart"
Again, I never said that.
"Give it a rest, smarty pants. Get on with your life. Stop living a daily nightmare, you will just scare yourself to death."
Yeah... it's much more comfortable to live in the now, uncaring. If no one worried about the future, there would be no warnings. Why investigate possible harm that a certain action could cause? We should just live in the now! No, oil won't magically vanish, but finding a better solution more quickly instead of procrastinating is preferred.
I agree, let's stall for more time and wait until we're actually in trouble before we do anything! Forget future problems, all that matters is now!
"By talking openly and by being willing to say something stupid, they can avoid putting the stupid stuff in the actual legislation"
But we all know that paid politicians want the stupid stuff in the actual legislation.
"Right, because high school students make such good choices about their futures."
Did you read my comment?
"If people later change their mind about their desired profession, that is their own choice. They do that currently, and many of them have to relearn what they need for their desired profession, anyway, because when you don't use something, it is easily forgettable (even in a short amount of time). Sadly, many people think that more mandatory classes and tedious work will somehow make everyone more intelligent, but in reality, much of their time goes to waste memorizing this information which is not useful to them (which they forget soon enough because they do not use it, anyway)."
"From what I can see you really don't care if the law is changed or not."
More assumptions. As a pirate, of course I do. It's silly to think otherwise.
"You don't believe it can be changed, so you're not even going to try."
I never said that. I said that I believed the only way that it can be changed is by enlightening people. It won't be easy due to the fact that people believe that pirates steal the single most important object in existence: money. They don't see the act of piracy as a right. They see it as thievery. It also isn't nearly widespread enough for people to even care. Not many people care about changing the law anymore, as all they care about is their little lives. As I said before, ceasing to commit acts which are already practically invisible to the public in the first place won't do much of anything other than cut off sources of free education and entertainment from many people.
"So you know *at age 16* what you want to do for the rest of your life?"
I did, but I recognize that not everyone else does. I actually already answered this complaint in my comment.
"Being multi-skilled makes changing paths much easier."
I can guarantee you that a majority of people forget information that they do not use very, very quickly. As such, they will have to relearn the information, anyway. This makes the wasted time due to being forced to take useless classes, lesser knowledge in needed areas due to the useless classes taking up their time, and the increase in failures due to the useless classes all not worth the risk.
"Doing math makes students smarter because solving hard problems improves problems solving ability."
So does doing things that are relevant to them.
"improves critical thinking skills."
Same as above.
"You seem to think that the only reason to study advanced math is if you will use it directly."
I do, and as we can see with the current educational system, these skills you think it brings about in people don't seem to manifest themselves. You do not require advanced math to think critically, nor do you need it to solve problems. In fact, those manifest themselves by using basic logic.
"they will hopefully benefit from the learning process itself."
Might as well teach them about every subject in existence, then. It could benefit them, after all. Failures? Wasting time? Doing better in areas that they actually need? None of that matters!
Did you just question authority figures? Everyone (except for terrorists and juvenile delinquents, of course) knows that authority figures are always right and should never be questioned!
This could be found out through other means. They don't need to waste the time of the majority of people and increase the rate of failures in the education system (by making mandatory classes which people are not interested in and do not need) to figure out who is intelligent and who is not. It only makes the educational system inefficient.
"most individuals don't need to be able to read more than the back of a cereal packet"
I don't think that there's anyone who doesn't use the native language(s) of their country and still participates in society. The same applies to basic math.
"have any clue about any foreign languages"
You're right.
"be able to write anything their spell-checkers won't fix"
Unless they don't want to waste a tremendous amount of their time, of course. Being fluid in the native language(s) of your country is a must.
"manual skills: such as cooking (we've got microwaves), handyman (can drive to the home centre)"
These are personal choices. They are useful, but should not be mandatory.
"So what's the point in staying at school past age 10?"
To learn information that you will need for your desired profession.
Not really. By the time people reach high school (which will be after they are taught the essentials), they will likely have a greater idea of what their profession will be. It will be explained to them how each specific subject (such as advanced mathematics) will apply to their desired profession and the classes could give more projects that are relevant to this. Forcing people to learn things that they do not need will not only waste their time (as they will quickly forget the information) but will also increase the amount of failures in the education system.
Yes, I agree. For the people who want professions that deal in mathematics, better examples and projects could be given to utilize it. This is but one of the many ways that the education system could be improved.