"But the end result or the present method has been the inability to safely use reasonable physical discipline as a parent"
As it should be. Do you go around hitting strangers when they say or do something that you don't like? Or is it only okay when you feel you have some amount of non-existent control over someone due to their age? Self defense is one thing, but needlessly resorting to violence (hitting, spanking, etc) is another, and it's ultimately ineffective and can cause many more problems down the road.
"Yes, a few kids are saved from actual abuse. But unfortunately, a huge number of them don't get their hand smacked when they need it"
I don't hit people when I don't like what they say or do. Why? It just shows that you can't resolve your differences without resorting to violence.
Well, I'm pretty sure it's not illegal as long as it doesn't escalate into what they deem "abuse" (even though that's exactly what it is, anyway). In some places, anyway. If they can do it in some schools, I doubt they would forbid it at home.
"Why doesn't this happen with parents more often?"
It doesn't? They often become controlling and pretend that they have power where, in reality, none exists. Some even think that using violence is a good means of controlling someone, but in turn, it just provokes more violence.
"I suggest that you are taking an extremely sexist, male-centric view of rape. I'd say a 10 year-old girl that fully understands the action in a rape video is going to have nightmares for a while. Possibly for the rest of her life and make a normal sexual relationship just about impossible."
You suspect, therefore it should be censored? If so, wow. Where exactly is your proof of this? A rape scene? Really? Come on. Movies depict those all the fucking time. I'm pretty sure a movie has never ruined someones life before. Honestly, if people were *that* affected by such things, I can't even imagine what the crime rates would be.
"young DOES EQUAL inexperienced--almost by definition (almost)"
There's too many factors to consider before applying such stereotypes to people. Such as how fast they can learn, for one. You have no idea what they know, and experience has little to do with age, except for the amount of time they've had to acquire the knowledge in the first place. With knowledge comes experience. While someone older has had more time to acquire knowledge, it doesn't *necessarily* mean they know more. It might in many cases, but not in *all*.
That's why I said "Especially when people aren't actively lying to them about it" in a later part of the post. Besides, the bible isn't *completely* insane (well, maybe it is, but a lot of people don't even read it and just pretend to be religious because they believe in a god).
"example 2: I know people who saw the onion video of "censored congressional vote" about a zombie apocalypse and thought it was real evidence of a government conspiracy to declare martial law."
They certainly don't sound very intelligent to me. I didn't see them play grand theft auto and run around and murder people. Correlation doesn't equal causation, anyway.
"We actually don't have very many masked vigilantes roaming the streets fighting crime after all, and that would be the expected behavior if people were so strongly affected by comic books."
If they were that affected by comic books, I can't even imagine how much people would be affect by things such as violent video games. Agreed there.
"Should comic buyers, especially when most of them were under 14 or so, be exposed to such things?"
Yes, why not? I find it extremely difficult to believe that an intelligent, logical individual could actually believe that works of fiction can distort ones definition of 'reality'. I find it extremely difficult to believe that an intelligent, logical individual can believe that differentiating between a video game and real life is an action that only an adult could perform. I was playing violent video games at five, and I didn't believe that they were real. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
"How can a 10 year old process rape, murder, etc?"
Gross! I looked through a pornography book at seven, and I just thought it was nasty at the time. People (yes, kids) aren't going to go insane so easily. Ugh.
"I think all human societies must have some level of ratings or censorship"
What a bleak world you must live in. Oh, no! That person said a 'bad' word! Someone might repeat it, which shouldn't matter anyway because it's just a string of letters with a meaning like any other word, anyway. But, it's bad! Yeah! People need to stop being so oversensitive and controlling.
"It crops up everywhere and even purposeful experimental societies draw the line somewhere especially when you deal with children"
Even children can tell the difference between what we know as fiction and what we know as reality. Especially when people aren't actively lying to them about it.
Video games, television, music, comic books, and virtually every form of entertainment ever conceived is somehow 'linked' to violence. In other words, blame everything *but* the person doing the violent acts. It doesn't take a video game to show you that you can hit someone with a bat and hurt them. The people that would do these things likely would have done them anyway. Correlation doesn't equal causation. There's no such thing as a 'bad' word, as all words are merely strings of letters with meanings. What's offensive to some likely isn't offensive to others.
"Age brings experience" No it doesn't. Knowledge brings experience. Age has little to do with it (it only shows how much time you've had to acquire experience). Some people are extremely faster learners, while others are not. It really does depend on the person.
Young != inexperienced. Old != experienced. Old != uncreative.
People always say how Wikipedia could be wrong and you shouldn't cite things from it. Well, Wikipedia certainly isn't the only website crafted by human hands. In fact, I've seen books that were wrong, and I've certainly seen other websites that had inaccurate information. You should always, ALWAYS double check your information, no matter where it's from. Also, the chances of you going to a Wikipedia article that was JUST vandalized (they fix that pretty fast) and NOT noticing it is pretty slim. The vandals usually only blank the entire page or add obvious misinformation. Wikipedia isn't the only thing with this problem.
"but if you justify abortion on population grounds, that's the road you're ultimately going to end up going down."
Forced abortion? No. It just shows that it's unrealistic to fret about every single women who wants to get an abortion because of overpopulation.
"Every single child conceived now isn't born -- even if you ignore aborted fetuses. Women miscarry, and sometimes the fertilized egg simply fails to implant in the woman's uterus."
Yeah, they aren't. But it's also unrealistic to want every conceived child to be born and not expect there to be repercussions.
"The solution is encouraging adoption, not abortion."
Alright. I wonder when that will be done. Right now, many, many people just have children through normal methods instead of adopting one, adding to the overpopulation problem.
"If you're having trouble taking care of your child, there are social services to assist with this."
This gets pretty annoying considering that many people seem to abuse this.
"If someone is determined to stay in school and make something of themselves, they tend to be more careful sexually when they're younger"
Education doesn't come strictly from school. There's also self teaching and homeschooling. I agree with what you said about education, though.
"What you have to do is give them a reason not to use their genitals as a cheap form of soma [wikipedia.org]."
Yes, but I doubt many people will listen. Hopefully people will become more intelligent eventually.
They were? ThePirateBay isn't blocked for me, or any other torrent website for that matter. There's no way they can block the torrents either, considering the fact that there's no way to tell what's illegal and what's not from a technical standpoint.
"Well, I don't think we want abortion used for population control."
I'm pretty sure China forces abortion or something. That is not what I desire, as that would definitely be a breach of freedom. However, I just said that the desire to want every single child conceived to be born is unrealistic. The world is overpopulated enough, and there's already far too many orphans. Birth control? Yes, but it's unrealistic to expect them to do that. The "a few more won't hurt" attitude is irresponsible.
"Once they've been conceived, the people who're supposed to take responsibility for them are the ones who've brought them about."
I'm pretty sure you have the option of adopting them out. This is how it should be, as well. These "pro-life" people take no consideration of people who simply can't afford the child or perhaps it was a complete accident in the first place. The child will be the one to suffer in the end if they are forced to stay with such parents.
"Sure, it'd be nice for everyone who is pro-life to be able to adopt, but that's not the reality"
Yes, it isn't a reality. Precisely my point. These children will just end up adding to the overpopulation problem while rotting in an orphanage. Yet, most of these so-called "pro-life" people likely have even more children of their own through normal methods, instead of adopting, and then pretending to care about the lives of children. Or maybe they do, but they're extremely ignorant of the problem. Who knows.
Maybe he is, I don't know. Would be a good if it's true. 99% of politicians only seem to be concerned with money and winning, and don't actually care about the people. The corruption isn't going to stop because of one man, however.
Are you serious? I mean, he might say that he's an "unwavering supporter of the constitution," but that's likely a publicity stunt so that he can appear better than he really is.
"To suggest that Ron Paul would allow states to do anything they like, in violation of the constitution, is so stupid it's almost hard to believe you're not intentionally trolling."
Where's your evidence that he wouldn't? I'm not saying he would, I can't know the future, but judging from everything we've seen from politicians, it's likely he's just spouting off and trying to get a positive reputation.
Politicians are merely driven by their desire for money (mostly from corporations) and their lust for power. I haven't seen an exception to that, and until a system where the people *actually* get to vote on *everything* (especially actions that go against the constitution) the government does is put into place, this blatant disregard for the rights of the people are going to continue.
Seriously, guys. People need to stop making such a big deal out of this! It's just so silly. The constitution wasn't made to be followed. It is merely a set of recommendations, and the government can ignore parts it doesn't like for any reason it likes. At least until someone does something. A lot of people.
"The only one they don't fit is being inside the mother."
Aware of their own existence + isn't leeching off of a womens body + actually has a personality to speak of (in most cases).
"Why is the number of people who smoke tobacco so much greater?"
Cigarettes are a highly addictive substance, so it's no wonder that it's that way. All banning drugs, alcohol, and other such things does is increase demand for things that are illegal, thereby funding 'criminals' and possibly getting the average person hurt where they wouldn't have been hurt otherwise.
Not to mention that banning abortion would really make people feel as if their freedom was stripped away, even more so than banning weed, drugs, and alcohol, considering that they aren't allowed to remove something from their body.
"By your criteria, such people would be fair game to be killed throughout their lives."
They don't fit all of the things I mentioned.
"There's no real difference, because "parasite", "leech", and "tapeworm" all refer to animals, but "tapeworm" makes it easier to see, I think."
Humans are animals.
"But what having laws against those behaviors do is discourage them, and thus, reduce their incidence."
Sometimes. Other times, it doesn't work. Look at weed and prohibition. If people feel there's no good reason for something being illegal, they'll break the law. Many will feel as if their freedoms were stripped away, and they will likely end up getting an illegal abortion.
Besides that, the world is already overpopulated and filled with children who need homes. I really don't understand why these same people who supposedly want to save children don't adopt a child who needs a home instead of bringing a new child into this already overpopulated world (which they seem to do often). They take absolutely no responsibility for these children that they don't want aborted and pretend the world isn't overpopulated enough.
"There's no difference between killing someone who was conscious and someone who will be conscious. It's just a game of semantics."
Yes, there is. The person who was conscious is already born, isn't leeching off of a womens body, and actually has a personality to speak of. None of which can be said about the fetus, yet.
"It's certainly different enough from a parasite that the comparison isn't worth making. It just dehumanizes the fetus to allow those who are pro-abortion to rationalize it."
Uh, I didn't dehumanize it. I said it was basically a parasite leeching off of the mother until it is born. If the mother doesn't want it, she doesn't have to put up with it. It has no personality or attributes to speak of yet, so you're not killing a human who was already born.
"Again, a woman has the option of not having sex if they don't want to get pregnant. Then, abortion wouldn't be an issue for them."
She also has the option of getting an abortion if she doesn't want it inside her body. If these people really don't want the baby and abortion is illegal, there's almost no doubt in my mind that they'll do it illegally, putting their own life at risk to remove something from their own bodies that they should have been able to remove legally.
"Why would being unaware that you're killing it matter? You wouldn't say it's okay to kill someone in their sleep, or while they're unconscious." It was never, ever aware that it was alive, unlike a living person who went to sleep.
"The fetus is completely physically dependent on the mother, but that doesn't make it a parasite. Parasites a) originate outside the host, and b) are of another species. The fetus is merely dependent on the mother. It's not an invader." I said similar to a parasite, not really a parasite itself.
"You almost always (except in the cases of rape or incest) have a choice as to whether or not you bring a child into the world. You can not engage in sex, or you can use protection to minimize the risk of pregnancy, and take your chances. If we agree that fetuses are human, how is killing a human that a) committed no crime, and b) isn't responsible for being in the position they're in, okay?" It's just a fetus, like a sperm cell is just a sperm cell. Is it really a human, though? Yes, I think it is. Maybe not a fully grown human, but it's still a human. That said, the mother shouldn't have to put up with it being inside her body if she doesn't want it. Tough luck for the fetus. The good news is that it likely won't feel or notice a thing.
Slashdot Mirror
"But the end result or the present method has been the inability to safely use reasonable physical discipline as a parent"
As it should be. Do you go around hitting strangers when they say or do something that you don't like? Or is it only okay when you feel you have some amount of non-existent control over someone due to their age? Self defense is one thing, but needlessly resorting to violence (hitting, spanking, etc) is another, and it's ultimately ineffective and can cause many more problems down the road.
"Yes, a few kids are saved from actual abuse. But unfortunately, a huge number of them don't get their hand smacked when they need it"
I don't hit people when I don't like what they say or do. Why? It just shows that you can't resolve your differences without resorting to violence.
Well, I'm pretty sure it's not illegal as long as it doesn't escalate into what they deem "abuse" (even though that's exactly what it is, anyway). In some places, anyway. If they can do it in some schools, I doubt they would forbid it at home.
It's illegal? That's odd, because I recall that some states in the US allow schools to spank (abuse) the students. In many, it is illegal, but in some, it's not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_corporal_punishment#United_States
Apparently it's on a decline (which is good), though.
Besides that, authority should *always* be questioned to help prevent abuse of that authority.
"Why doesn't this happen with parents more often?"
It doesn't? They often become controlling and pretend that they have power where, in reality, none exists. Some even think that using violence is a good means of controlling someone, but in turn, it just provokes more violence.
"I suggest that you are taking an extremely sexist, male-centric view of rape. I'd say a 10 year-old girl that fully understands the action in a rape video is going to have nightmares for a while. Possibly for the rest of her life and make a normal sexual relationship just about impossible."
You suspect, therefore it should be censored? If so, wow. Where exactly is your proof of this? A rape scene? Really? Come on. Movies depict those all the fucking time. I'm pretty sure a movie has never ruined someones life before. Honestly, if people were *that* affected by such things, I can't even imagine what the crime rates would be.
"young DOES EQUAL inexperienced--almost by definition (almost)"
There's too many factors to consider before applying such stereotypes to people. Such as how fast they can learn, for one. You have no idea what they know, and experience has little to do with age, except for the amount of time they've had to acquire the knowledge in the first place. With knowledge comes experience. While someone older has had more time to acquire knowledge, it doesn't *necessarily* mean they know more. It might in many cases, but not in *all*.
"example 1: the bible."
That's why I said "Especially when people aren't actively lying to them about it" in a later part of the post. Besides, the bible isn't *completely* insane (well, maybe it is, but a lot of people don't even read it and just pretend to be religious because they believe in a god).
"example 2: I know people who saw the onion video of "censored congressional vote" about a zombie apocalypse and thought it was real evidence of a government conspiracy to declare martial law."
They certainly don't sound very intelligent to me. I didn't see them play grand theft auto and run around and murder people. Correlation doesn't equal causation, anyway.
"We actually don't have very many masked vigilantes roaming the streets fighting crime after all, and that would be the expected behavior if people were so strongly affected by comic books."
If they were that affected by comic books, I can't even imagine how much people would be affect by things such as violent video games. Agreed there.
"Should comic buyers, especially when most of them were under 14 or so, be exposed to such things?"
Yes, why not? I find it extremely difficult to believe that an intelligent, logical individual could actually believe that works of fiction can distort ones definition of 'reality'. I find it extremely difficult to believe that an intelligent, logical individual can believe that differentiating between a video game and real life is an action that only an adult could perform. I was playing violent video games at five, and I didn't believe that they were real. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
"How can a 10 year old process rape, murder, etc?"
Gross! I looked through a pornography book at seven, and I just thought it was nasty at the time. People (yes, kids) aren't going to go insane so easily. Ugh.
"I think all human societies must have some level of ratings or censorship"
What a bleak world you must live in. Oh, no! That person said a 'bad' word! Someone might repeat it, which shouldn't matter anyway because it's just a string of letters with a meaning like any other word, anyway. But, it's bad! Yeah! People need to stop being so oversensitive and controlling.
"It crops up everywhere and even purposeful experimental societies draw the line somewhere especially when you deal with children"
Even children can tell the difference between what we know as fiction and what we know as reality. Especially when people aren't actively lying to them about it.
Video games, television, music, comic books, and virtually every form of entertainment ever conceived is somehow 'linked' to violence. In other words, blame everything *but* the person doing the violent acts. It doesn't take a video game to show you that you can hit someone with a bat and hurt them. The people that would do these things likely would have done them anyway. Correlation doesn't equal causation. There's no such thing as a 'bad' word, as all words are merely strings of letters with meanings. What's offensive to some likely isn't offensive to others.
Censorship is truly worthless.
"True, however it takes time to acquire knowledge."
Yes, but the amount of time it takes depends on how fast the person can learn. I agree with the rest.
"Age brings experience"
No it doesn't. Knowledge brings experience. Age has little to do with it (it only shows how much time you've had to acquire experience). Some people are extremely faster learners, while others are not. It really does depend on the person.
Young != inexperienced. Old != experienced. Old != uncreative.
Young != inexperienced just like old != uncreative. Such generalizations need to be thrown out the window.
People always say how Wikipedia could be wrong and you shouldn't cite things from it. Well, Wikipedia certainly isn't the only website crafted by human hands. In fact, I've seen books that were wrong, and I've certainly seen other websites that had inaccurate information. You should always, ALWAYS double check your information, no matter where it's from. Also, the chances of you going to a Wikipedia article that was JUST vandalized (they fix that pretty fast) and NOT noticing it is pretty slim. The vandals usually only blank the entire page or add obvious misinformation. Wikipedia isn't the only thing with this problem.
"but if you justify abortion on population grounds, that's the road you're ultimately going to end up going down."
Forced abortion? No. It just shows that it's unrealistic to fret about every single women who wants to get an abortion because of overpopulation.
"Every single child conceived now isn't born -- even if you ignore aborted fetuses. Women miscarry, and sometimes the fertilized egg simply fails to implant in the woman's uterus."
Yeah, they aren't. But it's also unrealistic to want every conceived child to be born and not expect there to be repercussions.
"The solution is encouraging adoption, not abortion."
Alright. I wonder when that will be done. Right now, many, many people just have children through normal methods instead of adopting one, adding to the overpopulation problem.
"If you're having trouble taking care of your child, there are social services to assist with this."
This gets pretty annoying considering that many people seem to abuse this.
"If someone is determined to stay in school and make something of themselves, they tend to be more careful sexually when they're younger"
Education doesn't come strictly from school. There's also self teaching and homeschooling. I agree with what you said about education, though.
"What you have to do is give them a reason not to use their genitals as a cheap form of soma [wikipedia.org]."
Yes, but I doubt many people will listen. Hopefully people will become more intelligent eventually.
"Yes. Just like they were before."
They were? ThePirateBay isn't blocked for me, or any other torrent website for that matter. There's no way they can block the torrents either, considering the fact that there's no way to tell what's illegal and what's not from a technical standpoint.
You'd be surprised at how many adults I see that don't type properly on the internet, either.
"Well, I don't think we want abortion used for population control."
I'm pretty sure China forces abortion or something. That is not what I desire, as that would definitely be a breach of freedom. However, I just said that the desire to want every single child conceived to be born is unrealistic. The world is overpopulated enough, and there's already far too many orphans. Birth control? Yes, but it's unrealistic to expect them to do that. The "a few more won't hurt" attitude is irresponsible.
"Once they've been conceived, the people who're supposed to take responsibility for them are the ones who've brought them about."
I'm pretty sure you have the option of adopting them out. This is how it should be, as well. These "pro-life" people take no consideration of people who simply can't afford the child or perhaps it was a complete accident in the first place. The child will be the one to suffer in the end if they are forced to stay with such parents.
"Sure, it'd be nice for everyone who is pro-life to be able to adopt, but that's not the reality"
Yes, it isn't a reality. Precisely my point. These children will just end up adding to the overpopulation problem while rotting in an orphanage. Yet, most of these so-called "pro-life" people likely have even more children of their own through normal methods, instead of adopting, and then pretending to care about the lives of children. Or maybe they do, but they're extremely ignorant of the problem. Who knows.
Maybe he is, I don't know. Would be a good if it's true. 99% of politicians only seem to be concerned with money and winning, and don't actually care about the people. The corruption isn't going to stop because of one man, however.
Are you serious? I mean, he might say that he's an "unwavering supporter of the constitution," but that's likely a publicity stunt so that he can appear better than he really is.
"To suggest that Ron Paul would allow states to do anything they like, in violation of the constitution, is so stupid it's almost hard to believe you're not intentionally trolling."
Where's your evidence that he wouldn't? I'm not saying he would, I can't know the future, but judging from everything we've seen from politicians, it's likely he's just spouting off and trying to get a positive reputation.
Politicians are merely driven by their desire for money (mostly from corporations) and their lust for power. I haven't seen an exception to that, and until a system where the people *actually* get to vote on *everything* (especially actions that go against the constitution) the government does is put into place, this blatant disregard for the rights of the people are going to continue.
Seriously, guys. People need to stop making such a big deal out of this! It's just so silly. The constitution wasn't made to be followed. It is merely a set of recommendations, and the government can ignore parts it doesn't like for any reason it likes. At least until someone does something. A lot of people.
"The only one they don't fit is being inside the mother."
Aware of their own existence + isn't leeching off of a womens body + actually has a personality to speak of (in most cases).
"Why is the number of people who smoke tobacco so much greater?"
Cigarettes are a highly addictive substance, so it's no wonder that it's that way. All banning drugs, alcohol, and other such things does is increase demand for things that are illegal, thereby funding 'criminals' and possibly getting the average person hurt where they wouldn't have been hurt otherwise.
Not to mention that banning abortion would really make people feel as if their freedom was stripped away, even more so than banning weed, drugs, and alcohol, considering that they aren't allowed to remove something from their body.
"By your criteria, such people would be fair game to be killed throughout their lives."
They don't fit all of the things I mentioned.
"There's no real difference, because "parasite", "leech", and "tapeworm" all refer to animals, but "tapeworm" makes it easier to see, I think."
Humans are animals.
"But what having laws against those behaviors do is discourage them, and thus, reduce their incidence."
Sometimes. Other times, it doesn't work. Look at weed and prohibition. If people feel there's no good reason for something being illegal, they'll break the law. Many will feel as if their freedoms were stripped away, and they will likely end up getting an illegal abortion.
Besides that, the world is already overpopulated and filled with children who need homes. I really don't understand why these same people who supposedly want to save children don't adopt a child who needs a home instead of bringing a new child into this already overpopulated world (which they seem to do often). They take absolutely no responsibility for these children that they don't want aborted and pretend the world isn't overpopulated enough.
"There's no difference between killing someone who was conscious and someone who will be conscious. It's just a game of semantics."
Yes, there is. The person who was conscious is already born, isn't leeching off of a womens body, and actually has a personality to speak of. None of which can be said about the fetus, yet.
"It's certainly different enough from a parasite that the comparison isn't worth making. It just dehumanizes the fetus to allow those who are pro-abortion to rationalize it."
Uh, I didn't dehumanize it. I said it was basically a parasite leeching off of the mother until it is born. If the mother doesn't want it, she doesn't have to put up with it. It has no personality or attributes to speak of yet, so you're not killing a human who was already born.
"Again, a woman has the option of not having sex if they don't want to get pregnant. Then, abortion wouldn't be an issue for them."
She also has the option of getting an abortion if she doesn't want it inside her body. If these people really don't want the baby and abortion is illegal, there's almost no doubt in my mind that they'll do it illegally, putting their own life at risk to remove something from their own bodies that they should have been able to remove legally.
I totally never seen this coming! Here I thought that they were supporting these corporations for absolutely no reason at all.
"Why would being unaware that you're killing it matter? You wouldn't say it's okay to kill someone in their sleep, or while they're unconscious."
It was never, ever aware that it was alive, unlike a living person who went to sleep.
"The fetus is completely physically dependent on the mother, but that doesn't make it a parasite. Parasites a) originate outside the host, and b) are of another species. The fetus is merely dependent on the mother. It's not an invader."
I said similar to a parasite, not really a parasite itself.
"You almost always (except in the cases of rape or incest) have a choice as to whether or not you bring a child into the world. You can not engage in sex, or you can use protection to minimize the risk of pregnancy, and take your chances. If we agree that fetuses are human, how is killing a human that a) committed no crime, and b) isn't responsible for being in the position they're in, okay?"
It's just a fetus, like a sperm cell is just a sperm cell. Is it really a human, though? Yes, I think it is. Maybe not a fully grown human, but it's still a human. That said, the mother shouldn't have to put up with it being inside her body if she doesn't want it. Tough luck for the fetus. The good news is that it likely won't feel or notice a thing.