It seems many people would rather the government give the appearance of trying to stop the terrorist bogeyman than respect people's freedom and privacy.
I think the premise would be OK if it wasn't for the fact that a library full of statutes of actions that could put you on the wrong side of the law exists.
Or the fact that the government isn't made up of perfect, incorruptible beings...
I didn't propose a solution; I merely wanted to make it clear that one person's idea of what is "stupid" is not necessarily the same as another person's.
Ideally... don't do stupid shit that you are going to regret later in the first place
What you think is stupid is not necessarily what someone else thinks is stupid; it's a personal opinion and nothing more than that. Something completely innocuous to you could be considered extremely offensive by someone else, and that someone else could be a potential employer.
I'm not even talking about any right to be forgotten, just that not doing "stupid shit" isn't necessarily going to help you.
On the other hand, blaming guns collectively and locking them up (banning them) will stop the next would-be shooter from having anything to shoot with
Would it?
The reason the gun control opponents try to shift the focus on moral culpability is to avoid coming right out and saying that they value their right to own guns over schoolkids getting shot.
I value other people's freedom to own guns and would rather risk having shootings happen than ban guns. That was easy.
And when put into spot, they try to shift the blame on other culprits - suich as video games - instead.
I bet it's all the fault of that damn rock 'n' roll music people are listening to nowadays.
Not when there's sufficient risk they will cost others, yes (stealing to support habit, health insurance costs, psychological issues for friends/family).
The person themselves might steal, so ban the entire substance? People's feelings might get hurt, so ban it all? The second one, I feel, is far more ridiculous than the first, because anything could be undesirable to someone.
I much prefer freedom to safety here, and your 'They might commit a crime in the future because of the drugs' mentality is as unconvincing to me as the TSA's security theater (and that's essentially what the drug war is, anyway).
In practice, connections run deeper than that.
But how we respond to certain information is up to us, and there is no universal law saying that heroin must be banned just because of the reasons you listed; it is people's desire for an unattainable level of safety that keep substances such as that banned.
Heroin addicts fuck up their families, children and society at large.
I don't believe families, children, or society should get to control what someone puts in their body. I'd rather have more crime and higher taxes than a ban on such drugs, if those were truly the only choices.
but I still wouldn't let a full time junkie have kids
For me, it would depend on how bad the kids' living conditions were. I don't think taking away children from people who can't even take care of them is a bad thing.
On the other hand, if you're talking about something like mathematics, merely applying a formula to a specific problem (e.g. finding the length of a side of a triangle while the other two sides are known) should be quite simple for anyone who actually understands the material. I think it's not unfair to say that people who consistently fail to solve such problems probably don't understand the material (unless something else is happening), but that being able to solve the problems doesn't mean that you actually do understand the material.
So maybe you weren't being too unreasonable by being concerned about the fact that the test scores have apparently remained almost constant.
Really? Then it's strange how millions of people can play violent video games and yet very few people go on killing sprees.
Kids emulate what they see, hear and experience.
But it's unlikely that they'll go murder someone, regardless of the circumstances. Kids are also capable of separating what is obviously fiction from reality, and the ones that aren't can be educated by their parents; it doesn't take much intelligence to realize the difference.
Kids need to play, exercise, be social with other kids, learn, explore and so on.
Do we continue to censor our children, out of some misguided fear of guns and weapons? Or, do we try to minimize the potential dangers of violent "entertainment"?
I don't really see the either/or, so my answer would be neither of those.
Americans are so damned afraid of violence, they are willing to put children in court for petty "offenses" such as wearing jewelry shaped like a gun.
And having the government fondle everyone who wants to get on a plane.
I still don't understand the point you're making. I oppose both censorship and barring children from researching the world around them. The fact that we have censorship right now doesn't mean more censorship would be a good thing.
And, the current direction that censorship is taking seems far worse than just getting rid of some stupid games, and even stupider movies.
The fact that censorship could be worse than censoring some games and movies does not mean that censoring games and movies is not a bad thing.
I'd rather encourage the children, than to encourage the freak who spends his waking hours immersed in violent "entertainment".
Are you advocating for this sort of censorship, or what?
I don't feel the graphic violence in games or in movies is justified. Our society glorifies violence, then punishes people for acting out in a violent manner.
Well, is that really a surprise? Violence in fantasy and violence in reality are two different things; one results in a real person getting hurt and the other does not. Just because people enjoy violent movies, video games, and other such things, that doesn't mean that they also want real people to get hurt.
Censorship? I don't know - we see it happening all around us.
I don't think that justifies it.
Which is worse - a little censorship in violent entertainment, or barring children from researching the world around them?
I'm afraid I don't understand the dilemma here. Why can't we have no censorship and not bar children from researching the world around them?
But, the video games (and movies) probably help to encourage the freaks who are already prone to doing such things.
Even if it did, so what? What would you do about it, if anything?
If/when you can definitively prove that violent entertainment DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE to these incidents, then I'll listen to your arguments, and your scoffing.
I think something similar, only I ask people to prove the opposite. But again, it's not like proving it would make me consider censorship.
Meanwhile, I'll point to the Hitler Youth as evidence that indoctrination can make unacceptable acts acceptable.
Fantasy and reality are two different things, and other human beings restricting your freedom and trying to indoctrinate you is rather different than someone playing a video game.
Even if that were true, I'd have the same view on that that I would if the TSA actually did protect us from threats: safety is often much less important than security.
I wish people would stop saying spouting off that line that US math and science are terrible. Actually go and read the UN report, half of the countries ahead of us are not ahead by any statistically meaningful amount (within 5 points on scores over 500).
The fact that other countries are not ahead of the US by large margins doesn't mean that US math and science education isn't terrible; it may indicate that all these countries have improving to do, including the US. That said, I don't take such measurements seriously to begin with at this point in time.
we have not seen significant increases in test scores
Who cares? I firmly believe that rote memorization and teaching to these nonsensical tests that only test for rote memorization are major problems to begin with. I really couldn't care less about these test scores.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems many people would rather the government give the appearance of trying to stop the terrorist bogeyman than respect people's freedom and privacy.
I find you to be unbelievable obnoxious for telling the grandparent that he is unbelievable obnoxious. I bet there is a pattern of this in your life.
I think the premise would be OK if it wasn't for the fact that a library full of statutes of actions that could put you on the wrong side of the law exists.
Or the fact that the government isn't made up of perfect, incorruptible beings...
I didn't propose a solution; I merely wanted to make it clear that one person's idea of what is "stupid" is not necessarily the same as another person's.
Ideally... don't do stupid shit that you are going to regret later in the first place
What you think is stupid is not necessarily what someone else thinks is stupid; it's a personal opinion and nothing more than that. Something completely innocuous to you could be considered extremely offensive by someone else, and that someone else could be a potential employer.
I'm not even talking about any right to be forgotten, just that not doing "stupid shit" isn't necessarily going to help you.
On the other hand, blaming guns collectively and locking them up (banning them) will stop the next would-be shooter from having anything to shoot with
Would it?
The reason the gun control opponents try to shift the focus on moral culpability is to avoid coming right out and saying that they value their right to own guns over schoolkids getting shot.
I value other people's freedom to own guns and would rather risk having shootings happen than ban guns. That was easy.
And when put into spot, they try to shift the blame on other culprits - suich as video games - instead.
I bet it's all the fault of that damn rock 'n' roll music people are listening to nowadays.
At some body count there will be disarmament.
I doubt that.
Not when there's sufficient risk they will cost others, yes (stealing to support habit, health insurance costs, psychological issues for friends/family).
The person themselves might steal, so ban the entire substance? People's feelings might get hurt, so ban it all? The second one, I feel, is far more ridiculous than the first, because anything could be undesirable to someone.
I much prefer freedom to safety here, and your 'They might commit a crime in the future because of the drugs' mentality is as unconvincing to me as the TSA's security theater (and that's essentially what the drug war is, anyway).
In practice, connections run deeper than that.
But how we respond to certain information is up to us, and there is no universal law saying that heroin must be banned just because of the reasons you listed; it is people's desire for an unattainable level of safety that keep substances such as that banned.
Heroin addicts fuck up their families, children and society at large.
I don't believe families, children, or society should get to control what someone puts in their body. I'd rather have more crime and higher taxes than a ban on such drugs, if those were truly the only choices.
but I still wouldn't let a full time junkie have kids
For me, it would depend on how bad the kids' living conditions were. I don't think taking away children from people who can't even take care of them is a bad thing.
The smug belief that you're brighter than 99.whatever percent of the rest of the population
Do some people actually think that's an impressive accomplishment?
On the other hand, if you're talking about something like mathematics, merely applying a formula to a specific problem (e.g. finding the length of a side of a triangle while the other two sides are known) should be quite simple for anyone who actually understands the material. I think it's not unfair to say that people who consistently fail to solve such problems probably don't understand the material (unless something else is happening), but that being able to solve the problems doesn't mean that you actually do understand the material.
So maybe you weren't being too unreasonable by being concerned about the fact that the test scores have apparently remained almost constant.
I was thinking of the SAT
Right.
what metric would you use to determine whether any given dollar spent on education is a good or a bad idea?
Any test that tests for a deep understanding of the material would be better than what we have now, in my opinion.
You can thank the ACLU for making it nearly impossible to have the mentally ill commited.
I know, who cares about petty things like 'rights'? What we need is more safety!
But really, how is it the ACLU's fault?
No but they are a good portion of it.
Really? Then it's strange how millions of people can play violent video games and yet very few people go on killing sprees.
Kids emulate what they see, hear and experience.
But it's unlikely that they'll go murder someone, regardless of the circumstances. Kids are also capable of separating what is obviously fiction from reality, and the ones that aren't can be educated by their parents; it doesn't take much intelligence to realize the difference.
Kids need to play, exercise, be social with other kids, learn, explore and so on.
Thanks for your opinion.
In no possible way are games a benefit to kids.
They're fun to some people; there's a benefit.
I see something of an either/or here.
Do we continue to censor our children, out of some misguided fear of guns and weapons? Or, do we try to minimize the potential dangers of violent "entertainment"?
I don't really see the either/or, so my answer would be neither of those.
Americans are so damned afraid of violence, they are willing to put children in court for petty "offenses" such as wearing jewelry shaped like a gun.
And having the government fondle everyone who wants to get on a plane.
I still don't understand the point you're making. I oppose both censorship and barring children from researching the world around them. The fact that we have censorship right now doesn't mean more censorship would be a good thing.
And, the current direction that censorship is taking seems far worse than just getting rid of some stupid games, and even stupider movies.
The fact that censorship could be worse than censoring some games and movies does not mean that censoring games and movies is not a bad thing.
I'd rather encourage the children, than to encourage the freak who spends his waking hours immersed in violent "entertainment".
Are you advocating for this sort of censorship, or what?
I don't feel the graphic violence in games or in movies is justified. Our society glorifies violence, then punishes people for acting out in a violent manner.
Well, is that really a surprise? Violence in fantasy and violence in reality are two different things; one results in a real person getting hurt and the other does not. Just because people enjoy violent movies, video games, and other such things, that doesn't mean that they also want real people to get hurt.
Censorship? I don't know - we see it happening all around us.
I don't think that justifies it.
Which is worse - a little censorship in violent entertainment, or barring children from researching the world around them?
I'm afraid I don't understand the dilemma here. Why can't we have no censorship and not bar children from researching the world around them?
But, the video games (and movies) probably help to encourage the freaks who are already prone to doing such things.
Even if it did, so what? What would you do about it, if anything?
If/when you can definitively prove that violent entertainment DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE to these incidents, then I'll listen to your arguments, and your scoffing.
I think something similar, only I ask people to prove the opposite. But again, it's not like proving it would make me consider censorship.
Meanwhile, I'll point to the Hitler Youth as evidence that indoctrination can make unacceptable acts acceptable.
Fantasy and reality are two different things, and other human beings restricting your freedom and trying to indoctrinate you is rather different than someone playing a video game.
I support the legalization of pot vs keeping heroin illegal for this reason.
Can't let people hurt themselves, now can we?
Even if that were true, I'd have the same view on that that I would if the TSA actually did protect us from threats: safety is often much less important than security.
crazy hard work in college
Wouldn't you have to be going to a somewhat decent college for that to be true? I'm not sure how many of those actually exist in the US.
I wish people would stop saying spouting off that line that US math and science are terrible. Actually go and read the UN report, half of the countries ahead of us are not ahead by any statistically meaningful amount (within 5 points on scores over 500).
The fact that other countries are not ahead of the US by large margins doesn't mean that US math and science education isn't terrible; it may indicate that all these countries have improving to do, including the US. That said, I don't take such measurements seriously to begin with at this point in time.
Trying to teach skills in a classroom is not going to work. Trying to learn knowledge "on the job" is not going to work.
People learn differently, so this isn't necessarily true. It depends on the individual and how they go about it.
we have not seen significant increases in test scores
Who cares? I firmly believe that rote memorization and teaching to these nonsensical tests that only test for rote memorization are major problems to begin with. I really couldn't care less about these test scores.
However, I can be certain that the educational system in the US needs a serious overhaul.
I believe the US is far from alone there.
Actually, the main problem I have is all the rote memorization and nonsensical standardized tests, not the lack of tiered curricula.