I never said that words are unimportant, anyway. I was referring specifically to swear words, and I was being sarcastic so as to make known that I don't really care if someone uses them (in addition to the points in the above post).
No, but what words are and aren't offensive varies from person to person. You may not like 'swear words', but I couldn't care less if someone uses them. Whoever posted that acted as if swear words are objectively bad or offensive, and that is what I objected to.
What is this "professional" nonsense, anyway? It seems to be that if someone doesn't like something, it's deemed unprofessional. It's truly a meaningless and subjective use of the word, and yet people act as if it's objective.
No swearing.
Wow! How offensive those strings of letters would be!
If you do not have children in your life you are missing out.
If you don't go scuba diving, you're missing out. Funnily enough, different people have different preferences, and not everyone likes children. So no, someone isn't necessarily "missing out" just because he/she doesn't have children.
If we found out that in his country people had the same views and have the same media reporting on a similar episode he'd be wrong, because he was framing it as an American problem.
I meant in general, not when it's directly relevant. And that'd only make a single one of his points wrong.
I'd love to know whereabouts in Europe it is okay to show pornography to 5 year olds.
It's not really surprising that the "save the children" nonsense exists in Europe as well.
And I'd also love to know where in the US this guy thinks people show their five year olds violent imagery!
A number of parents buy their kids violent video games. I play Doom, and while it came out when I was older, I've heard of a lot of people that began playing it when they were about five or so. Violent media is everywhere.
But I don't think that violent media is bad for children, either.
Over here, the average tabloid sports a naked chick on page 3 (or was it 5? Maybe someone who reads that kinda paper can provide the details), which can be bought by any child of any age.
The poor children living there must all be in mental institutions by now!
I don't know of any countries where pornography is permitted, or even suggested as "should be ok but still illegal" for a 5 year old.
That might be because people fall for the "save the children" rhetoric time and time again.
Hint: Porn isn't pictures of naked people. It's pictured showing erotic behaviour. Pornography doesn't even require pictures of "privates" or breasts to be porn. Heck, if you include people outside of popular opinion, porn doesn't even require pictures of people!
If I had to choose between forced sterilization and teenagers having children, I'd pick the latter. I'd vastly prefer not to give the government such abilities.
If the drug does cause psychosis, then society as a whole can react to it accordingly.
The reaction would probably be along the lines of banning people from putting it inside their own bodies entirely. Safety is always a nice excuse for getting rid of freedom to many people, it seems.
Nobody is arguing that kiling people who say a prohibited thing is wrong.
You might as well argue precisely that, because that's where it leads to. Just about anything could be a known 'trigger' for "unstable people." Using the logic of certain people here, anyone who triggers the killers should be punished. The slavery example is relevant.
Try walking into a bar and deliberately insulting somebody's religion... See how long before the owner throws YOU out for running your mouth.
I have never once understood the point of examples like these. "Go up to X and do Y; they'll beat you up for it!" So? Does that mean I'm somehow wrong?
It's basic civility not censoring at that point.
Have you changed the definition of censorship or something? It does not matter why it was created.
I guess to stifle freedom of speech all you have to do is claim that you attacked someone because of another person's speech. After doing so, you've effectively outlawed any similar speech, or at least that's how some people think it should work. The words made them do it! Really!
But that does not mean we should sensationalize this issue and exaggerate the consequences of the possible court rulings.
Possible consequences include the diminishing of property rights.
Most of us slashdotters work in the software industry and it is the Intellectual Property protection is responsible in large part to the size and security of our pay checks. Let use look at it objectively.
So, presumably, thanks to these laws, a lot of people here get paid... and you say they should look at it objectively?
"not for sale outside Taiwan" are being smuggled in and sold in USA.
I don't really care what absurd terms they come up with; it's your property.
I'm still a bit confused. When he mentioned "ours," I think he was referring to people who oppose draconian copyright legislation, not necessarily pirates.
For example, yelling FIRE in a crowded room is grounds to be beaten by a bunch of night sticks.
Well, the first amendment says nothing about that, and that decision caused war protestors to be arrested. That said, if I were trampled by an irrational mob, I'd blame the gullible mob, and not the person who shouted something. The people who own the crowded room always have the option of tossing out the shouter.
If they are shifty, yes, you should be able to detain and search them.
I really don't care for the idea of people being detained because someone thinks they look "shifty."
yet that's a lot better than stereotyping every person that's Arab or Iranian.
Maybe it is better, but I still don't think it's good. Get the government (the TSA) out of airports, lock the cockpit doors (like we already do), and leave it at that. Don't harass random people because you think they look funny.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said that words are unimportant, anyway. I was referring specifically to swear words, and I was being sarcastic so as to make known that I don't really care if someone uses them (in addition to the points in the above post).
You think words are unimportant?
No, but what words are and aren't offensive varies from person to person. You may not like 'swear words', but I couldn't care less if someone uses them. Whoever posted that acted as if swear words are objectively bad or offensive, and that is what I objected to.
professional
What is this "professional" nonsense, anyway? It seems to be that if someone doesn't like something, it's deemed unprofessional. It's truly a meaningless and subjective use of the word, and yet people act as if it's objective.
No swearing.
Wow! How offensive those strings of letters would be!
If you do not have children in your life you are missing out.
If you don't go scuba diving, you're missing out. Funnily enough, different people have different preferences, and not everyone likes children. So no, someone isn't necessarily "missing out" just because he/she doesn't have children.
Certainly not the point that rights need to be suspended.
War or not, I don't believe the government should ever be able to 'suspend' rights.
If we found out that in his country people had the same views and have the same media reporting on a similar episode he'd be wrong, because he was framing it as an American problem.
I meant in general, not when it's directly relevant. And that'd only make a single one of his points wrong.
I'd love to know whereabouts in Europe it is okay to show pornography to 5 year olds.
It's not really surprising that the "save the children" nonsense exists in Europe as well.
And I'd also love to know where in the US this guy thinks people show their five year olds violent imagery!
A number of parents buy their kids violent video games. I play Doom, and while it came out when I was older, I've heard of a lot of people that began playing it when they were about five or so. Violent media is everywhere.
But I don't think that violent media is bad for children, either.
Pointing out hypocrisy usually just serves to make people feel better. Someone being a hypocrite doesn't invalidate his/her arguments.
What are you talking about? It offends me! If I don't like the look of something and/or it offends me, it must be banned entirely!
There is always an uproar when kids commit or have committed upon them acts of violence and death.
He was talking about when kids see violence and death (video games, movies, books, etc.).
Over here, the average tabloid sports a naked chick on page 3 (or was it 5? Maybe someone who reads that kinda paper can provide the details), which can be bought by any child of any age.
The poor children living there must all be in mental institutions by now!
and the affect violent videogames or images have on this is almost negligible.
Oh, of course, but porn will make them have sex. And we know this is all true because you said so.
Lets see who ends up in prison first.
Neither of them?
Your nick shows you're clearly mature
How relevant to the issue at hand! Here, allow me to arbitrarily decide that you're not mature based on your name on Slashdot...
I don't know of any countries where pornography is permitted, or even suggested as "should be ok but still illegal" for a 5 year old.
That might be because people fall for the "save the children" rhetoric time and time again.
Hint: Porn isn't pictures of naked people. It's pictured showing erotic behaviour. Pornography doesn't even require pictures of "privates" or breasts to be porn. Heck, if you include people outside of popular opinion, porn doesn't even require pictures of people!
Porn can be anything.
He, being a sheltered US child, has not seen porn. Therefore the trauma.
What trauma?
If I had to choose between forced sterilization and teenagers having children, I'd pick the latter. I'd vastly prefer not to give the government such abilities.
I don't see where he made any such argument. He merely said it would be more difficult to study since it's criminalized.
If the drug does cause psychosis, then society as a whole can react to it accordingly.
The reaction would probably be along the lines of banning people from putting it inside their own bodies entirely. Safety is always a nice excuse for getting rid of freedom to many people, it seems.
Nobody is arguing that kiling people who say a prohibited thing is wrong.
You might as well argue precisely that, because that's where it leads to. Just about anything could be a known 'trigger' for "unstable people." Using the logic of certain people here, anyone who triggers the killers should be punished. The slavery example is relevant.
Try walking into a bar and deliberately insulting somebody's religion... See how long before the owner throws YOU out for running your mouth.
I have never once understood the point of examples like these. "Go up to X and do Y; they'll beat you up for it!" So? Does that mean I'm somehow wrong?
It's basic civility not censoring at that point.
Have you changed the definition of censorship or something? It does not matter why it was created.
and if you want to ban all "likely to incite" things, we should start with burning all books that are not officially government sanctioned.
And what's not "likely to incite" someone today might tomorrow! We might have to ban speech entirely to appease to a few would-be murderers!
I guess to stifle freedom of speech all you have to do is claim that you attacked someone because of another person's speech. After doing so, you've effectively outlawed any similar speech, or at least that's how some people think it should work. The words made them do it! Really!
But that does not mean we should sensationalize this issue and exaggerate the consequences of the possible court rulings.
Possible consequences include the diminishing of property rights.
Most of us slashdotters work in the software industry and it is the Intellectual Property protection is responsible in large part to the size and security of our pay checks. Let use look at it objectively.
So, presumably, thanks to these laws, a lot of people here get paid... and you say they should look at it objectively?
"not for sale outside Taiwan" are being smuggled in and sold in USA.
I don't really care what absurd terms they come up with; it's your property.
I'm still a bit confused. When he mentioned "ours," I think he was referring to people who oppose draconian copyright legislation, not necessarily pirates.
For example, yelling FIRE in a crowded room is grounds to be beaten by a bunch of night sticks.
Well, the first amendment says nothing about that, and that decision caused war protestors to be arrested. That said, if I were trampled by an irrational mob, I'd blame the gullible mob, and not the person who shouted something. The people who own the crowded room always have the option of tossing out the shouter.
If they are shifty, yes, you should be able to detain and search them.
I really don't care for the idea of people being detained because someone thinks they look "shifty."
yet that's a lot better than stereotyping every person that's Arab or Iranian.
Maybe it is better, but I still don't think it's good. Get the government (the TSA) out of airports, lock the cockpit doors (like we already do), and leave it at that. Don't harass random people because you think they look funny.