Did some magical entity tell you that that is a fact?
I'm starting to think that, when it comes to IP law, Slashdot is almost as bad as the creationists when it comes to evolution.
I don't believe most people are debating the specifics of "IP" law, but that they're giving their opinions about it. Therefore, it has nothing to do with being factually correct.
Someone's a "looney" for suggesting without evidence that the United States Government in particular has become such a government.
The one above already listed a few pieces of evidence (which is all it takes, really). Although he neglected to mention things such as the TSA or free speech zones. I thought it was plainly clear that I was referring to those things and that it needn't be said again in order to be understood.
Unless you killed someone or do something harmful, I don't see what you're so ashamed off besides that tinfoil hat of yours, lol.
The fact that different people have varying degrees of desire to protect their privacy doesn't mean that they're criminals (or doing something "wrong"). And since the government decides who the criminals are, it probably isn't an intelligent decision to allow them to spy on its own citizens with no oversight.
Someone is a "looney" for suggesting that a government that disregards its own laws is quite possibly a government you don't want to have? I'd say that's a strange definition of "looney" you have there. I believe I simply have a healthy distrust of people with extraordinary power and limited oversight. I can't see why anyone wouldn't.
It's not good, but it's not horrible either. What's going on isn't Big Brother snooping in on your every little detail.
It would be quite impossible for them to do that to more than a minuscule portion of the population. But it's possible if they the limit it to a few people. I'd rather not have anyone be spied on, even if that someone isn't myself.
No one is exempt from criticism. The "mind your own business" cry is only useful when someone asks you a question they don't know the answer to, not when the information (his actions, which he took for whatever reason) is already known. If the information is known, anyone is free to comment on it and criticize you. Perhaps their criticisms are misdirected, but that's something else entirely.
"Its because we're trying to prevent another 9/11 and even though its a pain in the ass for everyone including the nice clerk who really wants to sell you an iPad, we all make small sacrifice during times of war for National Security."
Sounds like nonsense to me. The same kind that allows the TSA and the Patriot Act to exist.
Oh, and there's also the fact that selling something to an individual who you suspect (you never said why) might use that something to inadvertently get you killed is quite different than discriminating against someone who may or may not be planning to give something to someone that lives in a different country which may or may not be planning to attack yours. The USA is the epitome of paranoia.
Would you sell a gun to a person who you suspected might hand it to the crazy guy in the corner that you know will shoot you if he has the chance?
I thought this was about a law? A law based on pure paranoia of the big, evil terrorists. Kind of like the TSA and other such nonsense. I can't understand how anyone could defend this nonsense, and I see it as collective punishment (punish everyone because someone might abuse something).
we're just going to have to be paranoid about who we sell what to
then the author should be entitled to some of that money, is valid.
Really? That sounds subjective. And it's not so much a matter of being entitled to it. They cannot force you to buy their products by claiming they're "entitled" to money, after all.
The interpretation of the data in the study you linked to has been questioned, and alternate possibilities have been mentioned. There is even a reply towards the bottom. Linking to a single study, article, or what have you, will likely not conclusively prove anything given the amount of bias circulating around on either side (and the bias of the people linking to these studies/articles). It's not such a clear-cut issue (which is the impression I got from you). If we were talking about the theory of gravity, I believe such confidence would not be misplaced, but I believe it's dangerous to give the illusion that it has been proven either way without a doubt here.
I still believe that education, rather than censorship, is a good idea.
Sorry, you can't "selectively" cite the parts of the study that support your argument while ignoring the bits that disagree with your fundamental premise.
Allow me to further explain my original intentions. Imagine that someone comes to two conclusions: 1) 1 + 1 = 2. To me, this conclusion is logical and I believe their explanation makes sense. 2) 1 + 2 = 4. They, to me, did not arrive at this conclusion using valid logic, and their explanation is inconclusive at best.
If the issue of 1 + 1 being 2 were to come up, despite the fact that I don't agree with everything they say, I could cite their first conclusion. I needn't agree with everything they say in order to do that.
I'm not against censoring what your children experience.
I don't care.
It is no more appropriate to let a 7-year-old browse YouTube than it was 20 years ago to let them browse police crime scene photos (or some other horrible collection of violence).
I don't see a problem with that, either. My main problem is people who censor things without even knowing if it will negatively affect their child or if teaching them about the subject will help them.
An 8 year old that can self regulate his Xbox is a rare case.
I never said otherwise. I just said that it was possible.
Just because some people can, doesn't mean I'm going to take my chances.
It's not much of a risk, to be honest.
that same 8 year old watching a 10 way gang-bang or bestiality until midnight is a complete disaster.
Somehow I doubt that it would be a "complete disaster."
And porn is far more appealing to an 8 year old than any xbox game. And once he stumbles on it, he's going to go back looking for it, you can bet on it.
Pornography is far more appealing? For which 8 year olds? I wasn't even interested in it at around age 10 when I discovered it.
Since when do you have rights to use a computer and internet someone else paid for when you are not a responsible working adult yet?
Since when did I say they had such rights? I just said I thought taking it away is a bad idea. In other words, my opinion.
When you have kids someday your opinion will change
What ridiculous logic. For one thing, since you cannot see into the future, you have no idea whether I will ever have kids or that if I do, my opinion will change. Not only that, but the fact that I may or may not change my opinion in the future is irrelevant to whether or not I'm correct at this current point in time.
You claim you think it is so horrible and insulting for parents to tell you waht to do
No, I just say that I think education is a better answer in this case.
Sorry, you can't "selectively" cite the parts of the study that support your argument while ignoring the bits that disagree with your fundamental premise. If you can't address them, you simply undermine your own point.
The point I was attempting to make in the first place is a lack of real-world evidence.
In other words, you have no fucking clue, but that won't stop you making shit up in an attempt to "prove" your point is valid. Do you have data to support your hypothetical explanation? No? Objection sustained, hypothesis rejected.
Stop trying to "prove" that your point is valid by making things up!
Yeah, and eyewitnesses are pretty much always unreliable. So if you're basing your entire argument on "I don't think I would have had any problems with that as a child, based on what I remember of being a child," then again: your point is irrelevant, and invalid.
I don't believe it's unreliable in my specific case, nor did I base my entire argument on it. Also, I told you that I could tell the difference as a child, not that I think I would be able to.
Go back and read what you wrote.
Everything I wrote was meant to be an opinion. Including the fact that they're paranoid.
You also have yet to offer any credible scientific evidence that your suggestions are any better than blocking access
I don't think you understand my position. I simply reject censorship whether or not you think it's a good idea and could prove that it would help a few people. If explaining the issue to them in an attempt to mitigate any strange conclusions they foolishly came to from watching pornography wouldn't help the issue, then they'll beyond hope, in my opinion.
But don't pretend that your opinion is any more fact-based than anybody else's opinion
You needn't tell me that.
All you've done so far is try to throw question on the facts that HAVE been presented to you by saying
Sorry for questioning your "facts."
Because somebody who has *actually* spent time doing the work under discussion has some inherent credibility when speaking to its complexities and difficulties.
But I'll oppose censorship no matter what, so it's irrelevant to my point. It always has been. I just wondered about the answer, and previously, no one was linking to any actual studies.
He posted a public question, not a public Request for Comments.
Sorry, but he posted it in a public place where you can make public comments. He had no reason that I see to expect no criticism whatsoever (especially here).
but you should probably try and understand that nobody with a child to raise will ever take your parenting advice
You have a very high user ID, so maybe you are young enough that you can't remember life without the internet
Actually, I remember plenty of life without the internet.
and people got along just fine without it.
I never argued otherwise. I'm just against censorship and the attitudes of the parents behind it. It has nothing to do with the internet being a necessity.
Why would we need to show preferred role models and "better pornography," if porn is fine and not harmful at all as it is?
The reason I linked to that was not for its overall conclusion, but more for the text at the very top talking about real-world examples.
As for the question, one explanation could be that there are some (even if not many) people are themselves "negatively" impacted by pornography, so having better role models may be a positive thing for them. For them.
If you've ever spent time around a child
I know I was a child, and I know I knew the difference. Well, I suppose that doesn't mean that all or even most children do, but the differences here are even more clear than with porn, and painstakingly clear if a parent explains the difference instead of trying to trap every child in a bubble.
A child who is sexually immature is not ready physically to learn about sex in graphic and clinical terms such as you'll see in porn, and they are not ready for it emotionally, either.
I wonder how numerous such children are. I wonder how many of them will truly be affected by it. If they are affected, I wonder how much harm it actually does.
You've spent dozens of posts here telling a bunch of parents how wrong they are to want to raise their children in a manner they feel appropriate
I told them that I believe they're wrong, not that they are.
and yet you can offer no evidence or argument as to why what they wish to do is harmful to the children.
I simply believe many learning experiences can be had with unrestricted use and a lack of helicopter parents. And I'm also against censorship in general.
Numerous parents, on the flip side, have pointed out studies where prolonged exposure to porn has negative effects on a person's view of sexuality and ability to form intimate bonds with real people.
For one thing, how do you know they're parents? Why did they even need to be mentioned? Also, I would hardly call a few people "numerous." And I'd say the studies themselves are suspect if you're looking for conclusive real-world evidence, and to be more specific, the effects on actual children of this age.
Your agreement is not required , and your sanction was not requested.
He posted it publicly and was therefore open to criticism.
Slashdot Mirror
Musicians deserve payment
Did some magical entity tell you that that is a fact?
I'm starting to think that, when it comes to IP law, Slashdot is almost as bad as the creationists when it comes to evolution.
I don't believe most people are debating the specifics of "IP" law, but that they're giving their opinions about it. Therefore, it has nothing to do with being factually correct.
Yeah, but only nerds read articles!
Someone's a "looney" for suggesting without evidence that the United States Government in particular has become such a government.
The one above already listed a few pieces of evidence (which is all it takes, really). Although he neglected to mention things such as the TSA or free speech zones. I thought it was plainly clear that I was referring to those things and that it needn't be said again in order to be understood.
Unless you killed someone or do something harmful, I don't see what you're so ashamed off besides that tinfoil hat of yours, lol.
The fact that different people have varying degrees of desire to protect their privacy doesn't mean that they're criminals (or doing something "wrong"). And since the government decides who the criminals are, it probably isn't an intelligent decision to allow them to spy on its own citizens with no oversight.
Someone is a "looney" for suggesting that a government that disregards its own laws is quite possibly a government you don't want to have? I'd say that's a strange definition of "looney" you have there. I believe I simply have a healthy distrust of people with extraordinary power and limited oversight. I can't see why anyone wouldn't.
But I do have a lot to be deeply ashamed of.
You've got plenty to hide, then.
It's not good, but it's not horrible either. What's going on isn't Big Brother snooping in on your every little detail.
It would be quite impossible for them to do that to more than a minuscule portion of the population. But it's possible if they the limit it to a few people. I'd rather not have anyone be spied on, even if that someone isn't myself.
I never claimed to have a precise answer, now did I? I just hinted at the dangers of a government that violates its own laws.
Who knows? With the government's blatant disregard for the constitution, they don't need to answer to anyone.
No one is exempt from criticism. The "mind your own business" cry is only useful when someone asks you a question they don't know the answer to, not when the information (his actions, which he took for whatever reason) is already known. If the information is known, anyone is free to comment on it and criticize you. Perhaps their criticisms are misdirected, but that's something else entirely.
"Its because we're trying to prevent another 9/11 and even though its a pain in the ass for everyone including the nice clerk who really wants to sell you an iPad, we all make small sacrifice during times of war for National Security."
Sounds like nonsense to me. The same kind that allows the TSA and the Patriot Act to exist.
Oh, and there's also the fact that selling something to an individual who you suspect (you never said why) might use that something to inadvertently get you killed is quite different than discriminating against someone who may or may not be planning to give something to someone that lives in a different country which may or may not be planning to attack yours. The USA is the epitome of paranoia.
Would you sell a gun to a person who you suspected might hand it to the crazy guy in the corner that you know will shoot you if he has the chance?
I thought this was about a law? A law based on pure paranoia of the big, evil terrorists. Kind of like the TSA and other such nonsense. I can't understand how anyone could defend this nonsense, and I see it as collective punishment (punish everyone because someone might abuse something).
we're just going to have to be paranoid about who we sell what to
No thanks.
What? They have no business in the act of deciding if they want to sell to someone? What nonsense is this?
I think the main problem is idiotic laws based on paranoia.
Respect for obeying the law
The law isn't always just, so I'm not going to respect someone for blindly obeying it.
then the author should be entitled to some of that money, is valid.
Really? That sounds subjective. And it's not so much a matter of being entitled to it. They cannot force you to buy their products by claiming they're "entitled" to money, after all.
The interpretation of the data in the study you linked to has been questioned, and alternate possibilities have been mentioned. There is even a reply towards the bottom. Linking to a single study, article, or what have you, will likely not conclusively prove anything given the amount of bias circulating around on either side (and the bias of the people linking to these studies/articles). It's not such a clear-cut issue (which is the impression I got from you). If we were talking about the theory of gravity, I believe such confidence would not be misplaced, but I believe it's dangerous to give the illusion that it has been proven either way without a doubt here.
I still believe that education, rather than censorship, is a good idea.
Sorry, you can't "selectively" cite the parts of the study that support your argument while ignoring the bits that disagree with your fundamental premise.
Allow me to further explain my original intentions. Imagine that someone comes to two conclusions:
1) 1 + 1 = 2. To me, this conclusion is logical and I believe their explanation makes sense.
2) 1 + 2 = 4. They, to me, did not arrive at this conclusion using valid logic, and their explanation is inconclusive at best.
If the issue of 1 + 1 being 2 were to come up, despite the fact that I don't agree with everything they say, I could cite their first conclusion. I needn't agree with everything they say in order to do that.
I'm not against censoring what your children experience.
I don't care.
It is no more appropriate to let a 7-year-old browse YouTube than it was 20 years ago to let them browse police crime scene photos (or some other horrible collection of violence).
I don't see a problem with that, either. My main problem is people who censor things without even knowing if it will negatively affect their child or if teaching them about the subject will help them.
An 8 year old that can self regulate his Xbox is a rare case.
I never said otherwise. I just said that it was possible.
Just because some people can, doesn't mean I'm going to take my chances.
It's not much of a risk, to be honest.
that same 8 year old watching a 10 way gang-bang or bestiality until midnight is a complete disaster.
Somehow I doubt that it would be a "complete disaster."
And porn is far more appealing to an 8 year old than any xbox game. And once he stumbles on it, he's going to go back looking for it, you can bet on it.
Pornography is far more appealing? For which 8 year olds? I wasn't even interested in it at around age 10 when I discovered it.
Are you saying a parent has no right to "spy" on anything their kids are doing?
I never mentioned anything about not having the rights. I believe they do as long as it's their computer. I'm just not sure I think it's a good idea.
One that sees things the way you do?
Basically. I think most people dislike murderers because the murderers do something they heavily disagree with.
Which is obviously to allow the kid to do what they want and hope they make the right choice on their own?
That's not quite what I suggest doing.
Kids grow up fast enough today. No need to make it happen any faster.
I wasn't aware that you could accelerate the process of aging. Or did you just mean that you will try to prevent disagreeable changes from occurring?
What if I find it very likely that my child is affected in a negative way by this content?
Well, it is your computer, right? It's not as if this is government censorship that affects everyone.
Since when do you have rights to use a computer and internet someone else paid for when you are not a responsible working adult yet?
Since when did I say they had such rights? I just said I thought taking it away is a bad idea. In other words, my opinion.
When you have kids someday your opinion will change
What ridiculous logic. For one thing, since you cannot see into the future, you have no idea whether I will ever have kids or that if I do, my opinion will change. Not only that, but the fact that I may or may not change my opinion in the future is irrelevant to whether or not I'm correct at this current point in time.
You claim you think it is so horrible and insulting for parents to tell you waht to do
No, I just say that I think education is a better answer in this case.
Sorry, you can't "selectively" cite the parts of the study that support your argument while ignoring the bits that disagree with your fundamental premise. If you can't address them, you simply undermine your own point.
The point I was attempting to make in the first place is a lack of real-world evidence.
In other words, you have no fucking clue, but that won't stop you making shit up in an attempt to "prove" your point is valid. Do you have data to support your hypothetical explanation? No? Objection sustained, hypothesis rejected.
Stop trying to "prove" that your point is valid by making things up!
Yeah, and eyewitnesses are pretty much always unreliable. So if you're basing your entire argument on "I don't think I would have had any problems with that as a child, based on what I remember of being a child," then again: your point is irrelevant, and invalid.
I don't believe it's unreliable in my specific case, nor did I base my entire argument on it. Also, I told you that I could tell the difference as a child, not that I think I would be able to.
Go back and read what you wrote.
Everything I wrote was meant to be an opinion. Including the fact that they're paranoid.
You also have yet to offer any credible scientific evidence that your suggestions are any better than blocking access
I don't think you understand my position. I simply reject censorship whether or not you think it's a good idea and could prove that it would help a few people. If explaining the issue to them in an attempt to mitigate any strange conclusions they foolishly came to from watching pornography wouldn't help the issue, then they'll beyond hope, in my opinion.
But don't pretend that your opinion is any more fact-based than anybody else's opinion
You needn't tell me that.
All you've done so far is try to throw question on the facts that HAVE been presented to you by saying
Sorry for questioning your "facts."
Because somebody who has *actually* spent time doing the work under discussion has some inherent credibility when speaking to its complexities and difficulties.
But I'll oppose censorship no matter what, so it's irrelevant to my point. It always has been. I just wondered about the answer, and previously, no one was linking to any actual studies.
He posted a public question, not a public Request for Comments.
Sorry, but he posted it in a public place where you can make public comments. He had no reason that I see to expect no criticism whatsoever (especially here).
but you should probably try and understand that nobody with a child to raise will ever take your parenting advice
That's a shame.
You have a very high user ID, so maybe you are young enough that you can't remember life without the internet
Actually, I remember plenty of life without the internet.
and people got along just fine without it.
I never argued otherwise. I'm just against censorship and the attitudes of the parents behind it. It has nothing to do with the internet being a necessity.
I'm not aware of anyone not using their own judgement. That doesn't mean they can't be criticized for their decisions, though.
Why would we need to show preferred role models and "better pornography," if porn is fine and not harmful at all as it is?
The reason I linked to that was not for its overall conclusion, but more for the text at the very top talking about real-world examples.
As for the question, one explanation could be that there are some (even if not many) people are themselves "negatively" impacted by pornography, so having better role models may be a positive thing for them. For them.
If you've ever spent time around a child
I know I was a child, and I know I knew the difference. Well, I suppose that doesn't mean that all or even most children do, but the differences here are even more clear than with porn, and painstakingly clear if a parent explains the difference instead of trying to trap every child in a bubble.
A child who is sexually immature is not ready physically to learn about sex in graphic and clinical terms such as you'll see in porn, and they are not ready for it emotionally, either.
I wonder how numerous such children are. I wonder how many of them will truly be affected by it. If they are affected, I wonder how much harm it actually does.
You've spent dozens of posts here telling a bunch of parents how wrong they are to want to raise their children in a manner they feel appropriate
I told them that I believe they're wrong, not that they are.
and yet you can offer no evidence or argument as to why what they wish to do is harmful to the children.
I simply believe many learning experiences can be had with unrestricted use and a lack of helicopter parents. And I'm also against censorship in general.
Numerous parents, on the flip side, have pointed out studies where prolonged exposure to porn has negative effects on a person's view of sexuality and ability to form intimate bonds with real people.
For one thing, how do you know they're parents? Why did they even need to be mentioned? Also, I would hardly call a few people "numerous." And I'd say the studies themselves are suspect if you're looking for conclusive real-world evidence, and to be more specific, the effects on actual children of this age.
Your agreement is not required , and your sanction was not requested.
He posted it publicly and was therefore open to criticism.
Remember being one?
I don't remember being quite so dense. From my perspective, it's the almost anti-pornography people that don't remember being a teenager.