How you treat the corpse is a *measure* of your respect for the dead.
That's your opinion. Not mine. You can respect the person or pet that once lived without respecting the corpse. If you say you can't, then you're just essentially telling people what they feel, and that leaves you open for others to do the same to you.
I'm saying that treating the body of a dead person or pet you claim to have "cared deeply" with disrespect and turning that body into a radio controlled toy is repugnant.
That's subjective.
trying to claim that this is some sort of "normal" behavior
I don't believe many people here claimed it was "normal." Rather, it doesn't matter if it's normal or not.
Your personal attacks won't invalidate a single one of my arguments.
I'm so glad you're a completely balanced person who feels no emotion
"Care to prove this? What if the "people around you" actually agree with you? What if you're empathic to some, but not to others? In fact, that sounds extremely likely given how diverse people's beliefs are. Are you a sociopath for caring about the feelings of some, but not of others?
Where do you draw the line here? Am I sociopath because I hurt someone's feelings simply because I hurt someone's feelings? It's not so easy to say that someone is a sociopath or that they have no empathy."
There's my other response (which you didn't respond to). In fact, if you did any sort of research on the issue, you'd see that almost zero people on this planet are devoid of emotion; even sociopaths have emotion.
He doesn't have to find a reviewer he "always agrees with" he just has to find one (or several) whose reviews collectively are useful to him in narrowing down whether he'd like it.
And since that is error prone, that might be inadequate for him.
That's your opinion.
Incorrect. That is a fact. You did indeed state it as a fact. Therefore, what I said wasn't an opinion, but a fact.
Your point? So you go 2 months without buying movies and buy a player. And why exactly are you buying 2 movies a month with no player anyway?
"No. Movies cost more, far more."
I was simply responding to something you said. Saving up money is, of course, a possibility.
Because he believes nobody who review movies likes generally the same sorts of movies he does?
Perhaps that is the case.
Sure but its highly unlikely and there is no evidence he's actually made any effort to try either.
Given the number of people on this planet, I don't see it as "highly unlikely." There are many different opinions, and you don't necessarily always agree with others.
Assuming your supply of money will be forever the same, that is. You might, for instance, have enough money left over each month to buy a movie or two, but not enough to buy a player.
If you are seriously postulating that there is no way for him to reliably gauge in advance whether or not he'll enjoy a movie, the burden of proof is on you.
Simple: it's a subjective matter. He might believe that the reviews are garbage. Even if he agrees with one occasionally, that by no means means he'll agree with them all or even most of the time. It's entirely possible.
How do they do it? They can diagnose people with various disorders so easily over the internet! I disagree with you, and that makes you a sociopath.
Or, perhaps, just perhaps, some people don't want to let all of their actions be dictated by others just because it might hurt their feelings. It's possible to care about the feelings of others but still not feel it's worth it to stop what you're doing. It's also possible to care about the feelings of some people, but not the feelings of others. The fact that you hurt some people's feelings and don't care about it does not necessarily mean you're a sociopath (or whatever it is you're calling them at the time). For instance, I wouldn't stop saying that 1 + 1 = 2 merely because some hypothetical group of people were offended by it. And chances are, I wouldn't even care.
When you dehumanize a person, you can justify any crime you carry out upon them
You can do that even without dehumanizing them.
If we're not aware of its capacity to harm someone like encouraging someone's guilt or inciting a war, our naivete could allow gross forms of injustice to occur.
Not sure what that has to do with porn on Wikipedia, though.
I like how you tried to bury that response down at the very bottom of your wordy post
I tried to? I expected that you'd at least read my comment, and I tried to respond to things in order. It had nothing to do with burying anything.
So then in your esteemed opinion, the American soldiers were perfectly justified in pissing on the corpses of dead Taliban soldiers?
I just don't care what they did to the bodies. I don't feel positive or negative about it.
You'd have no objection to me, say, digging up corpses of your family members and sending you photos of me having sex with them? You wouldn't mind somebody pissing on your own corpse, or wouldn't mind watching somebody pissing on the corpse of a close friend?
Nope. I wouldn't be able to care about someone urinating on my own corpse because I'd be dead.
I mean, those dead bodies are going to be eaten by worms and such. A little urine surely won't hurt them. I'm not sure how healthy it is to have sexual intercourse with dead bodies, though.
I'm just trying to get a feel for how ridiculous you're willing to pretend you are in the defense of the stupid, poorly thought-out position you've tried to stake a claim to.
I'm just trying to get a feel for how ridiculous you're willing to pretend you are in the defense of the stupid, poorly thought-out position you've tried to stake a claim to.
There. I stated my opinion as a fact. You're surely defeated now.
When hundreds of societal traditions overwhelmingly develop favoring respect for the dead and sensitivity to the survivors of the loss, yes, there's a very good reason for it: namely, that inflicting distress and additional pain on your fellow citizens will get you ostracized from your society rather quickly.
Yes, and if people were offended by the idea of the world not being flat, we should just keep that from them, too. It might hurt their feelings!
But I don't think this will get anyone "ostracized" from society any time soon.
and everything to do with having a shred of empathy (yes, empathy) for the reactions and feelings of the people around you.
You've hurt my feelings by expressing an opinion I disagree with. Have some empathy, won't you? Stop saying things I disagree with!
But to pretend that the many people (i.e., those who love and value their pets) are behaving "irrationally"
If you'll notice, it is not me who said that they're behaving irrationally. I believe it's only their opinion that these things shouldn't be done. That doesn't make it irrational, but I definitely disagree with them. And I don't care for people labeling others as sociopaths (not necessarily you) or saying they don't have empathy for others merely because they do a single thing that others might not like. Different people are offended by different things, and I believe it's absolutely nonsensical to try to cater to others. Even if most people are offended.
is to blind yourself to (or simply ignore because you're a sociopath incapable of) any empathic connection to the people around you.
Care to prove this? What if the "people around you" actually agree with you? What if you're empathic to some, but not to others? In fact, that sounds extremely likely given how diverse people's beliefs are. Are you a sociopath for caring about the feelings of some, but not of others?
Where do you draw the line here? Am I sociopath because I hurt someone's feelings simply because I hurt someone's feelings? It's not so easy to say that someone is a sociopath or that they have no empathy.
What's even more funny is, for a group of people so quick to assure/. that you don't particularly value any notion of "respecting" the dead, I bet you were just as outraged as the next self-proclaimed post-modern intellectuals when that video surfaced showing American soldiers pissing on the corpses of insurgents.
Because every culture in history hasn't developed traditions for handling its dead, and respecting the losses of the survivors, even if the death wasn't a personal loss for yourself.
It's tradition, and tradition is always good. And if most people believe it's good, then it is.
Wow! Where'd you learn to be able to instantly conclude whether or not random strangers that you haven't even met in person have various disorders based on a single one of their beliefs? It's amazing! Tell me more.
As I said in my post, he's trying "too hard" because its simpler and more direct to just observe that the legal media itself costs money that he doesn't want to pay.
Perhaps for him, he needs further reasons.
Clearly they have justified piracy to themselves with it but the argument is still self serving nonsense.
Well, whether it's nonsense or not is subjective. It may or may not be self-serving, but that wouldn't really make them incorrect.
If one is going to rationalize piracy to save a few bucks on playback equipment, then one is trying much too hard.
Define "too hard." How hard should they try? And why should someone use your definition over anyone else's?
But he's attempting to make a moral argument to rationalize his piracy.
I believe far too many people throw out the word "rationalization" as if that will defeat their opponent's arguments. Anyone can do that, but whether or not they're really "rationalizing" is up for debate.
And some would argue that video games turn people into murderers. Not only do most of these appear to be FUD, they also appear to assume that correlation is causation. Even if that's what did happen, there is absolutely no evidence that that happens often at all. I highly suspect that most people (even children) won't go out and murder or rape people simply because they played a video game or watched a video.
On top of that I think some people are reported to be getting porn addiction in which to get their highs they have to be constantly stimulated by more extreme acts.
Yeah, just like constantly stuffing your face with food can be unhealthy, so can sitting around watching porn all day. Or playing video games. Etcetera, etcetera. It really depends on how you define "unhealthy," though.
I suspect your whole attitude against women and other people in society can be warped and your inter personal relationships will not be normal.
Unless you have some evidence, I really don't care what you suspect. Anecdotally, I've played countless violent video games (even as a child) and I'm strictly against violence.
I do not think that video games makes murderers but it can influence people especially with who have 'issues'
Given the decreasing crime rates and the number of people who play video games, I highly doubt that if such people exist, they're very large in number.
Reclusive / personality disorders / whole lives sitting n front of computers
I was not aware that being an introvert meant that you're a murderer/rapist.
That same point of reality vs fantasy is also a good way to think of why young people should not be exposed to pornography until their minds or social skills can handle it.
If what you said is at all true for even a minuscule portion of the population, I suspect it's not young people we need to worry about, but those small number of individuals with those issues. Banning it for all young people is just pointless.
Again, anecdotally, I've seen zero evidence that exposure to pornography will cause you to do any such thing. And I'm not about to change my mind simply because someone linked to a news story (not even a study) that seems to assume that correlation is causation.
In fact, young people will probably discover pornography whether the parents want them to or not. I'd say it's far better to tell them about the realities of relationships (if they are one of the few individuals who can't distinguish between fantasy and reality) than to keep them in a bubble.
Rotton tomatoes comes to mind as one movie review site that does a remarkably good job of correctly rating movies as utter crap on a continual basis.
"correctly"? It's a subjective matter.
Yes... because your $500? ($1500??)+ PC is a simpler more reasonable solution than a $50 bluray player and $5 worth of cables (which you'd need for your computer too)... give me a break.
He already has the PC (which may be far more important than a bluray player). Not everyone has an infinite amount of money, you know.
Then perhaps people shouldn't go around spouting such things as facts, and possibly trying to get laws passed? If they have no evidence, then I believe what they think is worthless. Seeing nudity and sex as a child never hurt me. So, anecdotally, I've seen no evidence of any such thing being true.
What happens when the line between entertainment or health curiosity is blurred with the accepted abuse of another gender or race?
If people are that foolish (and as surprising as it may be, I don't think they are), I think you're going to have a few problems down the road, censorship or not.
Do we as a society shut abusive types of media down or give up on censorship because it can only lead to inevitable misuse?
I believe the latter would be a far more ideal solution.
When it comes to freedom (other people's, in this case), economics usually doesn't enter into the equation for me. To me it's simply a pointless waste of time (time that could've been spent doing something productive).
Slashdot Mirror
How you treat the corpse is a *measure* of your respect for the dead.
That's your opinion. Not mine. You can respect the person or pet that once lived without respecting the corpse. If you say you can't, then you're just essentially telling people what they feel, and that leaves you open for others to do the same to you.
I'm saying that treating the body of a dead person or pet you claim to have "cared deeply" with disrespect and turning that body into a radio controlled toy is repugnant.
That's subjective.
trying to claim that this is some sort of "normal" behavior
I don't believe many people here claimed it was "normal." Rather, it doesn't matter if it's normal or not.
Your personal attacks won't invalidate a single one of my arguments.
I'm so glad you're a completely balanced person who feels no emotion
"Care to prove this? What if the "people around you" actually agree with you? What if you're empathic to some, but not to others? In fact, that sounds extremely likely given how diverse people's beliefs are. Are you a sociopath for caring about the feelings of some, but not of others?
Where do you draw the line here? Am I sociopath because I hurt someone's feelings simply because I hurt someone's feelings? It's not so easy to say that someone is a sociopath or that they have no empathy."
There's my other response (which you didn't respond to). In fact, if you did any sort of research on the issue, you'd see that almost zero people on this planet are devoid of emotion; even sociopaths have emotion.
So... a response for the sake of responding then?
Is that why you're responding to me now?
He doesn't have to find a reviewer he "always agrees with" he just has to find one (or several) whose reviews collectively are useful to him in narrowing down whether he'd like it.
And since that is error prone, that might be inadequate for him.
That's your opinion.
Incorrect. That is a fact. You did indeed state it as a fact. Therefore, what I said wasn't an opinion, but a fact.
Your point? So you go 2 months without buying movies and buy a player. And why exactly are you buying 2 movies a month with no player anyway?
"No. Movies cost more, far more."
I was simply responding to something you said. Saving up money is, of course, a possibility.
Because he believes nobody who review movies likes generally the same sorts of movies he does?
Perhaps that is the case.
Sure but its highly unlikely and there is no evidence he's actually made any effort to try either.
Given the number of people on this planet, I don't see it as "highly unlikely." There are many different opinions, and you don't necessarily always agree with others.
Your point?
You stated it as a fact.
No. Movies cost more, far more.
Assuming your supply of money will be forever the same, that is. You might, for instance, have enough money left over each month to buy a movie or two, but not enough to buy a player.
If you are seriously postulating that there is no way for him to reliably gauge in advance whether or not he'll enjoy a movie, the burden of proof is on you.
Simple: it's a subjective matter. He might believe that the reviews are garbage. Even if he agrees with one occasionally, that by no means means he'll agree with them all or even most of the time. It's entirely possible.
That still doesn't justify pirating them.
In your opinion.
How do they do it? They can diagnose people with various disorders so easily over the internet! I disagree with you, and that makes you a sociopath.
Or, perhaps, just perhaps, some people don't want to let all of their actions be dictated by others just because it might hurt their feelings. It's possible to care about the feelings of others but still not feel it's worth it to stop what you're doing. It's also possible to care about the feelings of some people, but not the feelings of others. The fact that you hurt some people's feelings and don't care about it does not necessarily mean you're a sociopath (or whatever it is you're calling them at the time). For instance, I wouldn't stop saying that 1 + 1 = 2 merely because some hypothetical group of people were offended by it. And chances are, I wouldn't even care.
When you dehumanize a person, you can justify any crime you carry out upon them
You can do that even without dehumanizing them.
If we're not aware of its capacity to harm someone like encouraging someone's guilt or inciting a war, our naivete could allow gross forms of injustice to occur.
Not sure what that has to do with porn on Wikipedia, though.
I like how you tried to bury that response down at the very bottom of your wordy post
I tried to? I expected that you'd at least read my comment, and I tried to respond to things in order. It had nothing to do with burying anything.
So then in your esteemed opinion, the American soldiers were perfectly justified in pissing on the corpses of dead Taliban soldiers?
I just don't care what they did to the bodies. I don't feel positive or negative about it.
You'd have no objection to me, say, digging up corpses of your family members and sending you photos of me having sex with them? You wouldn't mind somebody pissing on your own corpse, or wouldn't mind watching somebody pissing on the corpse of a close friend?
Nope. I wouldn't be able to care about someone urinating on my own corpse because I'd be dead.
I mean, those dead bodies are going to be eaten by worms and such. A little urine surely won't hurt them. I'm not sure how healthy it is to have sexual intercourse with dead bodies, though.
I'm just trying to get a feel for how ridiculous you're willing to pretend you are in the defense of the stupid, poorly thought-out position you've tried to stake a claim to.
I'm just trying to get a feel for how ridiculous you're willing to pretend you are in the defense of the stupid, poorly thought-out position you've tried to stake a claim to.
There. I stated my opinion as a fact. You're surely defeated now.
If he can't afford a $50 dollar player, then he can't afford to buy movies.
Movies cost as much as players?
This simply isn't true.
How so? It's a subjective matter. Perhaps, to him, not enough information is given.
As an internet psychologist, I hereby diagnose you as a sociopath.
When hundreds of societal traditions overwhelmingly develop favoring respect for the dead and sensitivity to the survivors of the loss, yes, there's a very good reason for it: namely, that inflicting distress and additional pain on your fellow citizens will get you ostracized from your society rather quickly.
Yes, and if people were offended by the idea of the world not being flat, we should just keep that from them, too. It might hurt their feelings!
But I don't think this will get anyone "ostracized" from society any time soon.
and everything to do with having a shred of empathy (yes, empathy) for the reactions and feelings of the people around you.
You've hurt my feelings by expressing an opinion I disagree with. Have some empathy, won't you? Stop saying things I disagree with!
But to pretend that the many people (i.e., those who love and value their pets) are behaving "irrationally"
If you'll notice, it is not me who said that they're behaving irrationally. I believe it's only their opinion that these things shouldn't be done. That doesn't make it irrational, but I definitely disagree with them. And I don't care for people labeling others as sociopaths (not necessarily you) or saying they don't have empathy for others merely because they do a single thing that others might not like. Different people are offended by different things, and I believe it's absolutely nonsensical to try to cater to others. Even if most people are offended.
is to blind yourself to (or simply ignore because you're a sociopath incapable of) any empathic connection to the people around you.
Care to prove this? What if the "people around you" actually agree with you? What if you're empathic to some, but not to others? In fact, that sounds extremely likely given how diverse people's beliefs are. Are you a sociopath for caring about the feelings of some, but not of others?
Where do you draw the line here? Am I sociopath because I hurt someone's feelings simply because I hurt someone's feelings? It's not so easy to say that someone is a sociopath or that they have no empathy.
What's even more funny is, for a group of people so quick to assure /. that you don't particularly value any notion of "respecting" the dead, I bet you were just as outraged as the next self-proclaimed post-modern intellectuals when that video surfaced showing American soldiers pissing on the corpses of insurgents.
You bet wrong. I don't care about dead bodies.
We cling to tradition far too much, right?
In my opinion, yes.
Because every culture in history hasn't developed traditions for handling its dead, and respecting the losses of the survivors, even if the death wasn't a personal loss for yourself.
It's tradition, and tradition is always good. And if most people believe it's good, then it is.
aspies
sociopath
Wow! Where'd you learn to be able to instantly conclude whether or not random strangers that you haven't even met in person have various disorders based on a single one of their beliefs? It's amazing! Tell me more.
As I said in my post, he's trying "too hard" because its simpler and more direct to just observe that the legal media itself costs money that he doesn't want to pay.
Perhaps for him, he needs further reasons.
Clearly they have justified piracy to themselves with it but the argument is still self serving nonsense.
Well, whether it's nonsense or not is subjective. It may or may not be self-serving, but that wouldn't really make them incorrect.
If one is going to rationalize piracy to save a few bucks on playback equipment, then one is trying much too hard.
Define "too hard." How hard should they try? And why should someone use your definition over anyone else's?
But he's attempting to make a moral argument to rationalize his piracy.
I believe far too many people throw out the word "rationalization" as if that will defeat their opponent's arguments. Anyone can do that, but whether or not they're really "rationalizing" is up for debate.
And to them, it may very well justify piracy.
The link below could argue yes
And some would argue that video games turn people into murderers. Not only do most of these appear to be FUD, they also appear to assume that correlation is causation. Even if that's what did happen, there is absolutely no evidence that that happens often at all. I highly suspect that most people (even children) won't go out and murder or rape people simply because they played a video game or watched a video.
On top of that I think some people are reported to be getting porn addiction in which to get their highs they have to be constantly stimulated by more extreme acts.
Yeah, just like constantly stuffing your face with food can be unhealthy, so can sitting around watching porn all day. Or playing video games. Etcetera, etcetera. It really depends on how you define "unhealthy," though.
I suspect your whole attitude against women and other people in society can be warped and your inter personal relationships will not be normal.
Unless you have some evidence, I really don't care what you suspect. Anecdotally, I've played countless violent video games (even as a child) and I'm strictly against violence.
I do not think that video games makes murderers but it can influence people especially with who have 'issues'
Given the decreasing crime rates and the number of people who play video games, I highly doubt that if such people exist, they're very large in number.
Reclusive / personality disorders / whole lives sitting n front of computers
I was not aware that being an introvert meant that you're a murderer/rapist.
That same point of reality vs fantasy is also a good way to think of why young people should not be exposed to pornography until their minds or social skills can handle it.
If what you said is at all true for even a minuscule portion of the population, I suspect it's not young people we need to worry about, but those small number of individuals with those issues. Banning it for all young people is just pointless.
Again, anecdotally, I've seen zero evidence that exposure to pornography will cause you to do any such thing. And I'm not about to change my mind simply because someone linked to a news story (not even a study) that seems to assume that correlation is causation.
In fact, young people will probably discover pornography whether the parents want them to or not. I'd say it's far better to tell them about the realities of relationships (if they are one of the few individuals who can't distinguish between fantasy and reality) than to keep them in a bubble.
Rotton tomatoes comes to mind as one movie review site that does a remarkably good job of correctly rating movies as utter crap on a continual basis.
"correctly"? It's a subjective matter.
Yes... because your $500? ($1500??)+ PC is a simpler more reasonable solution than a $50 bluray player and $5 worth of cables (which you'd need for your computer too)... give me a break.
He already has the PC (which may be far more important than a bluray player). Not everyone has an infinite amount of money, you know.
There are some studies you just can't do.
Then perhaps people shouldn't go around spouting such things as facts, and possibly trying to get laws passed? If they have no evidence, then I believe what they think is worthless. Seeing nudity and sex as a child never hurt me. So, anecdotally, I've seen no evidence of any such thing being true.
What happens when the line between entertainment or health curiosity is blurred with the accepted abuse of another gender or race?
If people are that foolish (and as surprising as it may be, I don't think they are), I think you're going to have a few problems down the road, censorship or not.
Do we as a society shut abusive types of media down or give up on censorship because it can only lead to inevitable misuse?
I believe the latter would be a far more ideal solution.
just because some Wikipedians don't understand the difference between censorship and a filtering setting that can be changed.
No, if it was banned, it would be because of idiotic laws and policies, not Wikipedians.
Porn turns children into rapists. Much like video games turn them into murderers.
When it comes to freedom (other people's, in this case), economics usually doesn't enter into the equation for me.
Or rather, responding to what you wrote, health or safety.
When it comes to freedom (other people's, in this case), economics usually doesn't enter into the equation for me. To me it's simply a pointless waste of time (time that could've been spent doing something productive).
Also, this ban is in no way infringing on your freedom to buy pop and consume it at home.
So it's just pointless. And other people (the ones selling it) are banned from doing something.
It's all or nothing!