but we can't make laws for a minority of mentally deranged people with OCD and depression.
Sure we can... if it's for the children! Then every piece of legislation is okay as long as children really are in danger (because they're objectively more important than everyone else)!
True, you may be able to ignore their posts, but you can't stop them from spreading hurtful lies (or hurtful truths) to everybody else in your social circle.
Why are you readily giving up your information on the internet, anyway? Why are people in your social circle believing random rumors? Perhaps they're not people you'd like to have in your "social circle."
You can pretty well destroy someones life by making accusations of pedophilia, beastiality, etc.
And whose fault is that, really? The people who believe the rumors and then act on the misinformation. I'd say they're mostly at fault for that bit of stupidity.
Perhaps "porn isn't reality" wasn't the best way to put it. What I meant is that if they think that children who know nothing about sex watching porn is harmful because they could get the wrong idea about what sex is usually like, perhaps they should teach them that the sex in porn isn't what it's normally like rather than just keeping them in a bubble.
There is no need to have children or even be in relationships. There is no "should" there. Many people may want to have children, but I also believe it's perfectly valid to never want to have any. That's what I meant.
if my kid enjoyed eating an entire chocolate cake every day, should i allow that as well?
Should you? I don't believe in "should." Anyway, that depends. I wouldn't really care if he could assemble the ingredients himself and then make it. But he probably couldn't, so it's a non-problem. I sure know I wouldn't want to go out and buy ingredients every single day. And I wouldn't, so he'd probably do without that.
some behaviours are clearly more detrimental to his long term happiness than others.
And it depends on the person whether or not those behaviors really will be detrimental. Some people don't care much about being fat or unhealthy. Some people don't like to socialize willingly.
sports keep kids in shape and help them develop important social skills.
Truly? Only until they've stopped playing sports. Do you know what I did when I was forced to play sports in gym class? I stood there and did nothing. Not because I was afraid of anything, but because I had no interest in sports.
Exercise also helps keep people in shape. If that is their goal, then exercising will also suffice. Enjoying socialization isn't necessary.
you are welcome to let yours do whatever you please, just don't be shocked when they turn out do be basement dwellers at 30.
That assumes I'd let them stay at the house. The biggest lesson they'd learn is that your actions have consequences if they failed to do what needed to be done.
That said, doing whatever they please would never come into the equation. But I don't see video games or porn to be a problem. I think only people (who I'd say are paranoid) that think addiction is everywhere believe that.
Likewise, developing social skills is important to their future
I can see where learning to speak to people when you have no choice would be important. I cannot see where enjoying socialization is important. If you know how to do the former (and it's not difficult), chances are you won't be impeded by the latter.
Not everyone enjoys real-life socialization, and not everyone will do it by choice.
Thank goodness there is school at least.
It's just a shame that the public schools in the US are awful places that rely on rote memorization and teaching to the test.
the problem is that it isn't necessarily your choice
Of course it is. No one else is making the decisions.
A lot of games are similar - they're designed to keep you coming back for a little fix, hoping that you'll pay a little real world cash for those boosts over and over again.
I suspect true video game "addiction" is quite low.
Porn is like that too - after a while you start to become desensitised to real sex and can no longer get it up because the stimuli you now need doesn't exist in the real world.
What, you mean some people who somehow get addicted to porn are like that? Because I suspect those cases are extremely rare.
So when my kid says, "Dad, I want cake for breakfast," I should just trust him?
"If you make it yourself."
I don't care for forcing people to eat certain things.
and let him form opinions and reach conclusions about sex and women and socializing because he's "old enough," and I should "trust him"?
Sure, why not? Do you think him to be an imbecile? That's not true in all cases, you know.
It's a parent's job to set limits and boundaries that the child is not sufficiently mature enough or forward-looking enough to set for himself, and teach him WHY those boundaries and limits and self-discipline are important.
Which, for many parents, the "why" will probably amount to "because I don't like it."
is the appropriate response to a kid being exposed to porn (likely long before he's actually exposed to any serious sexual situations) is just ludicrous.
Yeah, because porn is Pure Evil. Oh, wait, no such thing has ever been proven (that I know of)...
I don't believe most children believe that video games are reality, and for the ones that believe porn is reality, all it takes is an explanation. Keeping them in a bubble is the exact opposite of that. After all, if it's true that they believe that porn is a good dose of reality, and they find it on their own (which they most likely will even if you don't want them to), then wouldn't they supposedly get hurt if they didn't have your guidance?
And why does it matter? Perhaps they just doing things they enjoy?
but i do think that they are potentially addictive in the same way that many other things are
Yeah, like... things that you enjoy. That could be sports or any number of things. I think it's only a problem if it prevents them from doing things that they enjoy. That doesn't mean things that you want them to enjoy.
We're doomed! Our population is dangerously low, and everyone plays video games! And correlation is causation, too! Everyone who plays video games/watches porn is actually a desensitized zombie that doesn't know how to function in society!
No, I just honestly don't see this as anything more than a petty matter. Copyright infringement. So what? People are treating it as if it's some sort of national security emergency that we must extradite people in other countries for. Wow, files were copied! That's just terrible.
but an ISP stopping attempting to curtail illegal activity
That is only their intent. However, given the small amount of (bogus) evidence these people provide to "prove" someone is a pirate, innocent people will be affected. Worst of all? There is no court case. Nothing.
I read that later on, and that is something I forgot to remove.
If you reject my "opinion," namely that not all opinions carry the same weight, you must accept the negation as true (ie in your opinion, all opinions are indeed of the same weight).
I was referring to objective "weight," not subjective. I do not believe opinions hold any objective value (as in, some opinions are factually more important), and are therefore all of equal value. This means you can hold your opinion in a higher regard.
You may not have been speaking of some opinions being more objectively important than others, but at the time, that's what I was speaking of.
I would have thought it very clear what "appropriate behaviour" meant in the context of that sentence?! Your English comprehensions skills seem compromised, perhaps your love of the halfling's leaf has slowed your mind?
It's subjective. What may be "appropriate" to one may not be to all. Indeed, I still don't know what you meant by "appropriate." What is "appropriate" for a 5 year old? A 50 year old? Why?
What I can't work out is where the word 'solutions' is being quoted from?
"Simple solutions"
But I was really referring to my own solution of legalizing all drugs.
While I could not entertain the naive libertarianism which would so categorically shackle the legislature
With all the garbage they put out, I'd say shackling it is indeed in order. I don't think of that as "naive." It depends more on the degree of shackling.
Yeah, let's wait until after someone dies to anything about anything.
There are no perfect solutions. Someone will die no matter what you choose. I don't like this "I'll accept no casualties" mentality. Especially when they then use it to restrict others' freedoms.
Let's say Billy wants to build a nuke.
Unlikely. But if he shows intent to commit a crime (which is, I find, likely if he's building a nuke), arrest him.
Not really similar to taking meth.
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 1
It's an online service that you pay once for.
With a single player mode. And it's a game. And previous Diablo games had single player modes that let you play offline.
I'm not seeing the similarity, there. No matter what you call it, I'll call it "idiotic."
Slashdot Mirror
but we can't make laws for a minority of mentally deranged people with OCD and depression.
Sure we can... if it's for the children! Then every piece of legislation is okay as long as children really are in danger (because they're objectively more important than everyone else)!
True, you may be able to ignore their posts, but you can't stop them from spreading hurtful lies (or hurtful truths) to everybody else in your social circle.
Why are you readily giving up your information on the internet, anyway? Why are people in your social circle believing random rumors? Perhaps they're not people you'd like to have in your "social circle."
You can pretty well destroy someones life by making accusations of pedophilia, beastiality, etc.
And whose fault is that, really? The people who believe the rumors and then act on the misinformation. I'd say they're mostly at fault for that bit of stupidity.
In what sense is porn not real?
Perhaps "porn isn't reality" wasn't the best way to put it. What I meant is that if they think that children who know nothing about sex watching porn is harmful because they could get the wrong idea about what sex is usually like, perhaps they should teach them that the sex in porn isn't what it's normally like rather than just keeping them in a bubble.
I was only responding to what they wrote.
There is no need to have children or even be in relationships. There is no "should" there. Many people may want to have children, but I also believe it's perfectly valid to never want to have any. That's what I meant.
Companies can charge whatever they damn well want for their software.
And people can criticize their decisions. But if people are indeed buying it anyway, I'd agree it's not useful.
if my kid enjoyed eating an entire chocolate cake every day, should i allow that as well?
Should you? I don't believe in "should." Anyway, that depends. I wouldn't really care if he could assemble the ingredients himself and then make it. But he probably couldn't, so it's a non-problem. I sure know I wouldn't want to go out and buy ingredients every single day. And I wouldn't, so he'd probably do without that.
some behaviours are clearly more detrimental to his long term happiness than others.
And it depends on the person whether or not those behaviors really will be detrimental. Some people don't care much about being fat or unhealthy. Some people don't like to socialize willingly.
sports keep kids in shape and help them develop important social skills.
Truly? Only until they've stopped playing sports. Do you know what I did when I was forced to play sports in gym class? I stood there and did nothing. Not because I was afraid of anything, but because I had no interest in sports.
Exercise also helps keep people in shape. If that is their goal, then exercising will also suffice. Enjoying socialization isn't necessary.
you are welcome to let yours do whatever you please, just don't be shocked when they turn out do be basement dwellers at 30.
That assumes I'd let them stay at the house. The biggest lesson they'd learn is that your actions have consequences if they failed to do what needed to be done.
That said, doing whatever they please would never come into the equation. But I don't see video games or porn to be a problem. I think only people (who I'd say are paranoid) that think addiction is everywhere believe that.
We are all at an age where we should be settling down and forming those long term commitments
"should be"? Who decided that? What if someone has no desire to do so? It's just not necessary.
Likewise, developing social skills is important to their future
I can see where learning to speak to people when you have no choice would be important. I cannot see where enjoying socialization is important. If you know how to do the former (and it's not difficult), chances are you won't be impeded by the latter.
Not everyone enjoys real-life socialization, and not everyone will do it by choice.
Thank goodness there is school at least.
It's just a shame that the public schools in the US are awful places that rely on rote memorization and teaching to the test.
the problem is that it isn't necessarily your choice
Of course it is. No one else is making the decisions.
A lot of games are similar - they're designed to keep you coming back for a little fix, hoping that you'll pay a little real world cash for those boosts over and over again.
I suspect true video game "addiction" is quite low.
Porn is like that too - after a while you start to become desensitised to real sex and can no longer get it up because the stimuli you now need doesn't exist in the real world.
What, you mean some people who somehow get addicted to porn are like that? Because I suspect those cases are extremely rare.
So when my kid says, "Dad, I want cake for breakfast," I should just trust him?
"If you make it yourself."
I don't care for forcing people to eat certain things.
and let him form opinions and reach conclusions about sex and women and socializing because he's "old enough," and I should "trust him"?
Sure, why not? Do you think him to be an imbecile? That's not true in all cases, you know.
It's a parent's job to set limits and boundaries that the child is not sufficiently mature enough or forward-looking enough to set for himself, and teach him WHY those boundaries and limits and self-discipline are important.
Which, for many parents, the "why" will probably amount to "because I don't like it."
is the appropriate response to a kid being exposed to porn (likely long before he's actually exposed to any serious sexual situations) is just ludicrous.
Yeah, because porn is Pure Evil. Oh, wait, no such thing has ever been proven (that I know of)...
I don't believe most children believe that video games are reality, and for the ones that believe porn is reality, all it takes is an explanation. Keeping them in a bubble is the exact opposite of that. After all, if it's true that they believe that porn is a good dose of reality, and they find it on their own (which they most likely will even if you don't want them to), then wouldn't they supposedly get hurt if they didn't have your guidance?
boys ARE socializing less and withdrawing more.
They are?
And why does it matter? Perhaps they just doing things they enjoy?
but i do think that they are potentially addictive in the same way that many other things are
Yeah, like... things that you enjoy. That could be sports or any number of things. I think it's only a problem if it prevents them from doing things that they enjoy. That doesn't mean things that you want them to enjoy.
some of which are horribly degrading and may affect his outlook on women and sex.
Does he by chance have trouble differentiating reality and fiction? Because I don't think most people do.
You could solve this quite easily by explaining that porn isn't reality.
We're doomed! Our population is dangerously low, and everyone plays video games! And correlation is causation, too! Everyone who plays video games/watches porn is actually a desensitized zombie that doesn't know how to function in society!
Stop enjoying things that I don't enjoy...
If I told you that you could have a free car, but you had to pay for it before it was free... would I really be offering you a free car?
If I had to pay for it, yes. If I didn't have to pay for it, no. If you had to pay for it previously, but I didn't, yes.
Once produced, the movies can be copied almost infinitely. That's what I meant, and that is all I meant.
Unless they don't have cable or satellite, or if they pirate the signal.
Indeed. But this article deals with those that have Dish Network.
What the hell happened to America?
Too busy spending money on killing people and figuring out more efficient ways of killing people.
so the shows that people are skipping ads for are not a scarce resource?
Not once they're already produced.
But lets not tell people that they can have all the shows they like for free
I was under the impression that they pay their cable/satellite bill.
No, I just honestly don't see this as anything more than a petty matter. Copyright infringement. So what? People are treating it as if it's some sort of national security emergency that we must extradite people in other countries for. Wow, files were copied! That's just terrible.
What a waste of taxpayer dollars.
[1] Physical presence of the perpetrator should not be required -- if the crime causes damage in that country, then that's real presence.
Copied files! Oh, the horror! That's almost as bad as a kid selling lemonade without a permit!
You can talk big, but you're not going to stick it to Comcast when you don't even pay the bill.
Who are you talking about? Those random strangers on the internet that you know nothing about? Oh, I see.
I have a major issue when someone is making money off piracy.
Why?
That would be up to the ISPs. If the ISPs accept the accusations as evidence, then they will be able to oppress users mistakenly.
but an ISP stopping attempting to curtail illegal activity
That is only their intent. However, given the small amount of (bogus) evidence these people provide to "prove" someone is a pirate, innocent people will be affected. Worst of all? There is no court case. Nothing.
How so?
I read that later on, and that is something I forgot to remove.
If you reject my "opinion," namely that not all opinions carry the same weight, you must accept the negation as true (ie in your opinion, all opinions are indeed of the same weight).
I was referring to objective "weight," not subjective. I do not believe opinions hold any objective value (as in, some opinions are factually more important), and are therefore all of equal value. This means you can hold your opinion in a higher regard.
You may not have been speaking of some opinions being more objectively important than others, but at the time, that's what I was speaking of.
I would have thought it very clear what "appropriate behaviour" meant in the context of that sentence?! Your English comprehensions skills seem compromised, perhaps your love of the halfling's leaf has slowed your mind?
It's subjective. What may be "appropriate" to one may not be to all. Indeed, I still don't know what you meant by "appropriate." What is "appropriate" for a 5 year old? A 50 year old? Why?
What I can't work out is where the word 'solutions' is being quoted from?
"Simple solutions"
But I was really referring to my own solution of legalizing all drugs.
While I could not entertain the naive libertarianism which would so categorically shackle the legislature
With all the garbage they put out, I'd say shackling it is indeed in order. I don't think of that as "naive." It depends more on the degree of shackling.
Yeah, let's wait until after someone dies to anything about anything.
There are no perfect solutions. Someone will die no matter what you choose. I don't like this "I'll accept no casualties" mentality. Especially when they then use it to restrict others' freedoms.
Let's say Billy wants to build a nuke.
Unlikely. But if he shows intent to commit a crime (which is, I find, likely if he's building a nuke), arrest him.
Not really similar to taking meth.
It's an online service that you pay once for.
With a single player mode. And it's a game. And previous Diablo games had single player modes that let you play offline.
I'm not seeing the similarity, there. No matter what you call it, I'll call it "idiotic."