Let's say some pedophiles out there have an additional fetish for bathing suits. How is cartoon kiddie porn different by your standards than any other "harmless" pictures of children in bathing suits that might arouse pedophiles?
You have to take it in context in which it is used. If I found a swimsuit designer with a wall of pictures of kids in swimsuits, that would be normal. There is a normal use for such a display, the person is in the business of making swimsuits. If I go to some guy's house and he has a wall of such pictures and lotion and tissues nearby, there's something very abnormal going on.
Another thing to consider is that with mainstream porn, it's basically acceptable to perform what is going on with consenting adults (in western society, standard disclaimers apply). There is no such "consenting adult" behavoir possible with anyone re-enacting what's going on in child pornography. Fantasizing about what is going in it isn't healthy or normal. It's certainly not out of the realm of possibilities that someone exposed to such material for a long time could be desensitized to it and want to perform it for real. While the same could be said of violent material, usually such material is intertwined with a plot in a movie or TV show that often shows the consequences of such actions.
When the potential harmfulness outweights the potential benefits.
Generally, when it directly hurts someone. Not when it "indirectly, might cause some influence toward" or "may tend to persuade" or "might someday result in a potential for".... no... when it directly removes someone's freedom to enjoy the things that they enjoy.
In this case, it is clear that *real* child porn does exactly that.... it removes the child's freedom and/or harms that child.
In the case of "virtual" porn, there is no such argument that does not include "indirectly might" or "could potentially influence" or "may tend to persuade"....
I'll agree with your last statement, but does anyone really need a study to remove "indirectly" or "potentially" from their minds? I'd go so far as to say it's naive to think kiddie porn doesn't have a significant behavior-affecting impact on those who use it; you know that real child porn harms children, there's no need for a law or a study to tell you that. Undoubtedly many children who were victimized by child pornographers grew up to be productive adults. Perhaps some where unaware of their vicitimization and never suffered physcologically (spelling?). That doesn't lessen the hideousness of it, nor make a case for it to be legalized.
The crux of your argument is freedom, the crux of mine is potential harm. I don't see the motivation behind opening a Pandora's box of material that people are living without today just to provide so called "entertainment".
I'm actually a moderate to left-leaning Democrat who believes in God, though not the twisted perception of religion and Christianity that seems to pervade Slashdot, or the extreme far right Christians which I despise. I don't think anyone needs an inkling of religious beliefs to understand why child pornography, "artificial" or "real" is wrong. Merely having children and family will open your eyes to this truth. In world that has enough Bad Things (tm) going on, there's no need to introduce the potential for more.
I know better than to go troll-hunting but then again I'm not that smart
so I can dismiss your opinion outright
Me, a troll? Pot, meet kettle.
It's a pretty sad world when people can't understand the difference of kiddie porn versus other "entertainment" as you put it. I'm not going down the worn out "where do we draw the line" argument. If you don't get it, I'm not going to sway you. The fact that you classify kiddie porn as entertainment says something. Justifying kiddie porn on the basis of freedom and free society is just as bad if not worse then denying freedoms under the guise of homeland security and fighting terrorism.
I don't know the answer to that, but I know allowing computer animations of children getting sodomized isn't beneficial in either scenario....or do you really think so?
so you are advocating mandatory "treatment" for those who partake in thought crimes or possess forbidden information
No, I'm advocating treatment for people who partake in kiddie porn. I'm not asking for some Orwellian society...I don't want someone to have access to child pornography, get hooked on it, and discover later that his computer just isn't giving him enough of a rise, so he decides to lure some neighborhood kid into his house. What is so wrong about that? I'm not some conservative Bible-thumping facist, I just would prefer not to encourage behavior that is outright wrong with material that has no valid reason to exist. A picture or video of a two year old getting raped isn't in the same league as a violent video game or someone getting shot on TV. Period.
Using your logic, there's no evidence of God existing. Humans are not living things, but are essentially collections of chemicals. There's no evidence of a soul existing or there being an afterlife, a certainly no consequences for doing anything. Everyone eventually becomes worm food abscent of any feeling, consiousness or memory, so there really is no basis for anyone determining what is right and wrong. Therefore, if I kill someone, there really is no victim and nothing right or wrong about it. So in a free society, I should be able to kill anyone I please. There's slippery slopes on both sides of the mountain.
What if child porn incites pedophiles? Is there any evidence at all of this? No, there isn't. People claim it's "common sense" and site statistics that show 70% of molestors have viewed child porn.
Who cares if there is evidence or not? There comes a time when it's no longer right to play amateur shady attorney, making tired slippery slope and intellectual masturbation where-do-you-draw-the-line arguments and just do what's morally correct. There's no good reason for the material to exist. We don't need years of studies to determine if artificial kiddie porn is detrimental. The lack of it isn't going to cause global warming, mass killings, or cute furry kittens to die. Someone having a desire for this material alone is an illness that needs to be addressed. Screw these "there is no victim" arguments others have posted here -- the person looking for this material is a victim.
Because clearly they don't stimulate any new thoughts in us/.'ers.
That's because./ has deteriorated into a forum that is not intended to stimulate new thought, but only to perpetuate "ideal", cynical, geek groupthink. If you've come for new thought, you're in the wrong place.
And it's working. Apple market share has been rising quickly since the introduction of the Intel line.
People who are swayed by the commercials could probably care less about an Intel processor....let alone tell you what processor they have or what one does.:-)
This is Slashdot. You're supposed to look at gay shirtless men at work in order to protect net neutrality and fight censorship, big brother, evil business, neo-con politicians and.....errrr....Microsoft! Think of the Slashdotters!
There's plenty of times to bitch about the FCC's involvement, but this isn't one of them. The OTARD (over the air reception device) rules were passed years ago, and that was the basis for the airline's claim they could have access points. These rules allow anyone to install an antenna within certain guidelines in order to receive commercial non-broadcast data communications and they supersede HOAs, CC&Rs, nasty leases, etc. It had *zero* to do with the FCC's "sticky fingers", media, private property, censorship, terrorists, liberity, freedom....etc...
I can't believe the number of stupid, ignorant, uninformed posts over this article. However kewl you think XM or Sirius is, or if you think NPR has an axe to grind with satellite radio, or if broadcast radio is antiquated, if XM or Sirius are breaking the law - THEY'RE BREAKING THE LAW. Federal regulations are there for a reason. Laws aren't made for companies to ignore if they have a popular product. If you disagree, please be ready to extend this privlege to oil, energy, and manufacturing companies who would be more than happy to stop complying with costly environmental regulations.
It's just amazing how Slashdot can take such an obviously slanted article and add to it, with the Slashdot hoi polloi following along like a bunch of lemmings.
Some religions attempt to explain, others assert, some guess, and some outright create items (i.e. Catholism and purgatory). Even within Christianity there's very different viewpoints. Unfortunately many people want to peg all Christianity as literal interpretation of the Bible. Such a stance provides a convenient way to dismiss Christianity as "asserting" certain events (i.e. creation in six days) that is inconsistent with science and thus dismissing the whole idea of a creator existing.
I'm not sure how anyone can say science has shown there is no who and why. Science seeks to know the mechanics of creation. For science to prove there is no who and why, it would have to be able to repeatably test something or some entity to generate results and come to a conclusion. Understanding the mechanics of creation doesn't even come close to understanding a who and why and if it exists. If man is stuck within a sandbox controlled by the creator, man can never say with 100% certainty how creation occurred.
I find it interesting how some on Slashdot (not you) can beat down religion as being arrogant and a human invention created to comfort our hardwired need for an explanation of life, and yet turn around and display their own arrogance in insisting that there is no way a creator can exist dispite science being clearly limited in what it can prove within the finite limits of the world we are in. I won't argue there's plenty of religions or sects within religions doing bad things, but to dismiss the idea of a creator based on this as so many here do is foolish.
The Pope doesn't represent all of Chistianity or religion for that matter. Hawkings should study and theorize the origin of the universe as much as he wants. He probably will never determine if a higher being actually flipped the switch that made it happen, though. Science explains how, what, where, and when. Religion explains who and why.
Those people can trust science to make more fuel efficient SUVs, better bombs for Iraq and cure diseases. But when it proves that the earth is round, that the universe is 13-15 billion years old and that prayer doesn't really do anything, they think its hogwash.
Science today can't determine the origin of matter, so how can anyone logically depend solely on science for guidance on the origin or future disposition of their soul? Leave car mileage, bombs, and disease cures to science, let religion handle what science can't begin to explain. This "scientific study" doesn't prove prayer doesn't really do anything, it only proves that it doesn't do anything when we study it. The true "test subject", if He exists, can make the results be whatever He desires. No scientific test we can perform can take that into account. Any truly scientifically-minded person can see this.
And believe it or not, there are religious people that believe the Earth is round and the universe is older than 3000 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's say some pedophiles out there have an additional fetish for bathing suits. How is cartoon kiddie porn different by your standards than any other "harmless" pictures of children in bathing suits that might arouse pedophiles?
You have to take it in context in which it is used. If I found a swimsuit designer with a wall of pictures of kids in swimsuits, that would be normal. There is a normal use for such a display, the person is in the business of making swimsuits. If I go to some guy's house and he has a wall of such pictures and lotion and tissues nearby, there's something very abnormal going on.
Another thing to consider is that with mainstream porn, it's basically acceptable to perform what is going on with consenting adults (in western society, standard disclaimers apply). There is no such "consenting adult" behavoir possible with anyone re-enacting what's going on in child pornography. Fantasizing about what is going in it isn't healthy or normal. It's certainly not out of the realm of possibilities that someone exposed to such material for a long time could be desensitized to it and want to perform it for real. While the same could be said of violent material, usually such material is intertwined with a plot in a movie or TV show that often shows the consequences of such actions.
But when do we tell someone "you cannot do that".
When the potential harmfulness outweights the potential benefits.
Generally, when it directly hurts someone. Not when it "indirectly, might cause some influence toward" or "may tend to persuade" or "might someday result in a potential for".... no... when it directly removes someone's freedom to enjoy the things that they enjoy. In this case, it is clear that *real* child porn does exactly that.... it removes the child's freedom and/or harms that child. In the case of "virtual" porn, there is no such argument that does not include "indirectly might" or "could potentially influence" or "may tend to persuade"....
I'll agree with your last statement, but does anyone really need a study to remove "indirectly" or "potentially" from their minds? I'd go so far as to say it's naive to think kiddie porn doesn't have a significant behavior-affecting impact on those who use it; you know that real child porn harms children, there's no need for a law or a study to tell you that. Undoubtedly many children who were victimized by child pornographers grew up to be productive adults. Perhaps some where unaware of their vicitimization and never suffered physcologically (spelling?). That doesn't lessen the hideousness of it, nor make a case for it to be legalized.
The crux of your argument is freedom, the crux of mine is potential harm. I don't see the motivation behind opening a Pandora's box of material that people are living without today just to provide so called "entertainment".
I'm actually a moderate to left-leaning Democrat who believes in God, though not the twisted perception of religion and Christianity that seems to pervade Slashdot, or the extreme far right Christians which I despise. I don't think anyone needs an inkling of religious beliefs to understand why child pornography, "artificial" or "real" is wrong. Merely having children and family will open your eyes to this truth. In world that has enough Bad Things (tm) going on, there's no need to introduce the potential for more.
I know better than to go troll-hunting but then again I'm not that smart
so I can dismiss your opinion outright
Me, a troll? Pot, meet kettle.
It's a pretty sad world when people can't understand the difference of kiddie porn versus other "entertainment" as you put it. I'm not going down the worn out "where do we draw the line" argument. If you don't get it, I'm not going to sway you. The fact that you classify kiddie porn as entertainment says something. Justifying kiddie porn on the basis of freedom and free society is just as bad if not worse then denying freedoms under the guise of homeland security and fighting terrorism.
I don't know the answer to that, but I know allowing computer animations of children getting sodomized isn't beneficial in either scenario....or do you really think so?
so you are advocating mandatory "treatment" for those who partake in thought crimes or possess forbidden information
No, I'm advocating treatment for people who partake in kiddie porn. I'm not asking for some Orwellian society...I don't want someone to have access to child pornography, get hooked on it, and discover later that his computer just isn't giving him enough of a rise, so he decides to lure some neighborhood kid into his house. What is so wrong about that? I'm not some conservative Bible-thumping facist, I just would prefer not to encourage behavior that is outright wrong with material that has no valid reason to exist. A picture or video of a two year old getting raped isn't in the same league as a violent video game or someone getting shot on TV. Period.
Using your logic, there's no evidence of God existing. Humans are not living things, but are essentially collections of chemicals. There's no evidence of a soul existing or there being an afterlife, a certainly no consequences for doing anything. Everyone eventually becomes worm food abscent of any feeling, consiousness or memory, so there really is no basis for anyone determining what is right and wrong. Therefore, if I kill someone, there really is no victim and nothing right or wrong about it. So in a free society, I should be able to kill anyone I please. There's slippery slopes on both sides of the mountain.
What if child porn incites pedophiles? Is there any evidence at all of this? No, there isn't. People claim it's "common sense" and site statistics that show 70% of molestors have viewed child porn.
Who cares if there is evidence or not? There comes a time when it's no longer right to play amateur shady attorney, making tired slippery slope and intellectual masturbation where-do-you-draw-the-line arguments and just do what's morally correct. There's no good reason for the material to exist. We don't need years of studies to determine if artificial kiddie porn is detrimental. The lack of it isn't going to cause global warming, mass killings, or cute furry kittens to die. Someone having a desire for this material alone is an illness that needs to be addressed. Screw these "there is no victim" arguments others have posted here -- the person looking for this material is a victim.
'If we give away the bandwidth and the storage, and we get none of the advertising revenue, what's the business model? '
They will make it up in volume!
I wonder if it notices hot chicks when there's no interesting volcanos?
Because clearly they don't stimulate any new thoughts in us /.'ers.
./ has deteriorated into a forum that is not intended to stimulate new thought, but only to perpetuate "ideal", cynical, geek groupthink. If you've come for new thought, you're in the wrong place.
That's because
And it's working. Apple market share has been rising quickly since the introduction of the Intel line.
:-)
People who are swayed by the commercials could probably care less about an Intel processor....let alone tell you what processor they have or what one does.
This is Slashdot. You're supposed to look at gay shirtless men at work in order to protect net neutrality and fight censorship, big brother, evil business, neo-con politicians and.....errrr....Microsoft! Think of the Slashdotters!
There's plenty of times to bitch about the FCC's involvement, but this isn't one of them. The OTARD (over the air reception device) rules were passed years ago, and that was the basis for the airline's claim they could have access points. These rules allow anyone to install an antenna within certain guidelines in order to receive commercial non-broadcast data communications and they supersede HOAs, CC&Rs, nasty leases, etc. It had *zero* to do with the FCC's "sticky fingers", media, private property, censorship, terrorists, liberity, freedom....etc...
I can't believe the number of stupid, ignorant, uninformed posts over this article. However kewl you think XM or Sirius is, or if you think NPR has an axe to grind with satellite radio, or if broadcast radio is antiquated, if XM or Sirius are breaking the law - THEY'RE BREAKING THE LAW. Federal regulations are there for a reason. Laws aren't made for companies to ignore if they have a popular product. If you disagree, please be ready to extend this privlege to oil, energy, and manufacturing companies who would be more than happy to stop complying with costly environmental regulations.
It's just amazing how Slashdot can take such an obviously slanted article and add to it, with the Slashdot hoi polloi following along like a bunch of lemmings.
Pack your bags or hit the road! You did make me the absolute ruler, you know :-)
I'd make Intel's management move to India! Problem solved :-)
I'll take Questions With Obvious Answers for $200, Alex!
OMG, at this rate, we'll have 64 kHz calls in 6 years, and 128 kHz in 12 years!!!!
:-P )
(Going from 8 kHz to 16 kHz isn't a "doubling of quality"
Some religions attempt to explain, others assert, some guess, and some outright create items (i.e. Catholism and purgatory). Even within Christianity there's very different viewpoints. Unfortunately many people want to peg all Christianity as literal interpretation of the Bible. Such a stance provides a convenient way to dismiss Christianity as "asserting" certain events (i.e. creation in six days) that is inconsistent with science and thus dismissing the whole idea of a creator existing.
I'm not sure how anyone can say science has shown there is no who and why. Science seeks to know the mechanics of creation. For science to prove there is no who and why, it would have to be able to repeatably test something or some entity to generate results and come to a conclusion. Understanding the mechanics of creation doesn't even come close to understanding a who and why and if it exists. If man is stuck within a sandbox controlled by the creator, man can never say with 100% certainty how creation occurred.
I find it interesting how some on Slashdot (not you) can beat down religion as being arrogant and a human invention created to comfort our hardwired need for an explanation of life, and yet turn around and display their own arrogance in insisting that there is no way a creator can exist dispite science being clearly limited in what it can prove within the finite limits of the world we are in. I won't argue there's plenty of religions or sects within religions doing bad things, but to dismiss the idea of a creator based on this as so many here do is foolish.
The Pope doesn't represent all of Chistianity or religion for that matter. Hawkings should study and theorize the origin of the universe as much as he wants. He probably will never determine if a higher being actually flipped the switch that made it happen, though. Science explains how, what, where, and when. Religion explains who and why.
...from Mystery Science Theatre 3000...
Those people can trust science to make more fuel efficient SUVs, better bombs for Iraq and cure diseases. But when it proves that the earth is round, that the universe is 13-15 billion years old and that prayer doesn't really do anything, they think its hogwash.
Science today can't determine the origin of matter, so how can anyone logically depend solely on science for guidance on the origin or future disposition of their soul? Leave car mileage, bombs, and disease cures to science, let religion handle what science can't begin to explain. This "scientific study" doesn't prove prayer doesn't really do anything, it only proves that it doesn't do anything when we study it. The true "test subject", if He exists, can make the results be whatever He desires. No scientific test we can perform can take that into account. Any truly scientifically-minded person can see this.
And believe it or not, there are religious people that believe the Earth is round and the universe is older than 3000 years.
...doesn't have the ability to know about a study to detect his presence and skew the results?
What is the religious answer to this? Do they contend that these were a failed first protoype of later man? Someone give me an argument to go on...
While we're asking religious questions, what is the religous answer to why my truck is burning more oil these days?