Is Canadians should re-establish their rights. First, their right to Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and Glock. Then tell their public officials that not only do they want the camcorder bill rescinded, and the Canadian DMCA dropped. But also a law passed rescinding ALL of the MPAA's copyrights for copyright abuse.
Big Troll but it's truly what should be done. I am not sure what the basis of legality for copyrights in Canada is. Here in the U.S., our patent and copyright laws are supposed to be for a limited time. And for the purpose of further invention and the arts. (No other purpose.)
Well,...it's not. And just as nearly all of our rights are slowly being eroded by re-interpretations, expansions, etc. *shrug* Just wait until the DFSA (Digital Free Speech Act) is passed restricting free speech to only verbal. I mean, the Constitution never explicitly allowed for digital speech. Therefore, it's clear that expressing your point of views online is NOT protected by the U.S. Constitution. (Ain't revisionist interpretation a !@#$%.)
Thankfully, a small segment of the American populace endeavor to maintain our 2nd Ammendment rights in order to ensure the rest of our rights.
And two fallen towers in NYC and attempts to secure nuclear material to cause even more harm do not equate to public safety.
Frankly, I don't believe we can risk innocent until proven guilty in some of these cases. Because courts require "beyond a reasonable doubt". And it's really tough to get that info until it's too late.
We're not talking about detaining citizens, or even migrants. Only those individuals who are either illegal (ie: should be either kicked out of the country or thrown in jail anyways) or enemy combatants engaged in foriegn conflict zones.
Yes, teh same enemy combatants who repeatedly break the Geneva conventions but expect to be rewarded the priveledges of those conventions. And in so breaking those conventions they endanger civilian life. Sorry, if you were merely the limo driver for Al-quaeda members...you've earned enough suspician for a life time sentence.
I mean, they didn't even have the announcement of new iPods until it was all over the web. I think Slashdot was almost the last site I read to post about it.
What a reversal...
The truth is, if this is the trend than Slashdot will lose readers & advertisers. Some other site will be founded to take it's place.
Not like there isn't a constant glut of deep politics all over the web. Slashdot continues it's slide from geek/tech site to a political spam site.
CAN WE PLEASE STOP AND GET BACK TO GEEK/TECH/REAL SCIENCE.
If Slashdot continues to post crud like this they're going to give cracks a good name.
I WANT MY SLASHDOT BACK!!!!
Re:And sometimes...those myths are true...
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
"sheer number of coincidences of catastrophic failure one would have to accept"
Yes, large planes filled with fuel. Far less than I'd have to accept with the multitude of conspiracies. Every which one I have after my initial acceptance followed by investigating discovered were either baseless, based on mis-stated facts, or had to exclude other more likely possibilities.
So I've heard about the free fall, the fire can't melt steel, Pentagon really a cruise missile and a few others. All of which after a few hours of review I found evidence to dismiss said claims.
Now, there is the one regarding the clock in the classroom with GWB. But even that criticism I am suspect of because very few school clocks in my lifetime weren't off by approx 5 minutes or so.
Re:And sometimes...those myths are true...
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
Yes the Mississippi bridge collapsed of it's own accord. Repeatedly documented as in need of refurbishing. Buildings collapse of their own too now and then.
But the section of bridge above collapsed by fire did not correspond to a bridge falling apart. Or the rest of the bridge structure would have more than likely collapsed as well under such stress.
Re:And sometimes...those myths are true...
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
"However, in the WTC situation, even if the fire did melt the steel sufficiently to weaken the structure and cause the top to collapse, why did the building collapse at free fall speed?"
Because of gravity... the energy of the weight of the falling structure was vastly greater than any resistance the remaining structure could provide. Especially as more and more structure came down.
"The fires in the two towers were at the top floors, not the bottom. And why did the south tower collapse first, when it was hit second, burned a lot less, and a fair amount of the jet's fuel was ejected out the side of the building."
This argument would only be valid if all conditions were identical. But they were not. The impacts were in different locations. And as you pointed out the plane hit the corner. A corner tends to be a strong point structurally. So damage to a stronger point would render more structural fatigue. That said numerous other minute factors would also have an effect. Which way the wind was hitting a particular tower.
"Oh wait, wasn't the lobby also destroyed?" Not quite sure what your reference is here. But yes, the lobby of both buildings were destroyed. Oh, and there is a big difference between being sealed against normal fire and being sealed against molten metal and debris.
Furthermore, your point that they were designed for just that. Holds little weight. Most of these systems are designed theoretically. We don't know how effective they are until they actually work. And there are very few buildings of the WTC caliber to compare against. So it's also very likely that said system failed in one degree or another.
As I said....there are people shouting "who ever heard of fire melting steel" most are simply ignorant.
Re:And sometimes...those myths are true...
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
Correction...
A "myth" can be proved true. In which case, it is no longer a myth. But the reference to x having been a myth can still be referred too.
Also, it's possible for a myth to be proved in part though inconclusive as a whole. That inconclusive state allows some to call it a myth and others to call it a strong belief. Of course, if proven it becomes fact. And then you just have a small group left who disbelieve anything.;)
Come on, they used a "W". To any conservative a "W" is just a letter. To any Liberal, a "W" means "George W. Bush" to which they have an adrenaline rushed response to any mention or sight.
In fact, the study almost proves this fact. For both conservatives and liberals their reactions to the letter "M" were nearly identical. Liberals only excelled in targeting the letter "W".
We pretty much already know that Liberals are very good at targeting George "W".
Bah!
***
This is some of the worst science. Thankfully, it's anti-conservative therefore Slashdot will readily post it in it's slide away from a "science" log to a "politics" log.
10-to-1 this study was conducted by Liberals. By the way, the study is COMPLETELY invalidated due to poor procedural set-up.
The selection of M & W are an example of exceedingly poor scientific implementation. Why? Because almost every Liberal I know reacts extremely strongly to the letter "W" ever since the Presidency of George W. Bush. Therefore selecting the one letter of the alphabet that a liberal is going to over-react to if seen individually creates an inherent bias in this test. (Not even included the fact it's such a narrow scope with broad conclusions.)
This test needs to be re-conducted with the following letters. "b", "d", "p". That said, it does not prove anything conclusive. In fact, all this might do is prove that conservatives, or at least those conservatives in their study, had a higher tendency of dyslexia. Of note, not all forms of dyslexia correspond to learning disabilities. Some aspects tend to also correspond with those of higher intellect and creativity
What this study does prove is that those who conducted it are failing to utilize intelligence.
SLASHDOT....can we stop with the constant "conservative bashing".
And sometimes...those myths are true...
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
For example, there are numerous people who have claimed that a lot more went on with the Oklahoma City bombings and more was involved. That there was means to do even more carnage hat the FBI botched the investigation in many areas. This was often dismissed as just mere paranoia and conspiracy theory.
However, recent events have showed that there is indeed some foundation to these claims. The revelation by Terri Nichols regarding additional supplies and resources. The FBI finally investigating Timothy McVeigh's house and discovering numerous additional supplies - including goverment detonation devices from a failed sting operation.
Just goes to show that conspiracy theorists aside - a lot more went on than we've been let on to, and a lot more went on than the government was even away of.
On the other hand...stupid conspiracies like "whoever heard of fire melting steel" are annoying. Especially since anyone in manufacturing of steel has heard of fire melting steel. As for fire not being able to melt and bring down a structure. The recent collapse of an interstate highway due to a gasoline fire which caused a concrete re-inforced steel structure designed not just to bear it's own weight but that of tons and tons of vehicles. Proved that fire can indeed melt steel and collapse structures.
"Why does anyone have to decide? Why not just admit you don't know?" [[[ Because...some things increase the likelihood of people being hurt. (ie: "Well Little Johnny, you decide how you want to play with the gun. Afterall, you decided you wanted a gun and who are we to say that you can't have what you decide.")
Children do not have all the cognitive facilities developed to evaluate situations objectively. Most of us adults barely do. Most parents desire to help prevent their children from suffering injuries they've learned potentially arise from various behaviors.
You of course can continue with your philosophy but let's apply it all the way thru. Let's can the whole "use a condom & safe sex" campaign. Let's let kids learn on their own - and die of HIV on the way.
Or...we can try to impart to the next generation as much wisdom we can. And I agree, we should give them the caveat that this is our learning. And that they will have to decide what they want to take with them into adulthood and what they do not. ]]]
How about a parent says something like this: "I personally happen to believe..." [[[ First off, you assume this is not the case. Second of all, you're understanding on said example was quite off. But that's neither here nor there. Lastly, nothing in this article is about forcing people to church. ]]]
"What demographic would that be?" [[[(ie: well from the sound of it, and from your seeming suport of the poster of said article those with "judeo-christian values", especially christians).]]]
"Basically, there are patterns in what we observe and based on these patterns we can make predictions about outcomes. I would encourage parents to base their parenting more on patterns in factual observations and less on assurances of people with severe conflicts of interest."
[[[Are you a parent? I am just curious? Cause most of the parents who care about such issues are in FACT acting according to patterns of observation. ]]]
"Well, strictly speaking there doesn't have to be any control." [[[Sure in a perfect world where drinking and driving doesn't kill people. Where one could do whatever they want without any fear of harm to themselves or others. But this ain't it bro....sorry.]]]
"Neither the parents nor society has to try to force a child to believe one thing or the other about Jesus (for example)." [[[Okay, then stop trying. If you agree with this concept, realize your first act is to stop trying to force others to believe as you do.]]]
"In practice, society really only has the resources to intervene effectively in cases of severe child abuse" [[[Societies have a variety of levels of influence and intervention. We have a fair amount here but it is fairly limited. Europe has far more (you can't even name your child except for authorized names many European countries - Sweden I believe is one). So I'm not sure I accept the limited resources.]]]
"even though it might not be in a child's best interest to be forced to believe in Jesus" I've known a few kids who were "forced" into religion. Most who are abandon it by age 13. But most families aren't locking their kids in their bedrooms without food saying "you must believe". It's not like parents are killing their children if they don't believe in Jesus (not in western christian society).
That said, do you expect a parent not to share what they believe to be some of the most important aspects of life?
Should parents not teach the golden rule? not teach their kids that being a bully is wrong? I guess we should just trust Johnny to learn on his own...*sarcasm* Without any help from us. Just realize that while you may see food, shelter, etc as all that is necessary to raise a child others of us believe there to be much more.
A parent's duty is to raise a child. To do so with the best of their understanding as to what is right or wrong. A good parent will try to instill understanding of why they believe as they do. And when the child comes of age allow that child to make their own path based on the influences made.
"That is, a parent does not have a "right" or a "duty" to force the children to adopt a particular set of values."
Nor does society have any greater "right" or "duty" to either force or prevent the introduction a particular set of values - unless those values are directly causing harm to others. That's directly, not indirectly.
Here's the whole conundrum. What is morally right? Who's to decide? You can't on one hand argue that an individual can't decide such and that society should. While at the same time deriding when society does and you don't like it.
So either you are for group/societal control (society decides what's best). Look to the middle-east as an example of where that can lead. Or you are for individual control. As for children, their "guardian" enacts personal control for them until they are deemed of age to do so themselves.
So, what is the real problem here? perhaps merely that you are prejudice to a specific demographic of people no different than if you prejudiced to blacks, Jews or Muslims.
I'd have to agree. Most of the home-schooled students I've met did not associate well with their peers until about age 24. However, they got along with other adults, other homeschoolers. And those peers who tended toward a higher maturity level.
I realized, that most of these home schoolers don't fit into the lifestyle of the avg 16-24 yr old who is often on a rampage of discovering their freedoms via teenage years and parent free college. I think many home-schoolers skip this period because they're often granted much greater personal freedom in their studies and responsibilities. They don't have to plunge into excess because they feel as if they've already had freedom.
That said, there are always exceptions. As there are with every demographic. Those home-schooled individuals who were overly sheltered or poorly educated. But from my encounters I'd say this is less the case than what it's made out to be.
"Where it bugs me is when they start telling me I have to live according to their rules."
Nothing about this is to force you to do so. Nothing says "everyone must join x or y community. It's merely to provide an opportunity for like people help rate and review and approve.
The only ones I hear trying to force someone to live by their rules in this case are the ones decrying this as censorship and saying it must be stopped.
So what if I as a parent want to subscribe to a viewing community that helps me screen out certain content that I as a parent deem inappropriate. For a site that often exclaims the personal right to choose Slashdot's article posting seems to be on the wrong side of the fence on this one.
First off, with the rate of new show turnover these days combined with the number of channels and shows on TV. There is no way a parent could preview ALL the programming without it being a full time job. So anything that makes that task easier is a plus for caring parents.
Second...shows change. I've been watching Smallville over the years. The early seasons I'd consider a family friendly show. Perhaps a bit flirtatious but nothing too out of bounds. A couple of seasons back Smallville decided to take a turn toward a more adult tack. For example, the Smallville Halloween scene insinuates female vampires biting off a guy's penis and drinking his blood. That might be a fine scene for your children. But I'd rather not have my children watch such a scene. A content rating like the one proposed above could allow people to be alerted to when a show or even a particular episode goes down a track that might not be what you want your 7 yr old watching.
Lastly, we're talking personal screening. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH AN INDIVIDUAL CHOOSING TO CENSOR WHAT THEY OR THEIR CHILDREN WATCH.
Somewhere along the way we have seemed to confused the two. Look, politics and political views aside. Taking away personal censorship and forcing people to accept content is an extremely bad thing. You have to look at such laws and concepts from an either or view. You may think these parents are wrong for wanting to censor certain content and that they should not be able to edit said content or even avoid it. But I am sure you'd hate the reverse. How many of the people ranting against this personal censorship have the "Foxnews" channel skipped/blocked out of their channel listings? Would it be right if someone told you that you could not choose to do so?
Come on folks...can we have liberty before politics!!!!
Slashdot can we have "News for Nerds" without the political slants. Otherwise, we should consider changing the name to "Slantdot". Which would be a crying shame. I love Slashdot because it's filled with geek news instead of the constant glutt of political news. I don't mind if an issue is inherently political (ie: politics and Diebold voting machines). But I am tired of submissions which have to twist 359 degrees in order to turn the topic into something political.
I do not have cable either. As I refuse to pay $80 to watch 2 stations 5 months out of the year.
All my viewing is done via Netflix or iTunes. These stupid companies are so concerned about losing profits to downloading that they almost force customers to do so.
(And I actually don't think downloading is the problem, I think they're just losing profits - and illegal downloading is just an easy scape goat for CEOs to blame for their poor management).
But they're essentially forcing me to illegally download the TV shows because I can no longer buy them. That's really smart.
I've been severely depressed and miserable most of my life. I've taken to the belief that this stems from mankind's failure of discovering Santa Claus at the North Pole.
Now I understand, the north pole was not the northern pole of earth. But rather the universe. Now that we know the universe is aligned we simply need to determine which polar direction corresponds to north - then we will finally be able to discover Santa Claus and his elves.
Slashdot Mirror
Is Canadians should re-establish their rights. First, their right to Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and Glock. Then tell their public officials that not only do they want the camcorder bill rescinded, and the Canadian DMCA dropped. But also a law passed rescinding ALL of the MPAA's copyrights for copyright abuse.
Big Troll but it's truly what should be done. I am not sure what the basis of legality for copyrights in Canada is. Here in the U.S., our patent and copyright laws are supposed to be for a limited time. And for the purpose of further invention and the arts. (No other purpose.)
Well,...it's not. And just as nearly all of our rights are slowly being eroded by re-interpretations, expansions, etc. *shrug* Just wait until the DFSA (Digital Free Speech Act) is passed restricting free speech to only verbal. I mean, the Constitution never explicitly allowed for digital speech. Therefore, it's clear that expressing your point of views online is NOT protected by the U.S. Constitution. (Ain't revisionist interpretation a !@#$%.)
Thankfully, a small segment of the American populace endeavor to maintain our 2nd Ammendment rights in order to ensure the rest of our rights.
And two fallen towers in NYC and attempts to secure nuclear material to cause even more harm do not equate to public safety.
Frankly, I don't believe we can risk innocent until proven guilty in some of these cases. Because courts require "beyond a reasonable doubt". And it's really tough to get that info until it's too late.
We're not talking about detaining citizens, or even migrants. Only those individuals who are either illegal (ie: should be either kicked out of the country or thrown in jail anyways) or enemy combatants engaged in foriegn conflict zones.
Yes, teh same enemy combatants who repeatedly break the Geneva conventions but expect to be rewarded the priveledges of those conventions. And in so breaking those conventions they endanger civilian life. Sorry, if you were merely the limo driver for Al-quaeda members...you've earned enough suspician for a life time sentence.
Yes, I knew I heard this before - Smallville!
Come on....
We start off with dumb near mindless swarm bots. And then we find ourselves waging war with a super-evolved sentient robotic hive species!
Have we learned NOTHING from our hours of sitting on our couch watching sci-fi without end as we munch on Oreos and beer?
I have lost more "licensed" software due to stupid "registration" type crap. It's annoying. What does it do?
Simple, it makes me not care about pirating the software.
You might be right...
I mean, they didn't even have the announcement of new iPods until it was all over the web. I think Slashdot was almost the last site I read to post about it.
What a reversal...
The truth is, if this is the trend than Slashdot will lose readers & advertisers. Some other site will be founded to take it's place.
Not like there isn't a constant glut of deep politics all over the web. Slashdot continues it's slide from geek/tech site to a political spam site.
CAN WE PLEASE STOP AND GET BACK TO GEEK/TECH/REAL SCIENCE.
If Slashdot continues to post crud like this they're going to give cracks a good name.
I WANT MY SLASHDOT BACK!!!!
"sheer number of coincidences of catastrophic failure one would have to accept"
Yes, large planes filled with fuel. Far less than I'd have to accept with the multitude of conspiracies. Every which one I have after my initial acceptance followed by investigating discovered were either baseless, based on mis-stated facts, or had to exclude other more likely possibilities.
So I've heard about the free fall, the fire can't melt steel, Pentagon really a cruise missile and a few others. All of which after a few hours of review I found evidence to dismiss said claims.
Now, there is the one regarding the clock in the classroom with GWB. But even that criticism I am suspect of because very few school clocks in my lifetime weren't off by approx 5 minutes or so.
Here is the bridge which fire took down...
http://www.nbc11.com/news/13217764/detail.html
Yes the Mississippi bridge collapsed of it's own accord. Repeatedly documented as in need of refurbishing. Buildings collapse of their own too now and then.
But the section of bridge above collapsed by fire did not correspond to a bridge falling apart. Or the rest of the bridge structure would have more than likely collapsed as well under such stress.
"However, in the WTC situation, even if the fire did melt the steel sufficiently to weaken the structure and cause the top to collapse, why did the building collapse at free fall speed?"
Because of gravity... the energy of the weight of the falling structure was vastly greater than any resistance the remaining structure could provide. Especially as more and more structure came down.
"The fires in the two towers were at the top floors, not the bottom. And why did the south tower collapse first, when it was hit second, burned a lot less, and a fair amount of the jet's fuel was ejected out the side of the building."
This argument would only be valid if all conditions were identical. But they were not. The impacts were in different locations. And as you pointed out the plane hit the corner. A corner tends to be a strong point structurally. So damage to a stronger point would render more structural fatigue. That said numerous other minute factors would also have an effect. Which way the wind was hitting a particular tower.
"Oh wait, wasn't the lobby also destroyed?"
Not quite sure what your reference is here. But yes, the lobby of both buildings were destroyed. Oh, and there is a big difference between being sealed against normal fire and being sealed against molten metal and debris.
Furthermore, your point that they were designed for just that. Holds little weight. Most of these systems are designed theoretically. We don't know how effective they are until they actually work. And there are very few buildings of the WTC caliber to compare against. So it's also very likely that said system failed in one degree or another.
As I said....there are people shouting "who ever heard of fire melting steel" most are simply ignorant.
Correction...
;)
A "myth" can be proved true. In which case, it is no longer a myth. But the reference to x having been a myth can still be referred too.
Also, it's possible for a myth to be proved in part though inconclusive as a whole. That inconclusive state allows some to call it a myth and others to call it a strong belief. Of course, if proven it becomes fact. And then you just have a small group left who disbelieve anything.
Come on, they used a "W". To any conservative a "W" is just a letter. To any Liberal, a "W" means "George W. Bush" to which they have an adrenaline rushed response to any mention or sight.
In fact, the study almost proves this fact. For both conservatives and liberals their reactions to the letter "M" were nearly identical. Liberals only excelled in targeting the letter "W".
We pretty much already know that Liberals are very good at targeting George "W".
Bah!
***
This is some of the worst science. Thankfully, it's anti-conservative therefore Slashdot will readily post it in it's slide away from a "science" log to a "politics" log.
10-to-1 this study was conducted by Liberals. By the way, the study is COMPLETELY invalidated due to poor procedural set-up.
The selection of M & W are an example of exceedingly poor scientific implementation. Why? Because almost every Liberal I know reacts extremely strongly to the letter "W" ever since the Presidency of George W. Bush. Therefore selecting the one letter of the alphabet that a liberal is going to over-react to if seen individually creates an inherent bias in this test. (Not even included the fact it's such a narrow scope with broad conclusions.)
This test needs to be re-conducted with the following letters. "b", "d", "p". That said, it does not prove anything conclusive. In fact, all this might do is prove that conservatives, or at least those conservatives in their study, had a higher tendency of dyslexia. Of note, not all forms of dyslexia correspond to learning disabilities. Some aspects tend to also correspond with those of higher intellect and creativity
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,1,5376455.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
What this study does prove is that those who conducted it are failing to utilize intelligence.
SLASHDOT....can we stop with the constant "conservative bashing".
For example, there are numerous people who have claimed that a lot more went on with the Oklahoma City bombings and more was involved. That there was means to do even more carnage hat the FBI botched the investigation in many areas. This was often dismissed as just mere paranoia and conspiracy theory.
However, recent events have showed that there is indeed some foundation to these claims. The revelation by Terri Nichols regarding additional supplies and resources. The FBI finally investigating Timothy McVeigh's house and discovering numerous additional supplies - including goverment detonation devices from a failed sting operation.
Just goes to show that conspiracy theorists aside - a lot more went on than we've been let on to, and a lot more went on than the government was even away of.
On the other hand...stupid conspiracies like "whoever heard of fire melting steel" are annoying. Especially since anyone in manufacturing of steel has heard of fire melting steel. As for fire not being able to melt and bring down a structure. The recent collapse of an interstate highway due to a gasoline fire which caused a concrete re-inforced steel structure designed not just to bear it's own weight but that of tons and tons of vehicles. Proved that fire can indeed melt steel and collapse structures.
"Why does anyone have to decide? Why not just admit you don't know?"
[[[
Because...some things increase the likelihood of people being hurt. (ie: "Well Little Johnny, you decide how you want to play with the gun. Afterall, you decided you wanted a gun and who are we to say that you can't have what you decide.")
Children do not have all the cognitive facilities developed to evaluate situations objectively. Most of us adults barely do. Most parents desire to help prevent their children from suffering injuries they've learned potentially arise from various behaviors.
You of course can continue with your philosophy but let's apply it all the way thru. Let's can the whole "use a condom & safe sex" campaign. Let's let kids learn on their own - and die of HIV on the way.
Or...we can try to impart to the next generation as much wisdom we can. And I agree, we should give them the caveat that this is our learning. And that they will have to decide what they want to take with them into adulthood and what they do not.
]]]
How about a parent says something like this: "I personally happen to believe..."
[[[
First off, you assume this is not the case. Second of all, you're understanding on said example was quite off. But that's neither here nor there. Lastly, nothing in this article is about forcing people to church.
]]]
"What demographic would that be?"
[[[(ie: well from the sound of it, and from your seeming suport of the poster of said article those with "judeo-christian values", especially christians).]]]
"Basically, there are patterns in what we observe and based on these patterns we can make predictions about outcomes. I would encourage parents to base their parenting more on patterns in factual observations and less on assurances of people with severe conflicts of interest."
[[[Are you a parent? I am just curious? Cause most of the parents who care about such issues are in FACT acting according to patterns of observation. ]]]
"Well, strictly speaking there doesn't have to be any control."
[[[Sure in a perfect world where drinking and driving doesn't kill people. Where one could do whatever they want without any fear of harm to themselves or others. But this ain't it bro....sorry.]]]
"Neither the parents nor society has to try to force a child to believe one thing or the other about Jesus (for example)."
[[[Okay, then stop trying. If you agree with this concept, realize your first act is to stop trying to force others to believe as you do.]]]
"In practice, society really only has the resources to intervene effectively in cases of severe child abuse"
[[[Societies have a variety of levels of influence and intervention. We have a fair amount here but it is fairly limited. Europe has far more (you can't even name your child except for authorized names many European countries - Sweden I believe is one). So I'm not sure I accept the limited resources.]]]
"even though it might not be in a child's best interest to be forced to believe in Jesus"
I've known a few kids who were "forced" into religion. Most who are abandon it by age 13. But most families aren't locking their kids in their bedrooms without food saying "you must believe". It's not like parents are killing their children if they don't believe in Jesus (not in western christian society).
That said, do you expect a parent not to share what they believe to be some of the most important aspects of life?
Should parents not teach the golden rule? not teach their kids that being a bully is wrong? I guess we should just trust Johnny to learn on his own...*sarcasm* Without any help from us. Just realize that while you may see food, shelter, etc as all that is necessary to raise a child others of us believe there to be much more.
A parent's duty is to raise a child. To do so with the best of their understanding as to what is right or wrong. A good parent will try to instill understanding of why they believe as they do. And when the child comes of age allow that child to make their own path based on the influences made.
"That is, a parent does not have a "right" or a "duty" to force the children to adopt a particular set of values."
Nor does society have any greater "right" or "duty" to either force or prevent the introduction a particular set of values - unless those values are directly causing harm to others. That's directly, not indirectly.
Here's the whole conundrum. What is morally right? Who's to decide? You can't on one hand argue that an individual can't decide such and that society should. While at the same time deriding when society does and you don't like it.
So either you are for group/societal control (society decides what's best). Look to the middle-east as an example of where that can lead. Or you are for individual control. As for children, their "guardian" enacts personal control for them until they are deemed of age to do so themselves.
So, what is the real problem here? perhaps merely that you are prejudice to a specific demographic of people no different than if you prejudiced to blacks, Jews or Muslims.
- Saj
Oh, did you join that particular community? If not, then you were blocked. If so, and well, you don't like what they block. LEAVE the community.
If not...guess what...it wasn't blocked! So no worries. Live your life happily and let others do the same!
I'd have to agree. Most of the home-schooled students I've met did not associate well with their peers until about age 24. However, they got along with other adults, other homeschoolers. And those peers who tended toward a higher maturity level.
I realized, that most of these home schoolers don't fit into the lifestyle of the avg 16-24 yr old who is often on a rampage of discovering their freedoms via teenage years and parent free college. I think many home-schoolers skip this period because they're often granted much greater personal freedom in their studies and responsibilities. They don't have to plunge into excess because they feel as if they've already had freedom.
That said, there are always exceptions. As there are with every demographic. Those home-schooled individuals who were overly sheltered or poorly educated. But from my encounters I'd say this is less the case than what it's made out to be.
Exactly, allow people to be able to utilize personal censorship and you won't need legislation to censure the entire glutt of TV. ;-)
"Personal Censorship" = a very good thing
"Where it bugs me is when they start telling me I have to live according to their rules."
Nothing about this is to force you to do so. Nothing says "everyone must join x or y community. It's merely to provide an opportunity for like people help rate and review and approve.
The only ones I hear trying to force someone to live by their rules in this case are the ones decrying this as censorship and saying it must be stopped.
And feeding a baby steak instead of meat because adults can eat meat isn't just as stupid?
And from your argument, I guess we can also assume that being vegetarianism is out. Everyone should be forced to have to eat meat!
So what if I as a parent want to subscribe to a viewing community that helps me screen out certain content that I as a parent deem inappropriate. For a site that often exclaims the personal right to choose Slashdot's article posting seems to be on the wrong side of the fence on this one.
First off, with the rate of new show turnover these days combined with the number of channels and shows on TV. There is no way a parent could preview ALL the programming without it being a full time job. So anything that makes that task easier is a plus for caring parents.
Second...shows change. I've been watching Smallville over the years. The early seasons I'd consider a family friendly show. Perhaps a bit flirtatious but nothing too out of bounds. A couple of seasons back Smallville decided to take a turn toward a more adult tack. For example, the Smallville Halloween scene insinuates female vampires biting off a guy's penis and drinking his blood. That might be a fine scene for your children. But I'd rather not have my children watch such a scene. A content rating like the one proposed above could allow people to be alerted to when a show or even a particular episode goes down a track that might not be what you want your 7 yr old watching.
Lastly, we're talking personal screening. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH AN INDIVIDUAL CHOOSING TO CENSOR WHAT THEY OR THEIR CHILDREN WATCH.
"Government Censorship" = evil.
"Personal Censorship" = freedom.
Somewhere along the way we have seemed to confused the two. Look, politics and political views aside. Taking away personal censorship and forcing people to accept content is an extremely bad thing. You have to look at such laws and concepts from an either or view. You may think these parents are wrong for wanting to censor certain content and that they should not be able to edit said content or even avoid it. But I am sure you'd hate the reverse. How many of the people ranting against this personal censorship have the "Foxnews" channel skipped/blocked out of their channel listings? Would it be right if someone told you that you could not choose to do so?
Come on folks...can we have liberty before politics!!!!
Slashdot can we have "News for Nerds" without the political slants. Otherwise, we should consider changing the name to "Slantdot". Which would be a crying shame. I love Slashdot because it's filled with geek news instead of the constant glutt of political news. I don't mind if an issue is inherently political (ie: politics and Diebold voting machines). But I am tired of submissions which have to twist 359 degrees in order to turn the topic into something political.
*blech*
- Saj
I do not have cable either. As I refuse to pay $80 to watch 2 stations 5 months out of the year.
All my viewing is done via Netflix or iTunes. These stupid companies are so concerned about losing profits to downloading that they almost force customers to do so.
(And I actually don't think downloading is the problem, I think they're just losing profits - and illegal downloading is just an easy scape goat for CEOs to blame for their poor management).
But they're essentially forcing me to illegally download the TV shows because I can no longer buy them. That's really smart.
I've been severely depressed and miserable most of my life. I've taken to the belief that this stems from mankind's failure of discovering Santa Claus at the North Pole.
Now I understand, the north pole was not the northern pole of earth. But rather the universe. Now that we know the universe is aligned we simply need to determine which polar direction corresponds to north - then we will finally be able to discover Santa Claus and his elves.
Rejoice...this is exceedingly great news!
Silly kid, copyrights are for big companies!
This is one of my five reasons for being against intellectual property. They tend to only benefit the big and strong - not the little guy.