Besides, unless the porn had an engaging story, why would I ever want to show it to anyone? It would be like showing someone an awful film.
Unless you intend to masturbate, it's rather pointless. And I certainly don't want some person I'm not ever going to have sex with (hopefully) see me do that.
Chances are a five year old wouldn't even understand it.
I actually found my dad's porn magazines when I was about 7. Anecdotal evidence, maybe, but I certainly didn't go insane. I remember thinking it was gross, pondering it for a minute, and putting it back.
So you let your 5-yr-old look at porn? Do you show porn to the neighbor kids?
I'm not going to go showing anyone porn. I wouldn't go around showing anyone movies (of any kind), either.
But if they look at it? I don't care.
Are you 5?
Is that relevant? Are you 10? Are you 12? Are you 4? Are you 6? Is this meaningful?
Who is responsible for a child's actions?
Hopefully not anyone with a mind like Jack Thompson's.
What is wrong with the state making sure that the person responsible is actually the one buying the game or movie?
Because there's no evidence that we should actually care if a child buys a video game. Your answer seems to be to ban something by default. Mine is the exact opposite.
That said, the state doesn't do that anyway. And I don't think they should. I prefer company censorship over government censorship any day.
Since when were either of those things considered rights? There are many ways that you can lose your privilege to drive. Not to smoke, though (which is understandable since it only hurts yourself in most cases).
I don't understand the ban on smoking. But that isn't a constitutional right. Actually, most of these arbitrary restrictions on children are quite idiotic. The first amendment makes no such distinctions. Therefore, I think if you wish to infringe upon a child's right to free speech (the government, I mean), you need to first amend the constitution.
If they don't do that first, then they're just ignoring what the constitution says (no surprise, there).
Plus, if we take this to the next consequent level, it should be perfectly legal for a 10 year old to buy some nice gay-porn, yes?
but free speech and damn the consequences is dangerous and can be damaging.
There is no such thing as "free speech with consequences." Well, provided you meant the government punishing you, anyway. Otherwise, even the worst countries have freedom of speech.
let's call it "the spirit" of the First Amendment.
Let's not. That sounds like an awfully slippery slope right there. If you want unprotected speech, a constitutional amendment is in order. And that's difficult to do for a reason.
So you can love free speech, and simultaneously seek to prevent people from deliberately saying harmful things.
No, you can't. That's not truly free speech. Even if you think it shouldn't be allowed, speech is still being censored.
Unfortunately you always have parent groups who are not satisfied with any type of censorship classification who IMHO don't want to take responsibility for what their children see, hear and play.
I'm not in favor of any censorship classification that restricts certain people (usually children) from buying games. I will not support such a thing until someone can show real-world evidence that video games actually cause a majority of people to be violent (they're going to need to explain why crime statistics don't support their conclusions at all, too). If they don't cause a majority of people to be violent, then whatever effect they do have is probably so small that we don't even notice it. In any case, I don't think it's a good reason to restrict anyone from buying the games provided they actually have money. I see it as a way to try to appeal to the "for the children" people while keeping the government from stepping in (I'd much rather that the government didn't step in, though).
I don't mind classifications in general, though. As long as they don't prevent anyone from buying a game.
I don't know about that, man. How do you know the government hasn't secretly developed technology to rip ideas out of someone's head and give it to themselves?
That said, the use of that word isn't quite as confusing when you're not using it to reference some sort of crime (like copyright infringement is in certain places).
That was a statement of a definition... I think this very confusion is the root of us "speaking together and understanding separately".
I would've said that it is considered to be a natural right by certain people (or yourself).
Side-track: do you believe one has the right to dig 1 foot hole on the Mars surface? (should daVinci have waited for someone to grant him the right to fly before designing his air screw [wikimedia.org] or glider [epicphysics.com]. Obviously, he wasn't been able to fly).
I don't think it was illegal, so I don't see why waiting would be necessary.
Not willing to think of things that don't exists? Not believing some of these things things worth the effort of being transposed into reality?
Exactly. He's be justified if they were. Sex is pure unadulterated evil! I remember accidentally seeing my dad's porn magazines when I was a kid. From that moment on, I was no longer sane. I've been a rapist, a pedophile, and a terrorist ever since.
selling violent video games to kids is about as bad as selling them pornography
So, in other words, completely harmless.
it primes them to support things like the Iraq War
Wow. Where did that come from? "I played a violent video game. Therefore, the Iraq war is good!" That sounds like a highly probable scenario. Especially since no evidence of such a thing happening to a majority of people was given.
But curse words are evil! They'll corrupt the minds of children with their... evilness! In any case, they're bad because I said so (because I don't like them).
Now where did I say that? I didn't. I just don't believe in natural rights. You can, of course, but I'm merely trying to imply that there is, as far as I know, no actual evidence for their existence.
How stupid of them to declare otherwise (please note: it is the declaration of human rights, not the grant/bill/law).
That's nice and all, but if they said the flying spaghetti monster exists, I don't think that would make it exist.
Why should I? It's a matter of defining a concept, not a proof.
"Information sharing is a natural right"
That was a statement of a fact, not a statement of a mere belief or opinion. That led me to believe that you might have some actual evidence to back that up.
Indeed, they are not. So...?
"It is only because the government allowed you to share information with your girl/boy-friend that you are able to say "I love you"."
You spoke of being "able" to do something as if having the ability to do something was relevant. But maybe I misinterpreted you.
Right! Evidence for the definition of philosophical concepts
Well, okay. I just don't see any reason that anyone, or more specifically, I, should believe in such philosophical concepts when there's no evidence that they're true. Especially in cases like this where they seem indistinguishable from something that we already know exists (rights granted by law) and their supposed existence doesn't seem to affect anything.
Actually, I'd say it is never stealing if you define stealing as taking something that someone already had without permission.
Now, that doesn't mean it would be profitable for you to allow people to copy your software for free, but I'm just saying that it isn't "stealing" as most people seem to know it (at least when it comes to crime).
It must be nice on your planet. I mean, not having to make a profit and having fair minded customers.
Looks like he's just being realistic to me. Trying to sue every pirate is unrealistic and will likely just make people even more unlikely to buy from you. DRM just hurts customers.
Your software will be pirated. There's not much you can do. Your solution is only really interesting for games, but even then it's just nonsensical DRM that some people don't want to put up with.
No, I understand perfectly. I simply don't care. If we can't catch the people actually harming the children, then I don't think we should catch anyone at all.
That is a moral formula that I and a large majority of people, of virtually all political stripes, would find pretty unacceptable, and will for as long as I can imagine.
The majority of people can think that accusing random people of being witches and killing them is moral, but I'm not going to agree with them.
In fact, your position is one that others use as a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the unworkability of that brand of fundamentalist libertarianism.
I'm not seeing the connection here. Please explain and provide evidence that society would fall apart of we adopted this mindset (don't prosecute people for getting images/pictures).
For people who aren't horribly broken inside, it's a difficult topic and takes some study to properly understand, but the way I'd sum it up is that natural rights are the inherent capabilities of animals.
That's what they appear to be. And if that's true, then I have the "natural right" to murder innocents.
Of course, isn't speaking of capabilities kind of... useless? Regardless of your capabilities, the government can and will try to restrict certain behavior. Whether you think you have "natural rights" or not is quite meaningless. A "natural right" that has been infringed and is no longer recognized by the government seems to be no different than a right that the government took away by law/never gave you.
a. a "human right" must be universal and unalienable
Never heard of such a thing.
b. you can discriminate between a natural right and legal right by applying the criterion: if you deny the right to all the humanity, will the human race continue to exist?
Please elaborate on how a law's inconvenience proves that natural rights exist.
It is only because the government allowed you to share information with your girl/boy-friend that you are able to say "I love you". If the government would not exist or would not allow you to, you will surely die, because you couldn't ask for food.
Except that I don't think that rights are merely the ability to do something. I have the ability to murder someone for no reason, but does that mean I have a "natural right" to do it?
I see rights as things given to you by government/law (usually agreed upon by citizens). Now, no matter what magical entity you think is working behind the scenes, I simply don't see evidence that has proven otherwise.
Imagine a total ban on information sharing between any members of the human race: for how long you reckon the race is still going to exists?
I don't know, and I don't see how that's relevant to whether natural rights exist or not.
Besides, I provided you with the citation on wikipedia
It wasn't enough. As far as I saw, there is no reason for me to believe that rights are anything but things granted by government/law. No direct evidence of natural rights. Mere speculation.
It's more what Google does that The Pirate Bay doesn't. Has a substantial portion of links to legitimate content, and takes down links to obviously pirated content when requested.
The problem with forcing them to do this is that once your website becomes sufficiently large enough, manually responding to take down requests becomes nearly impossible. This forces you to rely on far less-than-perfect automated systems that cause collateral damage. That or give copyright holders the power to take things down themselves, but again, I wouldn't trust that solution at all, either.
I've never come across these "natural" rights. Who created them? How do we know what is and is not a "natural right"? All I've seen is rights granted by law.
I'm afraid that I'd support criminalizing the market as well as the production, because the supply will just move to wherever enforcement is non-existent otherwise. It's a formula for outsourcing child-rape.
Sorry, but if you can't catch them, then too bad. I'd rather not have it be illegal and resort to censorship merely because of our own failure to catch the actual criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to go showing anyone porn.
Besides, unless the porn had an engaging story, why would I ever want to show it to anyone? It would be like showing someone an awful film.
Unless you intend to masturbate, it's rather pointless. And I certainly don't want some person I'm not ever going to have sex with (hopefully) see me do that.
Chances are a five year old wouldn't even understand it.
I actually found my dad's porn magazines when I was about 7. Anecdotal evidence, maybe, but I certainly didn't go insane. I remember thinking it was gross, pondering it for a minute, and putting it back.
So you let your 5-yr-old look at porn? Do you show porn to the neighbor kids?
I'm not going to go showing anyone porn. I wouldn't go around showing anyone movies (of any kind), either.
But if they look at it? I don't care.
Are you 5?
Is that relevant? Are you 10? Are you 12? Are you 4? Are you 6? Is this meaningful?
Who is responsible for a child's actions?
Hopefully not anyone with a mind like Jack Thompson's.
What is wrong with the state making sure that the person responsible is actually the one buying the game or movie?
Because there's no evidence that we should actually care if a child buys a video game. Your answer seems to be to ban something by default. Mine is the exact opposite.
That said, the state doesn't do that anyway. And I don't think they should. I prefer company censorship over government censorship any day.
they don't have the right to drive, to smoke
Since when were either of those things considered rights? There are many ways that you can lose your privilege to drive. Not to smoke, though (which is understandable since it only hurts yourself in most cases).
I don't understand the ban on smoking. But that isn't a constitutional right. Actually, most of these arbitrary restrictions on children are quite idiotic. The first amendment makes no such distinctions. Therefore, I think if you wish to infringe upon a child's right to free speech (the government, I mean), you need to first amend the constitution.
If they don't do that first, then they're just ignoring what the constitution says (no surprise, there).
Plus, if we take this to the next consequent level, it should be perfectly legal for a 10 year old to buy some nice gay-porn, yes?
Sure, why not? And I'm being perfectly serious.
but free speech and damn the consequences is dangerous and can be damaging.
There is no such thing as "free speech with consequences." Well, provided you meant the government punishing you, anyway. Otherwise, even the worst countries have freedom of speech.
let's call it "the spirit" of the First Amendment.
Let's not. That sounds like an awfully slippery slope right there. If you want unprotected speech, a constitutional amendment is in order. And that's difficult to do for a reason.
So you can love free speech, and simultaneously seek to prevent people from deliberately saying harmful things.
No, you can't. That's not truly free speech. Even if you think it shouldn't be allowed, speech is still being censored.
Unfortunately you always have parent groups who are not satisfied with any type of censorship classification who IMHO don't want to take responsibility for what their children see, hear and play.
I'm not in favor of any censorship classification that restricts certain people (usually children) from buying games. I will not support such a thing until someone can show real-world evidence that video games actually cause a majority of people to be violent (they're going to need to explain why crime statistics don't support their conclusions at all, too). If they don't cause a majority of people to be violent, then whatever effect they do have is probably so small that we don't even notice it. In any case, I don't think it's a good reason to restrict anyone from buying the games provided they actually have money. I see it as a way to try to appeal to the "for the children" people while keeping the government from stepping in (I'd much rather that the government didn't step in, though).
I don't mind classifications in general, though. As long as they don't prevent anyone from buying a game.
Really? No even dreams about how your life should be in the future?
I guess I didn't really know exactly what you meant.
I don't know about that, man. How do you know the government hasn't secretly developed technology to rip ideas out of someone's head and give it to themselves?
That said, the use of that word isn't quite as confusing when you're not using it to reference some sort of crime (like copyright infringement is in certain places).
That was a statement of a definition... I think this very confusion is the root of us "speaking together and understanding separately".
I would've said that it is considered to be a natural right by certain people (or yourself).
Side-track: do you believe one has the right to dig 1 foot hole on the Mars surface? (should daVinci have waited for someone to grant him the right to fly before designing his air screw [wikimedia.org] or glider [epicphysics.com]. Obviously, he wasn't been able to fly).
I don't think it was illegal, so I don't see why waiting would be necessary.
Not willing to think of things that don't exists? Not believing some of these things things worth the effort of being transposed into reality?
Both?
Exactly. He's be justified if they were. Sex is pure unadulterated evil! I remember accidentally seeing my dad's porn magazines when I was a kid. From that moment on, I was no longer sane. I've been a rapist, a pedophile, and a terrorist ever since.
And I do drugs.
selling violent video games to kids is about as bad as selling them pornography
So, in other words, completely harmless.
it primes them to support things like the Iraq War
Wow. Where did that come from? "I played a violent video game. Therefore, the Iraq war is good!" That sounds like a highly probable scenario. Especially since no evidence of such a thing happening to a majority of people was given.
But curse words are evil! They'll corrupt the minds of children with their... evilness! In any case, they're bad because I said so (because I don't like them).
Therefore it does not exists, right?
Now where did I say that? I didn't. I just don't believe in natural rights. You can, of course, but I'm merely trying to imply that there is, as far as I know, no actual evidence for their existence.
How stupid of them to declare otherwise (please note: it is the declaration of human rights, not the grant/bill/law).
That's nice and all, but if they said the flying spaghetti monster exists, I don't think that would make it exist.
Why should I? It's a matter of defining a concept, not a proof.
"Information sharing is a natural right"
That was a statement of a fact, not a statement of a mere belief or opinion. That led me to believe that you might have some actual evidence to back that up.
Indeed, they are not. So...?
"It is only because the government allowed you to share information with your girl/boy-friend that you are able to say "I love you"."
You spoke of being "able" to do something as if having the ability to do something was relevant. But maybe I misinterpreted you.
Right! Evidence for the definition of philosophical concepts
Well, okay. I just don't see any reason that anyone, or more specifically, I, should believe in such philosophical concepts when there's no evidence that they're true. Especially in cases like this where they seem indistinguishable from something that we already know exists (rights granted by law) and their supposed existence doesn't seem to affect anything.
Doesn't have to be, but it usually is.
Actually, I'd say it is never stealing if you define stealing as taking something that someone already had without permission.
Now, that doesn't mean it would be profitable for you to allow people to copy your software for free, but I'm just saying that it isn't "stealing" as most people seem to know it (at least when it comes to crime).
It must be nice on your planet. I mean, not having to make a profit and having fair minded customers.
Looks like he's just being realistic to me. Trying to sue every pirate is unrealistic and will likely just make people even more unlikely to buy from you. DRM just hurts customers.
Your software will be pirated. There's not much you can do. Your solution is only really interesting for games, but even then it's just nonsensical DRM that some people don't want to put up with.
Here on Earth, people will steal
Or, in this case, infringe upon copyright.
You're not getting this, are you?
No, I understand perfectly. I simply don't care. If we can't catch the people actually harming the children, then I don't think we should catch anyone at all.
That is a moral formula that I and a large majority of people, of virtually all political stripes, would find pretty unacceptable, and will for as long as I can imagine.
The majority of people can think that accusing random people of being witches and killing them is moral, but I'm not going to agree with them.
In fact, your position is one that others use as a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the unworkability of that brand of fundamentalist libertarianism.
I'm not seeing the connection here. Please explain and provide evidence that society would fall apart of we adopted this mindset (don't prosecute people for getting images/pictures).
For people who aren't horribly broken inside, it's a difficult topic and takes some study to properly understand, but the way I'd sum it up is that natural rights are the inherent capabilities of animals.
That's what they appear to be. And if that's true, then I have the "natural right" to murder innocents.
Of course, isn't speaking of capabilities kind of... useless? Regardless of your capabilities, the government can and will try to restrict certain behavior. Whether you think you have "natural rights" or not is quite meaningless. A "natural right" that has been infringed and is no longer recognized by the government seems to be no different than a right that the government took away by law/never gave you.
a. a "human right" must be universal and unalienable
Never heard of such a thing.
b. you can discriminate between a natural right and legal right by applying the criterion: if you deny the right to all the humanity, will the human race continue to exist?
Please elaborate on how a law's inconvenience proves that natural rights exist.
It is only because the government allowed you to share information with your girl/boy-friend that you are able to say "I love you". If the government would not exist or would not allow you to, you will surely die, because you couldn't ask for food.
Except that I don't think that rights are merely the ability to do something. I have the ability to murder someone for no reason, but does that mean I have a "natural right" to do it?
I see rights as things given to you by government/law (usually agreed upon by citizens). Now, no matter what magical entity you think is working behind the scenes, I simply don't see evidence that has proven otherwise.
Imagine a total ban on information sharing between any members of the human race: for how long you reckon the race is still going to exists?
I don't know, and I don't see how that's relevant to whether natural rights exist or not.
Besides, I provided you with the citation on wikipedia
It wasn't enough. As far as I saw, there is no reason for me to believe that rights are anything but things granted by government/law. No direct evidence of natural rights. Mere speculation.
It's more what Google does that The Pirate Bay doesn't. Has a substantial portion of links to legitimate content, and takes down links to obviously pirated content when requested.
The problem with forcing them to do this is that once your website becomes sufficiently large enough, manually responding to take down requests becomes nearly impossible. This forces you to rely on far less-than-perfect automated systems that cause collateral damage. That or give copyright holders the power to take things down themselves, but again, I wouldn't trust that solution at all, either.
I've never come across these "natural" rights. Who created them? How do we know what is and is not a "natural right"? All I've seen is rights granted by law.
Libertarianism is a cult. Don't drink the Coolaide.
Much like left-right politics. And generalizations aren't cool.
I'm afraid that I'd support criminalizing the market as well as the production, because the supply will just move to wherever enforcement is non-existent otherwise. It's a formula for outsourcing child-rape.
Sorry, but if you can't catch them, then too bad. I'd rather not have it be illegal and resort to censorship merely because of our own failure to catch the actual criminals.