Sure, that's a noble goal. But that wasn't my fucking point. The implication of that comment was that since we don't have a good way of doing something right now, that must mean that our current (and ridiculously flawed) way of going about it is good.
Otherwise, why would he attack people for not putting forth alternate solutions? You don't have to put forth an alternate solution to correctly recognize that our current solution is garbage, and that psychology shouldn't be taken seriously until this is fixed. That was my point.
What I see is a claim that the demand has a direct relation with THOSE(in the movie/picture) children being abused.
Demand forces no one to do anything. The fault lies with those who rape. It's like how if someone falsely screamed "fire" in a crowded theater and people panicked and harmed others in the panic, the ones at fault for causing the damage would be the ones who caused the damage, not the speaker. Our legal system obviously doesn't see it this way, but I disagree with the legal system.
How about on a live theatre? Won't be censorship too to make it illegal?
You are mistaking the action with outlawing the result. It's perfectly valid to break it up if real people are getting hurt, but unless they're taking down videos or images, that isn't happening.
What we are talking about now is censoring images/videos after they've been created, not live theater.
You're so intoxicated with your "no censorship" dogma that you failed to sense that people buying this movies/pictures are paying money to pedophiles to rape children.
Nope. I did not fail to consider that; it's just irrelevant to me. Go after the rapists, and stop trying to harass people who merely view or buy the content.
Also, you mean "rapists" or "child molesters"; not "pedophiles." Pedophiles simply have a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. They are not necessarily rapists, and do not necessarily even view child porn.
you should thank google for helping to stop people invading the child's privacy by putting a stop to sharing of images like this
Why would I thank Google for looking through people's emails, whether automated or not? Note that the child porn bogeyman does not scare me, just like the terrorist bogeyman does not scare me. That sort of nonsense won't work on me.
Good thing I don't use Gmail; that would be retarded. Anyone who keeps using it (or other 'free' alternatives) for anything but disposable email accounts at most is an idiot.
Plus, what you're doing is futile. Getting a few people who have the image will do nothing; plenty of others likely have it too. The kid is screwed and will have to deal with it. The end.
On the other hand it may damage the child's recovery if images of their abuse are available.
Just because something is offensive doesn't mean it should be censored. Government censorship is 100% wrong. The idea that because some kid doesn't like child porn images/videos of him/her going around, that it should be banned, is, to me, insane.
You do realize that the word "pedophile" only indicates that someone is sexually attracted to prepubescent children, right? Not all (or even necessarily more than a small minority) pedophiles rape children or look at child porn, and for the ones that do look at child porn, all they're doing is viewing images or watching videos. In fact, not even all child molesters are pedophiles.
No, it isn't. The fact that it's possible for anyone to read it does not make it a postcard. The government could break into your house and install surveillance equipment everywhere quite easily, but that doesn't mean you don't have a moral expectation of privacy in your home.
At no point is your password required to read your email.
It's an issue of morality, not ability. In terms of morality, reading someone else's email when they clearly don't want you to is wrong. The MMF said so.
Words may change their meaning, but changing their meaning to something that completely obfuscates the original meaning and results in people having completely incorrect ideas about what a person has done needs to be opposed.
The kid getting shot was not shot because of the video.
And then you go on to make the unfounded claim that a video magically made people rape children. I guess videos take control of people and cause them to rape.
I find censorship disgusting. Mere videos or pictures shouldn't be outlawed, even if they do sometimes encourage more to be made (That's the rapist's fault; videos or people buying them doesn't force them to make more.).
Where is the straw man? He made it perfectly clear that he's willing to sacrifice freedom and privacy for safety: "Suddenly I could care less if Tor usage invites gov't scrutiny." Do you know what a straw man is? It seems not.
By the same token you are no better than those who support jihadists.
Only if I support jihadists, but I don't. The common unifying theme between people like him and people who support the TSA and NSA surveillance is that they all support trading fundamental liberties for security. Try to keep up.
"We will not ever come up with a coherent scientific definition of art until we can do so with the mechanisms that underly thought and emotion."
Do you support making lessons in other forms of self-expression mandatory or are you saying that
I support making very basic things that provide demonstrably useful and measurable benefits (basic math, the native language of your country, etc.) mandatory. Subjective things such as painting don't interest me.
Human society isn't a prolog database.
Nor does it need to be.
However there is sufficient clustering in opinions that you cannot credibly claim that there is no substance to any concepts in art.
Popularity does not change reality. If many people have a certain opinion, then all that means is that many people have a certain opinion; nothing more.
That makes it your problem.
While I do think it's a problem, it's not objectively a problem.
In my opinion, you're being pretty melodramatic about someone not wanting arts and crafts to be mandatory in public schools. Sometimes I wonder if you even understand what I'm talking about.
Think about it, it shouldn't be hard to figure out your error.
There was no error that I see. If that person was intending to be sarcastic, then they should have picked something that real people would never believe, rather than something that actual people say all the time. I respond to such sarcasm as if they're not being sarcastic because there's a real chance that they're not being sarcastic, and because there are plenty of people who agree with it anyway.
If it's something else, then I don't know what you're talking about.
Pedophiles are simply people who have a sexual attraction towards children. Being a pedophile does not mean you molest children or even look at child porn.
The term "pedophile" is being misused by people who don't even know what it means, to the detriment of many people who have never harmed anyone.
While, I absolutely believe it's google's job to report illegal activity
Not all laws are just, so don't pretend that they are.
Suddenly I could care less if Tor usage invites gov't scrutiny.
Then you're anti-freedom and have no business living in any free country. The desire to sacrifice fundamental freedom and privacy for safety makes you no better than those who support the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, etc.
No child was saved, since the child porn was already made, and they're likely not going to do a damn thing to 'save' the child from their situation (if they're still in such a situation). They're just doing feel-good work by going after people who look at/possess images.
The absence of a good way to study behavior does not make psychology good science. If you don't have a good way to do so, then you don't have a good way to do so; the end.
I'm sick of ignorant arm-chair narcissists denigrating psychology when they don't have the balls to admit they have no clue how to approach the subject because it's too hard for them to understand.
And I'm sick of people who come up with absolutely illogical defenses of the indefensible.
The part you've missed is that far too often "hard science" has the same problems.
Not nearly as often. Usually the hard sciences aren't busy trying to measure people's emotional states and asking people how they feel (among other things), which are inherently subjective. While problems in the "hard sciences" obviously exist, psychology (and others) take it to a whole new level. They're not even comparable.
And then the news writes about every nice sounding psychology study that comes out, and people use it as a reason to support the alteration of laws or public policy (Video games cause/don't cause aggression, after all! This pseudoscience said so!).
Psychologists often use subjective terminology as if it's objective, set out to prove their hypotheses, try to measure the subjective in absolutely arbitrary ways ("Are you happy?"), and come to arbitrary conclusions based on the data they collect using their flawed methods of data gathering, therefore fuck psychology.
You're kidding yourself if you think this is limited to a single example. Psychology's status as a science is seriously laughable.
Also, my age has nothing to do with the validity of what I say.
Because I can't believe anybody else would disregard art as important.
You think you speak for everyone else, do you? Believe it, fool; there are all sorts of people on this planet.
Besides, what I'm *actually* saying is that I believe it should not be mandatory as a class.
Now, there are those people with a much more aesthetic eye then myself.
Subjective.
Software which can't be used is pointless.
What is and is not pointless is subjective. Though I would agree with your opinion.
And in all fairness, somebody who can't appreciate anything outside of function, is classified to some extent as autistic.
I'll have none of your pseudo-psychological nonsense, thank you. You might think you can diagnose random people over the Internet with autism, but it's simply not going to work out too well for you, I think.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, "offensive" is subjective.
that triggers a programmed panic response in most of us.
Bullshit. The words don't make you do anything. Whether unconsciously or not, your actions are your own.
If the theater owner doesn't like it, then they can kick the person out. But it absolutely is speech, and to say otherwise is absolutely insane.
You forgot to explain the responsibility of those that payed the ticked to watch.
The rapist is at fault. The end.
Those poor people that get harassed for watching an afternoon session.
Yes.
And I don't stretch the concept of freedom of expression to fit my needs.
I'm not stretching it at all. You're just using No True Scotsman fallacies.
You're eliminating employers who are superficial, but a good employer might eliminate you for reasons which are just as good.
No, they'd eliminate me for superficial reasons.
is a red herring that you don't understand social norms and will be difficult to deal with.
No, it means I reject illogical social norms that encourage superficiality, not that I don't understand them. There is a difference.
Besides, I found a nice workplace, thanks.
Sure, that's a noble goal. But that wasn't my fucking point. The implication of that comment was that since we don't have a good way of doing something right now, that must mean that our current (and ridiculously flawed) way of going about it is good.
Otherwise, why would he attack people for not putting forth alternate solutions? You don't have to put forth an alternate solution to correctly recognize that our current solution is garbage, and that psychology shouldn't be taken seriously until this is fixed. That was my point.
Doesn't make a difference to me.
What I see is a claim that the demand has a direct relation with THOSE(in the movie/picture) children being abused.
Demand forces no one to do anything. The fault lies with those who rape. It's like how if someone falsely screamed "fire" in a crowded theater and people panicked and harmed others in the panic, the ones at fault for causing the damage would be the ones who caused the damage, not the speaker. Our legal system obviously doesn't see it this way, but I disagree with the legal system.
How about on a live theatre? Won't be censorship too to make it illegal?
You are mistaking the action with outlawing the result. It's perfectly valid to break it up if real people are getting hurt, but unless they're taking down videos or images, that isn't happening.
What we are talking about now is censoring images/videos after they've been created, not live theater.
You're so intoxicated with your "no censorship" dogma that you failed to sense that people buying this movies/pictures are paying money to pedophiles to rape children.
Nope. I did not fail to consider that; it's just irrelevant to me. Go after the rapists, and stop trying to harass people who merely view or buy the content.
Also, you mean "rapists" or "child molesters"; not "pedophiles." Pedophiles simply have a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. They are not necessarily rapists, and do not necessarily even view child porn.
You're an idiot.
Nope. Just someone who despises censorship.
you should thank google for helping to stop people invading the child's privacy by putting a stop to sharing of images like this
Why would I thank Google for looking through people's emails, whether automated or not? Note that the child porn bogeyman does not scare me, just like the terrorist bogeyman does not scare me. That sort of nonsense won't work on me.
Good thing I don't use Gmail; that would be retarded. Anyone who keeps using it (or other 'free' alternatives) for anything but disposable email accounts at most is an idiot.
Plus, what you're doing is futile. Getting a few people who have the image will do nothing; plenty of others likely have it too. The kid is screwed and will have to deal with it. The end.
On the other hand it may damage the child's recovery if images of their abuse are available.
Just because something is offensive doesn't mean it should be censored. Government censorship is 100% wrong. The idea that because some kid doesn't like child porn images/videos of him/her going around, that it should be banned, is, to me, insane.
So, really, it's an irrelevancy to me.
You do realize that the word "pedophile" only indicates that someone is sexually attracted to prepubescent children, right? Not all (or even necessarily more than a small minority) pedophiles rape children or look at child porn, and for the ones that do look at child porn, all they're doing is viewing images or watching videos. In fact, not even all child molesters are pedophiles.
Functionally email is a postcard.
No, it isn't. The fact that it's possible for anyone to read it does not make it a postcard. The government could break into your house and install surveillance equipment everywhere quite easily, but that doesn't mean you don't have a moral expectation of privacy in your home.
At no point is your password required to read your email.
It's an issue of morality, not ability. In terms of morality, reading someone else's email when they clearly don't want you to is wrong. The MMF said so.
Nice job pointing out the error.
Words may change their meaning, but changing their meaning to something that completely obfuscates the original meaning and results in people having completely incorrect ideas about what a person has done needs to be opposed.
The kid getting shot was not shot because of the video.
And then you go on to make the unfounded claim that a video magically made people rape children. I guess videos take control of people and cause them to rape.
I find censorship disgusting. Mere videos or pictures shouldn't be outlawed, even if they do sometimes encourage more to be made (That's the rapist's fault; videos or people buying them doesn't force them to make more.).
Nice strawman you got there.
Where is the straw man? He made it perfectly clear that he's willing to sacrifice freedom and privacy for safety: "Suddenly I could care less if Tor usage invites gov't scrutiny." Do you know what a straw man is? It seems not.
By the same token you are no better than those who support jihadists.
Only if I support jihadists, but I don't. The common unifying theme between people like him and people who support the TSA and NSA surveillance is that they all support trading fundamental liberties for security. Try to keep up.
No, I don't.
"We will not ever come up with a coherent scientific definition of art until we can do so with the mechanisms that underly thought and emotion."
Do you support making lessons in other forms of self-expression mandatory or are you saying that
I support making very basic things that provide demonstrably useful and measurable benefits (basic math, the native language of your country, etc.) mandatory. Subjective things such as painting don't interest me.
Human society isn't a prolog database.
Nor does it need to be.
However there is sufficient clustering in opinions that you cannot credibly claim that there is no substance to any concepts in art.
Popularity does not change reality. If many people have a certain opinion, then all that means is that many people have a certain opinion; nothing more.
That makes it your problem.
While I do think it's a problem, it's not objectively a problem.
In my opinion, you're being pretty melodramatic about someone not wanting arts and crafts to be mandatory in public schools. Sometimes I wonder if you even understand what I'm talking about.
Think about it, it shouldn't be hard to figure out your error.
There was no error that I see. If that person was intending to be sarcastic, then they should have picked something that real people would never believe, rather than something that actual people say all the time. I respond to such sarcasm as if they're not being sarcastic because there's a real chance that they're not being sarcastic, and because there are plenty of people who agree with it anyway.
If it's something else, then I don't know what you're talking about.
child predator
Kind of melodramatic for someone who supposedly looked at or possessed an image, is it not?
not for pedophiles, fuck them
Pedophiles are simply people who have a sexual attraction towards children. Being a pedophile does not mean you molest children or even look at child porn.
The term "pedophile" is being misused by people who don't even know what it means, to the detriment of many people who have never harmed anyone.
While, I absolutely believe it's google's job to report illegal activity
Not all laws are just, so don't pretend that they are.
Suddenly I could care less if Tor usage invites gov't scrutiny.
Then you're anti-freedom and have no business living in any free country. The desire to sacrifice fundamental freedom and privacy for safety makes you no better than those who support the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, etc.
No child was saved, since the child porn was already made, and they're likely not going to do a damn thing to 'save' the child from their situation (if they're still in such a situation). They're just doing feel-good work by going after people who look at/possess images.
How would *you* study behavior?
The absence of a good way to study behavior does not make psychology good science. If you don't have a good way to do so, then you don't have a good way to do so; the end.
I'm sick of ignorant arm-chair narcissists denigrating psychology when they don't have the balls to admit they have no clue how to approach the subject because it's too hard for them to understand.
And I'm sick of people who come up with absolutely illogical defenses of the indefensible.
The part you've missed is that far too often "hard science" has the same problems.
Not nearly as often. Usually the hard sciences aren't busy trying to measure people's emotional states and asking people how they feel (among other things), which are inherently subjective. While problems in the "hard sciences" obviously exist, psychology (and others) take it to a whole new level. They're not even comparable.
And then the news writes about every nice sounding psychology study that comes out, and people use it as a reason to support the alteration of laws or public policy (Video games cause/don't cause aggression, after all! This pseudoscience said so!).
Psychologists often use subjective terminology as if it's objective, set out to prove their hypotheses, try to measure the subjective in absolutely arbitrary ways ("Are you happy?"), and come to arbitrary conclusions based on the data they collect using their flawed methods of data gathering, therefore fuck psychology.
You're kidding yourself if you think this is limited to a single example. Psychology's status as a science is seriously laughable.
I'm going to assume you're late teens to mid 20s.
Based on absolutely nothing. I'm actually 33.
Also, my age has nothing to do with the validity of what I say.
Because I can't believe anybody else would disregard art as important.
You think you speak for everyone else, do you? Believe it, fool; there are all sorts of people on this planet.
Besides, what I'm *actually* saying is that I believe it should not be mandatory as a class.
Now, there are those people with a much more aesthetic eye then myself.
Subjective.
Software which can't be used is pointless.
What is and is not pointless is subjective. Though I would agree with your opinion.
And in all fairness, somebody who can't appreciate anything outside of function, is classified to some extent as autistic.
I'll have none of your pseudo-psychological nonsense, thank you. You might think you can diagnose random people over the Internet with autism, but it's simply not going to work out too well for you, I think.