The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is analogous not to your playing games, but to the game developers publishing of games. If their publishing of games causes people to run outside and shoot each other, the harm is highly comparable to people running for the doors and crushing each other.
Publishing games causes harm regardless of whether anyone buys or plays them? You really want to argue that?
Just like we have Godwins law, I propose the egotistically named "Rhino's Law"... it states that "Virtually any speech will be accused by someone of being as dangerous as 'yelling fire in a crowded theater', such that it makes the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' arguement useless."
The government should prohibit the establishment of such a law and jail anyone would cites it. After all, you can't should fire in a crowded theater.
I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on/. (other than the fact that most/.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function. Those changes in brain structure can lead to changes in behavior - that's the emerging consensus from scientists who research the brain.
I think the majority of the people would rather live in a society that assumes that individuals have free will. The alternative is to live in a society where individuals are ruled by force (because they don't have free will and can't be trusted to live their lives "the right way").
Even if it were conclusively proven that individuals don't have free will, I would be for a society that assumes that they do.
Therefore, I'm against this study by the CDC.
Others are probably against it because they're grown up and don't think they need the government to be their mom, or because they think it's a waste of money, or because it will eventually make lawyers even richer at the expense of society and quality of life (again), or because it's not a proper role for the government to study games, or just because they think it'll lead to less fun games.
In other words, they're against it because it will harm them or their interests and they're trying to prevent that harm. People don't want to be harmed. Why wouldn't you expect them to defend themselves?
What I don't understand is how long these censors think they can get away with harming folks. In the long term, it's not safe to continue to do so. Maybe the CDC could study that.
Of course it matters if there is harm. That's why you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater
I don't care about some dead free-speech compromiser. That kind of nonsense is why any and all limitations on free-speech are considered on-the-table. Want to put people in jail for disagreeing with you politically? Why not? You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. So off to jail they go.
It's time to go back to when speech was free.
Now imagine that it is proven that violent games cause physiological brain changes that predispose you to acts of violence.
Predispositions are not an excuse. If you're predisposed to something bad, then you'll have an additional difficulty avoiding it. So you have to try harder. If you can't, then you may need to be locked away from your victims. For their protection.
And the rest of us can live our lives without being parented by some government do-gooders.
The existence of drug addicts, alcoholics, psychopaths, Tourettes and Asperger's Syndrome suggests that for many people "free will" is severely circumscribed.
Folks who don't have free will need a responsible guardian appointed for them. A doctor or a warden are two common choices.
That's because a string of court decisions have been striking down antigaming laws because of a lack of hard evidence that minors are harmed by violence in video games.
It shouldn't matter if there's "harm". Games are free speech.
What a bunch of BS, BTW. "Harm." People have free will and control their own actions.
If games have the power to override free will by accident, then we have a bigger problem. Someone will eventually harness this power to create an army of servants and take over the world.
Labelling of someone else's view in a derogatory fashion is generally the purview of those who have little to contribute
Ok, fair enough. But the point is that politics can't be perfected. Politics can't even be made "good". The democratic elective system will always be somewhere between OK and bad. (It beats other systems by a long way though.)
The attempt to perfect the system by putting people in jail for doing ordinary everyday things is silly and destructive and it can't possibly work. Like all other campaign finanace plans from the past, it will fail completely.
Campaigns and government will always be as good as the people who campaign and are in the government.
Human rights are a commodity. Do you take them into account when you purchase everything you buy?
What would be the point? So I could pretend to be virtuous? What do you call someone who pays good money for pretend value? Con men call them a "mark".
Do you know enough about the lives of everyone in the chain of production of a product to judge that they'll be better off if you don't buy the product? No.
We are at an inherent disadvantage because we have a decadent lifestyle. Every time a person who is living in poverty in the US eats at McDonalds or buys a beer, they're taking advantage of something that is not available to the poor in many other countries. Next time you have ramen for dinner and think "woe is me", know that there are people who would kill you in a heartbeat for your $0.10 dinner.
This is false.
And, incidently, anyone who actually would kill my for my dinner deserves what he gets.
Which is one of the reasons we need serious campaign finance reform.
It's already been done several times. Campaign finance reform has been tried. Over and over. It doesn't work. It never works. It can not work.
Imagine what THAT would do to corporations. It would strip their power to screw over the average citizen. Then, perhaps, politicians might actually have to listen to their home base, instead of big oil or big media.
Campaign finance reform certainly can't do what you want it to do. Because you're a silly person with a cartoon-like view of the world. People who claim to be "average-citizens" will always whine about having less power and money than they want.
Perfection is elusive. And anything less than perfection will be whined about endlessly by people who never grow up.
Of course, until everyone is up to speed, shoving jobs to third-world countries means that developed countries are going to see a LONG period of economic depression.
Like now? Global trade has already been going on for a LONG period. The economy is doing well. The unemployment rate in the US is under 5%. The average for the last 25 years is, what 7%? That isn't a depression. It isn't even a recession, it's a robust expansion.
If the U.S. were to dominate the world economy via intellectual property (but not in any other way), why would other countries continuing paying us for knowledge which once in the wild can be reproduced again and again at no cost?
Because without the profit motive, much of the "knowledge" wouldn't be produced in the first place.
Why not just use more meaningful forms of expression to begin with?
Anyone can label anything they don't like as a "special interest". There's no objective standard for what's a "special interest" and what isn't. And it really doesn't matter. Some ideas that can be labeled as "special interest" ideas are good ones. Some non-"special interest" ideas are bad ones. It's a bumper-sticker. It's name-calling. It's not information. It's not analysis. It's a call to abandon thought and take sides based on emotion.
I hear the "special interests" are against me on this, BTW. So you should agree. You don't want to be a tool of the special interests do you?
Also, the "special interests" want to prevent you from sending me $1000.
This will be a tough call for some of you. Lots of small AM radio stations are Christian stations. Prejudice against big business or prejudice against religion -- which prejudice will win?
Ok, so you went on and on and then you didn't answer the question.
Let me ask it again: What does "person XYZ was once associated with the US in some way and turned out bad" mean?
Is it an argument for something? What does it argue for? Is it an argument against something? What does it argue against? What is the point? Why won't anyone answer the question?
-
Also, I don't know who you're responding to about the ports but it's not me.
And why should they? Aren't religion, corporations, and the rich powerful and influential enough (hell, far too powerful and influential) already? What on earth would they need "help" for?
I understand. When you hate someone, you don't want to help them, allow them any influence, or be fair to them. That's the point I was trying to make.
But I don't see anything in there that would indicate the meaning is or the intention was to have corporations pay off lawmakers to write special-interest laws.
"special interest" is a meaningless bumper sticker term. A "special interest" law is a law that you disagree with. A non-"special-interest" law is a law that you agree with.
A non-biased synonym for "special interests" is "Americans".
So long as any one person fails the generalization, it can't apply.
I think it applies in general. Perhaps you have a different understanding of what a generalization is.
Anyway, the left clearly hates Bush. To argue otherwise is just obfuscation of some kind. (e.g. "No they don't. Some of them are asleep. They don't hate Bush in their sleep. Therefore, the left doesn't hate Bush.")
"Personal responsibility" and "Fiscal responsbility" are feel-good bumper sticker terms. They don't mean anything. Someone who agrees with you has good "Personal responsibility" and "Fiscal responsbility". Someone who disagrees doesn't. Add "common sense" in that list too. Completely meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is analogous not to your playing games, but to the game developers publishing of games. If their publishing of games causes people to run outside and shoot each other, the harm is highly comparable to people running for the doors and crushing each other.
Publishing games causes harm regardless of whether anyone buys or plays them? You really want to argue that?
Just like we have Godwins law, I propose the egotistically named "Rhino's Law"... it states that "Virtually any speech will be accused by someone of being as dangerous as 'yelling fire in a crowded theater', such that it makes the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' arguement useless."
The government should prohibit the establishment of such a law and jail anyone would cites it. After all, you can't should fire in a crowded theater.
Well, I would want to know if games pose any threat
They don't. They're just pictures on a screen.
I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function. Those changes in brain structure can lead to changes in behavior - that's the emerging consensus from scientists who research the brain.
I think the majority of the people would rather live in a society that assumes that individuals have free will. The alternative is to live in a society where individuals are ruled by force (because they don't have free will and can't be trusted to live their lives "the right way").
Even if it were conclusively proven that individuals don't have free will, I would be for a society that assumes that they do.
Therefore, I'm against this study by the CDC.
Others are probably against it because they're grown up and don't think they need the government to be their mom, or because they think it's a waste of money, or because it will eventually make lawyers even richer at the expense of society and quality of life (again), or because it's not a proper role for the government to study games, or just because they think it'll lead to less fun games.
In other words, they're against it because it will harm them or their interests and they're trying to prevent that harm. People don't want to be harmed. Why wouldn't you expect them to defend themselves?
What I don't understand is how long these censors think they can get away with harming folks. In the long term, it's not safe to continue to do so. Maybe the CDC could study that.
Children in the US do not have free will.
Parents and guardians are the substitute.
We don't need the government to do that job. We especially don't need them to do it for those of us who grew up and became adults.
Of course it matters if there is harm. That's why you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater
I don't care about some dead free-speech compromiser. That kind of nonsense is why any and all limitations on free-speech are considered on-the-table. Want to put people in jail for disagreeing with you politically? Why not? You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. So off to jail they go.
It's time to go back to when speech was free.
Now imagine that it is proven that violent games cause physiological brain changes that predispose you to acts of violence.
Predispositions are not an excuse. If you're predisposed to something bad, then you'll have an additional difficulty avoiding it. So you have to try harder. If you can't, then you may need to be locked away from your victims. For their protection.
And the rest of us can live our lives without being parented by some government do-gooders.
The existence of drug addicts, alcoholics, psychopaths, Tourettes and Asperger's Syndrome suggests that for many people "free will" is severely circumscribed.
Folks who don't have free will need a responsible guardian appointed for them. A doctor or a warden are two common choices.
That's because a string of court decisions have been striking down antigaming laws because of a lack of hard evidence that minors are harmed by violence in video games.
It shouldn't matter if there's "harm". Games are free speech.
What a bunch of BS, BTW. "Harm." People have free will and control their own actions.
If games have the power to override free will by accident, then we have a bigger problem. Someone will eventually harness this power to create an army of servants and take over the world.
Come to think of it, that would make a fun game.
Labelling of someone else's view in a derogatory fashion is generally the purview of those who have little to contribute
Ok, fair enough. But the point is that politics can't be perfected. Politics can't even be made "good". The democratic elective system will always be somewhere between OK and bad. (It beats other systems by a long way though.)
The attempt to perfect the system by putting people in jail for doing ordinary everyday things is silly and destructive and it can't possibly work. Like all other campaign finanace plans from the past, it will fail completely.
Campaigns and government will always be as good as the people who campaign and are in the government.
Human rights are a commodity. Do you take them into account when you purchase everything you buy?
What would be the point? So I could pretend to be virtuous? What do you call someone who pays good money for pretend value? Con men call them a "mark".
Do you know enough about the lives of everyone in the chain of production of a product to judge that they'll be better off if you don't buy the product? No.
We are at an inherent disadvantage because we have a decadent lifestyle. Every time a person who is living in poverty in the US eats at McDonalds or buys a beer, they're taking advantage of something that is not available to the poor in many other countries. Next time you have ramen for dinner and think "woe is me", know that there are people who would kill you in a heartbeat for your $0.10 dinner.
This is false.
And, incidently, anyone who actually would kill my for my dinner deserves what he gets.
-
Kwijibo is spelled with a K
Which is one of the reasons we need serious campaign finance reform.
It's already been done several times. Campaign finance reform has been tried. Over and over. It doesn't work. It never works. It can not work.
Imagine what THAT would do to corporations. It would strip their power to screw over the average citizen. Then, perhaps, politicians might actually have to listen to their home base, instead of big oil or big media.
Campaign finance reform certainly can't do what you want it to do. Because you're a silly person with a cartoon-like view of the world. People who claim to be "average-citizens" will always whine about having less power and money than they want.
Perfection is elusive. And anything less than perfection will be whined about endlessly by people who never grow up.
Of course, until everyone is up to speed, shoving jobs to third-world countries means that developed countries are going to see a LONG period of economic depression.
Like now? Global trade has already been going on for a LONG period. The economy is doing well. The unemployment rate in the US is under 5%. The average for the last 25 years is, what 7%? That isn't a depression. It isn't even a recession, it's a robust expansion.
You forgot "Rant on a web site and then congradulate yourself for caring more than anyone else and being oh-so-smart".
Global trade topics attract these people like a soup kitchen attracts hobos.
If the U.S. were to dominate the world economy via intellectual property (but not in any other way), why would other countries continuing paying us for knowledge which once in the wild can be reproduced again and again at no cost?
Because without the profit motive, much of the "knowledge" wouldn't be produced in the first place.
Unfortuniatly, we're competing with Asia, which doesn't value things such as human rights.
Stereotyping about half the world's population isn't cool.
Why not just use more meaningful forms of expression to begin with?
Anyone can label anything they don't like as a "special interest". There's no objective standard for what's a "special interest" and what isn't. And it really doesn't matter. Some ideas that can be labeled as "special interest" ideas are good ones. Some non-"special interest" ideas are bad ones. It's a bumper-sticker. It's name-calling. It's not information. It's not analysis. It's a call to abandon thought and take sides based on emotion.
I hear the "special interests" are against me on this, BTW. So you should agree. You don't want to be a tool of the special interests do you?
Also, the "special interests" want to prevent you from sending me $1000.
I'm also prejudice against evil, greed, hate, ignorance...
You've just claimed to be ignorant, unreasonable, and/or irrational. From your post, I suspect you're correct in that claim.
This will be a tough call for some of you. Lots of small AM radio stations are Christian stations. Prejudice against big business or prejudice against religion -- which prejudice will win?
"Special interests" is when a law is passed when a vast majority of "Americans" would vote against it, if they were given the chance.
So you're saying a better synonym for "special interests" would be "a minority". Ok. I can go along with that.
Ok, so you went on and on and then you didn't answer the question.
Let me ask it again: What does "person XYZ was once associated with the US in some way and turned out bad" mean?
Is it an argument for something? What does it argue for? Is it an argument against something? What does it argue against? What is the point? Why won't anyone answer the question?
-
Also, I don't know who you're responding to about the ports but it's not me.
And why should they? Aren't religion, corporations, and the rich powerful and influential enough (hell, far too powerful and influential) already? What on earth would they need "help" for?
I understand. When you hate someone, you don't want to help them, allow them any influence, or be fair to them. That's the point I was trying to make.
A "company" is not "the people."
A company is a group of "the people".
[boilerplate anti-corporate talking points deleted]
But I don't see anything in there that would indicate the meaning is or the intention was to have corporations pay off lawmakers to write special-interest laws.
"special interest" is a meaningless bumper sticker term. A "special interest" law is a law that you disagree with. A non-"special-interest" law is a law that you agree with.
A non-biased synonym for "special interests" is "Americans".
So long as any one person fails the generalization, it can't apply.
I think it applies in general. Perhaps you have a different understanding of what a generalization is.
Anyway, the left clearly hates Bush. To argue otherwise is just obfuscation of some kind. (e.g. "No they don't. Some of them are asleep. They don't hate Bush in their sleep. Therefore, the left doesn't hate Bush.")
"Personal responsibility" and "Fiscal responsbility" are feel-good bumper sticker terms. They don't mean anything. Someone who agrees with you has good "Personal responsibility" and "Fiscal responsbility". Someone who disagrees doesn't. Add "common sense" in that list too. Completely meaningless.
I missed the part where he swore at you.
He didn't. I thought it was strange so I suggested he correct it.