Your argument is thus: "Nobody can know how anyone thinks or why they do what they do."
I just argue that you're not a mind-reader and that you should probably stop trying to be a pseudo-psychologist on the Internet who constantly spews forth buzzwords.
Then, there's the entire field of psychology, and its medical application as psychiatry.
You're pointing to soft science to help you out? Please. And even the soft scientists don't agree that you can randomly label entire groups as hiveminds where all individuals in said groups are in the groups because of reason X.
People have their own individual reasons for being rapists.
Absolutely true.
people are trying to assimilate a position of individuality
By making this post, you're trying to assimilate a position of individuality. Raging against the machine, are we? How childish. I know exactly how you think, because I'm psychic.
Not gaining is not the same as losing, so that's nonsense. And linking to garbage that equates not gaining with losing and counts every download as a lost sale isn't going to help you.
Anyone who would agree to that is a freedom-hating scumbag who succumbs to typical "for the children" emotional appeals. Not to mention completely hypocritical if they claim to want small government.
Thanks, that sure helped me; I had no idea that having the general populace behind you and willing to actually do something would be helpful. Why don't you go offer your useful advice to people living in North Korea, where just saying the wrong thing can get you and your family murdered or imprisoned?
And no, it's not up for grabs. It's currently unconstitutional, but people let them get away with it.
If you were to read my other comments, you'd see that I haven't been repeating that to myself at all. It looks more like I despise the way America currently is, which I do.
Yes, that would probably happen, but that doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional.
Why isn't it true? From what I've seen, they all offer their own flavor of propaganda, fluff pieces, and a pro-mass-surveillance (though they occasionally put on someone who is slightly opposed to it) agenda.
But hey, people can keep voting for Republican and Democrat scumbags who keep violating the constitution. They share absolutely no blame for the actions of the ones they helped elect!
Um, yes, people who are anti-free speech and want the government to engage in unconstitutional activities are insufferable. Sadly, that appears to be an unpopular viewpoint.
And people are surprised when our government engages in mass surveillance...
Neither of these dynamics apply to sexism. You don't relieve your "urge" to pinch your secretary's butt by sitting in a virtual strip bar.
It said there is no link. It doesn't need to reduce sexism; it just needs to not cause it, much like this study says that violent video games don't cause violence.
But I don't think you can prove that by showing a study in violent video games that shows violence is A-OK.
Maybe not fully (and I don't even think much of this study in the first place), but there's no reason to believe that games cause sexism anyway; people who say that are just making unsubstantiated claims. The claims are similar enough (both claim that your way of thinking is changed, even if only unconsciously) that using studies like this isn't totally unreasonable.
Because otherwise, there *is* something wrong with prostitutes to begin with: they are engaging in an illegal activity, the solicitation and sale of sexual acts for money.
Immoral != illegal.
I look forward to seeing you campaign for Washington state office on your platform of "hookers and underage strippers are totally legit, and we should stop ostracizing them."
I don't see your point. It would probably fail, because most people in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" aren't brave and don't want to be free. Examples include the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, the drug war, FCC censorship, bans on swearing in certain occasions, bans on public nudity, suspicionless border searches, the existence of constitution-free zones, and other nonsense. So yes, if they put up with all that unjust/unconstitutional nonsense, I would probably lose here too. Does that mean I'm wrong, or just that it's going to be difficult to convince the moronic general public to start caring about actual freedom?
You're kind of missing the point. They're not even trying to "keep prostitutes from expressing themselves" they are keeping prostitutes from being in a commercial business with a bunch of horny guys with money; with the same types of powers they wield to keep people with illegal addiction issues becoming pharmacists.
There's nothing wrong with prostitutes to begin with. And it doesn't matter what they're trying to do; the effect is that freedom of expression is limited, and innocent people are having the government get in their way merely because they could be prostitutes. The ends don't justify the means; such regulation is wrong.
And hookers are free to dance as free expression in a non-commercial venue.
This is my problem. Just adding money into the equation shouldn't be enough to give the government the power to regulate in the case of free expression. If someone wants to express themselves for money, I don't think it should be restricted by silly licensing; such a regulation is nonsensical.
However, government DOES have the ability to regulate business.
Depends on the regulation and the business.
They are trying to stop known prostitutes from furthering their prostitution business under the cover of nekkid dancing.
Laws against prostitution are insane.
You're saying, "You can't keep someone from getting a job as a bank teller just because they have multiple priors for embezzling cash."
No, I'm not. I'm saying that it depends on the regulation. Some regulations are fine, and others aren't. Regulations that make it difficult to express yourself (a fundamental right) for money merely because doing so could be 'abused' (I don't see prostitution as a bad thing in the first place.) is just collective punishment nonsense.
Liberals? My friend, this has nothing to do with the liberal vs conservative false dichotomy, and more to do with people who want to censor this form of art. Individual opinions matter, not some ill-defined groups like "liberals" or "conservatives." I've seen people who identify as "conservative" who support FCC censorship, video game censorship, bans on public nudity, etc., so it's not just "liberals."
That's about as valid as pointing to the government's use of psychic detectives. Wasting money doesn't prove something works, and someone voluntarily buying something of their own volition doesn't prove that they were 'brainwashed.' Is it not possible that engaging in real-world violence is difference from voluntarily buying something because you liked what you saw in an advertisement? I would think people would be able to tell that one is bad, and the other is completely up to them.
do not influence behavior
Who's saying it doesn't influence behavior? If you cry in response to something sad happening in a story, you have been affected by the story. What people are saying is that violence in games doesn't lead to violence in real life.
It's more like, "Wow, I killed someone in a game. Well, it's just fantasy." and "Wow, I killed a stripper on my way to rescue the damsel in distress. Well, it's just fantasy." In both cases, someone recognizes the obvious difference between fantasy and reality. They're not necessarily played for the same reasons, but that doesn't mean the situations don't have similarities.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is thus: "Nobody can know how anyone thinks or why they do what they do."
I just argue that you're not a mind-reader and that you should probably stop trying to be a pseudo-psychologist on the Internet who constantly spews forth buzzwords.
Then, there's the entire field of psychology, and its medical application as psychiatry.
You're pointing to soft science to help you out? Please. And even the soft scientists don't agree that you can randomly label entire groups as hiveminds where all individuals in said groups are in the groups because of reason X.
You stated that I made a comparison. I did not. You were wrong.
People have their own individual reasons for being rapists.
Absolutely true.
people are trying to assimilate a position of individuality
By making this post, you're trying to assimilate a position of individuality. Raging against the machine, are we? How childish. I know exactly how you think, because I'm psychic.
"All X are the same" is a disinformation meme.
No, it's a straw man on your part. I did not say they were the same.
We were speaking of television news, were we not?
conflating oppression does more to weaken your argument than it does mine.
You're an idiot. I never compared anything.
Not gaining is not the same as losing, so that's nonsense. And linking to garbage that equates not gaining with losing and counts every download as a lost sale isn't going to help you.
Let's see how many people protest that statement.
Anyone who would agree to that is a freedom-hating scumbag who succumbs to typical "for the children" emotional appeals. Not to mention completely hypocritical if they claim to want small government.
I've heard that people who don't eat meat for a while can get sick if they suddenly do.
Thanks, that sure helped me; I had no idea that having the general populace behind you and willing to actually do something would be helpful. Why don't you go offer your useful advice to people living in North Korea, where just saying the wrong thing can get you and your family murdered or imprisoned?
And no, it's not up for grabs. It's currently unconstitutional, but people let them get away with it.
I'm not a vegan. I'm not just dumb enough to think that vegans are all part of some hivemind.
If you were to read my other comments, you'd see that I haven't been repeating that to myself at all. It looks more like I despise the way America currently is, which I do.
Yes, that would probably happen, but that doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional.
Why isn't it true? From what I've seen, they all offer their own flavor of propaganda, fluff pieces, and a pro-mass-surveillance (though they occasionally put on someone who is slightly opposed to it) agenda.
People have their own individual reasons for being vegans.
Can we just agree that all the news stations are incredibly retarded?
Yes. It's just "For the children!" nonsense. Oh, boo hoo! Someone doesn't meet some completely arbitrary age requirements! Oh, the humanity!
But hey, people can keep voting for Republican and Democrat scumbags who keep violating the constitution. They share absolutely no blame for the actions of the ones they helped elect!
Um, yes, people who are anti-free speech and want the government to engage in unconstitutional activities are insufferable. Sadly, that appears to be an unpopular viewpoint.
And people are surprised when our government engages in mass surveillance...
Neither of these dynamics apply to sexism. You don't relieve your "urge" to pinch your secretary's butt by sitting in a virtual strip bar.
It said there is no link. It doesn't need to reduce sexism; it just needs to not cause it, much like this study says that violent video games don't cause violence.
But I don't think you can prove that by showing a study in violent video games that shows violence is A-OK.
Maybe not fully (and I don't even think much of this study in the first place), but there's no reason to believe that games cause sexism anyway; people who say that are just making unsubstantiated claims. The claims are similar enough (both claim that your way of thinking is changed, even if only unconsciously) that using studies like this isn't totally unreasonable.
Because otherwise, there *is* something wrong with prostitutes to begin with: they are engaging in an illegal activity, the solicitation and sale of sexual acts for money.
Immoral != illegal.
I look forward to seeing you campaign for Washington state office on your platform of "hookers and underage strippers are totally legit, and we should stop ostracizing them."
I don't see your point. It would probably fail, because most people in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" aren't brave and don't want to be free. Examples include the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, the drug war, FCC censorship, bans on swearing in certain occasions, bans on public nudity, suspicionless border searches, the existence of constitution-free zones, and other nonsense. So yes, if they put up with all that unjust/unconstitutional nonsense, I would probably lose here too. Does that mean I'm wrong, or just that it's going to be difficult to convince the moronic general public to start caring about actual freedom?
You're kind of missing the point. They're not even trying to "keep prostitutes from expressing themselves" they are keeping prostitutes from being in a commercial business with a bunch of horny guys with money; with the same types of powers they wield to keep people with illegal addiction issues becoming pharmacists.
There's nothing wrong with prostitutes to begin with. And it doesn't matter what they're trying to do; the effect is that freedom of expression is limited, and innocent people are having the government get in their way merely because they could be prostitutes. The ends don't justify the means; such regulation is wrong.
And hookers are free to dance as free expression in a non-commercial venue.
This is my problem. Just adding money into the equation shouldn't be enough to give the government the power to regulate in the case of free expression. If someone wants to express themselves for money, I don't think it should be restricted by silly licensing; such a regulation is nonsensical.
However, government DOES have the ability to regulate business.
Depends on the regulation and the business.
They are trying to stop known prostitutes from furthering their prostitution business under the cover of nekkid dancing.
Laws against prostitution are insane.
You're saying, "You can't keep someone from getting a job as a bank teller just because they have multiple priors for embezzling cash."
No, I'm not. I'm saying that it depends on the regulation. Some regulations are fine, and others aren't. Regulations that make it difficult to express yourself (a fundamental right) for money merely because doing so could be 'abused' (I don't see prostitution as a bad thing in the first place.) is just collective punishment nonsense.
Liberals? My friend, this has nothing to do with the liberal vs conservative false dichotomy, and more to do with people who want to censor this form of art. Individual opinions matter, not some ill-defined groups like "liberals" or "conservatives." I've seen people who identify as "conservative" who support FCC censorship, video game censorship, bans on public nudity, etc., so it's not just "liberals."
That's about as valid as pointing to the government's use of psychic detectives. Wasting money doesn't prove something works, and someone voluntarily buying something of their own volition doesn't prove that they were 'brainwashed.' Is it not possible that engaging in real-world violence is difference from voluntarily buying something because you liked what you saw in an advertisement? I would think people would be able to tell that one is bad, and the other is completely up to them.
do not influence behavior
Who's saying it doesn't influence behavior? If you cry in response to something sad happening in a story, you have been affected by the story. What people are saying is that violence in games doesn't lead to violence in real life.
Yeah. Doesn't really work, does it.
It's more like, "Wow, I killed someone in a game. Well, it's just fantasy." and "Wow, I killed a stripper on my way to rescue the damsel in distress. Well, it's just fantasy." In both cases, someone recognizes the obvious difference between fantasy and reality. They're not necessarily played for the same reasons, but that doesn't mean the situations don't have similarities.