I'm not the poster, but I would imagine that watching sexually explicit material (sexy video games, porn, Night Court) would put people in a state of arousal, and thus induce them to have sex.
Only if you're watching it with your girlfriend... if you're watching it alone, you'll either *cough* take care of it on your own, or the arousal will likely pass until the next time you meet your girlfriend.
I don't think watching porn has any long-term effects on arousal.
Watching porn makes me want to have sex. Watching violence does not make me want to kill.
I'm European, and view this differently. Watching porn helps me to *cough* take care of the problem on my own, so I don't need to have sex.
The male lust for sex builds up gradually until you get release, either through sex, masturbation, or ejaculating in your sleep. Watching porn only makes the need for release come earlier, so if you're not watching it with your girlfriend, you'll most likely end up masturbating instead. Problem solved.
Second, the fact that a depiction of violence is somehow "worse" than that of sex is actually debatable. Sure, violence can be traumatic to watch and you certainly wouldn't want anyone emulating it, but how much of a chance is there that someone actually will? Look at teens today. What is the chance of your kid being the perpetrator or victim of a murder as opposed to becoming a teen parent? One would argue that the threat of unplanned pregnancy in minors is a much more prevalent issue.
I agree that unplanned teen pregnancy could be a larger problem, but I don't think censoring sex helps. Teens have always had and will always have premarital sex, regardless of the official social norms. If teens are denied contraceptives and sex ed because adults want to "send the right signals", they'll just have unsafe sex instead.
Where I live, Sweden, teen pregnancies are mostly a non-issue. The age of consent is 15, and from that age, anyone can go to the public health care for contraceptives and/or counseling. It's considered normal to have sex from around that age, but many teens still choose to wait a few years. Adults usually live together for a few years, and may even have children, before they marry. Monogamy and serial monogamy are the dominating forms of relationship. The feminist movement is really strong, so objectifying of women is relatively low in films, books and advertising. Non-sexual nudity, on the other hand, is okay. Male and female nudity is sometimes shown in the comic strips of major newspapers, and the gossip press (which is read by women) often contains paparazzi pictures of topless celebrities.
The only problem I see is that the divorce rate is pretty high - sometimes it seems like people aren't prepared to work on a relationship before they give up.
If you turn to games where the depiction of sex or even credible sexual tension is common, you often find objectification to be the norm, even when the object is actually one of your allies.
Yes, but if you look closer at those games, you'll see something really ironic. Most of the objectification takes place with clothed characters (like large-busted super heroines in skimpy outfits) that slip through censorship without problems. The kind of sex which is NOT objectifying (like loving, consensual intercourse), on the other hand, is censored. Censorship only lets through the kind of sex that's objectifying.
Well, not necessarily. In some cultures the wish for revenge is considered barbaric, and, although understandable, must be quelled. The victim gets redemption by having the crime taken seriously by society (the verdict and prison sentence), not by making the criminal suffer. Imprisonment is viewed mainly as a way for society to protect itself against future crimes and hopefully rehabilitate the criminal. That's been the dominating view here in Sweden since at least the 1970's.
Many individuals still want revenge, of course, but it's not accepted by society.
Many, many people are also criminals because they have a diminished ability to function in society, for example, in a family or workplace situation. In the cases where it's possible, teaching them the basic skills to deal with everyday situations is much more likely to work than giving out punishments. Violent criminals often belong to this category.
Punishments are more likely to work with people who take a calculated risk when they commit a crime, like with many economic crimes, but even there, increasing the risk of getting caught is much more likely to work than making the punishment harsher.
ITT: everyone on slashdot but a few misunderstands what bail is.
It's a guarantee of showing up to court. He gets his xbox back if he shows up to court. If he doesn't, it becomes property of the government. Explain how this is unreasonable.
*sigh* No, people here are not misunderstanding what bail is. They're misunderstanding what the issue is. From the fine article:
The judge told the youth it would show him what it was like to have something he valued taken from him.
That's clearly using bail as a form of punishment, not as a way to ensure the person returns to face trial. It's a misuse of the bail system.
No, according to the fine article, it's in place of teaching the kid "what it was like to have something he valued taken from him". It sounds like the judge is confusing bails with punishments.
Honestly this seems to me like a pretty well thought out decision on the judge's part. Most kids don't have a lot of financial assets that could be held for bail, but many have some posession that would be treated as such. Asking the KID what it was seems like it could backfire though...
It doesn't sound very well thought-out, considering the judge motivated his decision with showing the kid "what it was like to have something he valued taken from him". The judge seems to be confusing bails with punishments.
The judge did not punish the boy. Taking your argument and applying it to adults in similar situations means that any bail at all is punishment because the adult is out of money until the charges are disposed of one way or another.
If the judge had told an adult, "You'll have to give up your vinyl collection as bail to show you how it is to lose something you really value", then, yes, it would be a form of punishment. It would also be an abuse of the bail system.
I don't think anyone is objecting to the bail system. What people are objecting to is the judge using the bail system as a way to punish someone before they're found guilty.
Bail is set on value, the kid gave up something that was valued. While I don't agree with this I don't see this as being any better or worse than any other bail system.
Still doesn't explain why the judge specifically said it was to "show him what it was like to have something he really valued taken from him".
No, according to the fine article, the judge basically said, gimme your XBox as bail to teach you a lesson. Which is somewhat odd, considering that the boy wasn't convicted, and the purpose of bail is not to teach lessons.
Punishments don't need to be physically painful or discomforting. The prospect of having to spend a few years in jail, only seeing your family once a week, losing your job, etc, is quite enough to deter most people from most crimes.
Gotta make the punishment hurt for it to have any effect.
No, if the punishment is too severe, it may have the opposite effect, since the recipient perceives it as unfair.
Making sure the person understands and accepts the punishment is much more important than the severity. Humans are not machines that mechanically seek out the actions with the most pleasurable and least painful consequences. A small punishment, properly administered, may be much more efficient than a harsh one.
A significant portion of the world's Internet users would need to spend time creating false positives list for it to work, since a few false positives doesn't affect those who intrude on our privacy. It's also possible they'd quickly learn to see the difference between "genuine" Internet behaviour and when someone tries to obfuscate.
To be fair, as ridiculous as copyright has become, there were people working in the stable who would also be listening to the music, even if it was involuntarily.
I thought UPSTO was trying to clean its image by not granting anymore stupid patents this year?
Unfortunately, someone already had a patent on "A method for screening and selectively approving patent applications through a process of obviousness estimation".
Slashdot Mirror
Please mod up this, since it's the most informative/insightful comment in the discussion so far.
I'm not the poster, but I would imagine that watching sexually explicit material (sexy video games, porn, Night Court) would put people in a state of arousal, and thus induce them to have sex.
Only if you're watching it with your girlfriend... if you're watching it alone, you'll either *cough* take care of it on your own, or the arousal will likely pass until the next time you meet your girlfriend.
I don't think watching porn has any long-term effects on arousal.
Watching porn makes me want to have sex. Watching violence does not make me want to kill.
I'm European, and view this differently. Watching porn helps me to *cough* take care of the problem on my own, so I don't need to have sex.
The male lust for sex builds up gradually until you get release, either through sex, masturbation, or ejaculating in your sleep. Watching porn only makes the need for release come earlier, so if you're not watching it with your girlfriend, you'll most likely end up masturbating instead. Problem solved.
Second, the fact that a depiction of violence is somehow "worse" than that of sex is actually debatable. Sure, violence can be traumatic to watch and you certainly wouldn't want anyone emulating it, but how much of a chance is there that someone actually will? Look at teens today. What is the chance of your kid being the perpetrator or victim of a murder as opposed to becoming a teen parent? One would argue that the threat of unplanned pregnancy in minors is a much more prevalent issue.
I agree that unplanned teen pregnancy could be a larger problem, but I don't think censoring sex helps. Teens have always had and will always have premarital sex, regardless of the official social norms. If teens are denied contraceptives and sex ed because adults want to "send the right signals", they'll just have unsafe sex instead.
Where I live, Sweden, teen pregnancies are mostly a non-issue. The age of consent is 15, and from that age, anyone can go to the public health care for contraceptives and/or counseling. It's considered normal to have sex from around that age, but many teens still choose to wait a few years. Adults usually live together for a few years, and may even have children, before they marry. Monogamy and serial monogamy are the dominating forms of relationship. The feminist movement is really strong, so objectifying of women is relatively low in films, books and advertising. Non-sexual nudity, on the other hand, is okay. Male and female nudity is sometimes shown in the comic strips of major newspapers, and the gossip press (which is read by women) often contains paparazzi pictures of topless celebrities.
The only problem I see is that the divorce rate is pretty high - sometimes it seems like people aren't prepared to work on a relationship before they give up.
If you turn to games where the depiction of sex or even credible sexual tension is common, you often find objectification to be the norm, even when the object is actually one of your allies.
Yes, but if you look closer at those games, you'll see something really ironic. Most of the objectification takes place with clothed characters (like large-busted super heroines in skimpy outfits) that slip through censorship without problems. The kind of sex which is NOT objectifying (like loving, consensual intercourse), on the other hand, is censored. Censorship only lets through the kind of sex that's objectifying.
Well, not necessarily. In some cultures the wish for revenge is considered barbaric, and, although understandable, must be quelled. The victim gets redemption by having the crime taken seriously by society (the verdict and prison sentence), not by making the criminal suffer. Imprisonment is viewed mainly as a way for society to protect itself against future crimes and hopefully rehabilitate the criminal. That's been the dominating view here in Sweden since at least the 1970's.
Many individuals still want revenge, of course, but it's not accepted by society.
Many, many people are also criminals because they have a diminished ability to function in society, for example, in a family or workplace situation. In the cases where it's possible, teaching them the basic skills to deal with everyday situations is much more likely to work than giving out punishments. Violent criminals often belong to this category.
Punishments are more likely to work with people who take a calculated risk when they commit a crime, like with many economic crimes, but even there, increasing the risk of getting caught is much more likely to work than making the punishment harsher.
It doesn't have to be emotionally painful either. The absence of positive experiences is enough.
What's remarkable is that the judge presumed guilt when deciding what the bail should be. From the fine article:
The judge told the youth it would show him what it was like to have something he valued taken from him.
The purpose of a bail shouldn't be to teach the accused a lesson. That's what the punishment is for - after the accused has been found guilty.
ITT: everyone on slashdot but a few misunderstands what bail is.
It's a guarantee of showing up to court. He gets his xbox back if he shows up to court. If he doesn't, it becomes property of the government. Explain how this is unreasonable.
*sigh* No, people here are not misunderstanding what bail is. They're misunderstanding what the issue is. From the fine article:
The judge told the youth it would show him what it was like to have something he valued taken from him.
That's clearly using bail as a form of punishment, not as a way to ensure the person returns to face trial. It's a misuse of the bail system.
No, according to the fine article, it's in place of teaching the kid "what it was like to have something he valued taken from him". It sounds like the judge is confusing bails with punishments.
Honestly this seems to me like a pretty well thought out decision on the judge's part. Most kids don't have a lot of financial assets that could be held for bail, but many have some posession that would be treated as such. Asking the KID what it was seems like it could backfire though...
It doesn't sound very well thought-out, considering the judge motivated his decision with showing the kid "what it was like to have something he valued taken from him". The judge seems to be confusing bails with punishments.
The judge did not punish the boy. Taking your argument and applying it to adults in similar situations means that any bail at all is punishment because the adult is out of money until the charges are disposed of one way or another.
If the judge had told an adult, "You'll have to give up your vinyl collection as bail to show you how it is to lose something you really value", then, yes, it would be a form of punishment. It would also be an abuse of the bail system.
I don't think anyone is objecting to the bail system. What people are objecting to is the judge using the bail system as a way to punish someone before they're found guilty.
Bail is set on value, the kid gave up something that was valued. While I don't agree with this I don't see this as being any better or worse than any other bail system.
Still doesn't explain why the judge specifically said it was to "show him what it was like to have something he really valued taken from him".
If it's not a punishment, then why did the judge specifically say it was to teach him a "lesson"?
To me, it sounds like the judge mixed up bail conditions and punishments.
No, according to the fine article, the judge basically said, gimme your XBox as bail to teach you a lesson. Which is somewhat odd, considering that the boy wasn't convicted, and the purpose of bail is not to teach lessons.
That still doesn't explain why the judge motivated it with showing the kid "what it is like to have something you really value taken from you".
Punishments don't need to be physically painful or discomforting. The prospect of having to spend a few years in jail, only seeing your family once a week, losing your job, etc, is quite enough to deter most people from most crimes.
Most people are pretty shady when (they think) nobody watches them.
Pain? Are you advocating corporeal punishments?
Gotta make the punishment hurt for it to have any effect.
No, if the punishment is too severe, it may have the opposite effect, since the recipient perceives it as unfair.
Making sure the person understands and accepts the punishment is much more important than the severity. Humans are not machines that mechanically seek out the actions with the most pleasurable and least painful consequences. A small punishment, properly administered, may be much more efficient than a harsh one.
A significant portion of the world's Internet users would need to spend time creating false positives list for it to work, since a few false positives doesn't affect those who intrude on our privacy. It's also possible they'd quickly learn to see the difference between "genuine" Internet behaviour and when someone tries to obfuscate.
We could get *really* crazy and have your *browser* stop giving out identifiable information to anyone that asks...
It's not that easy, since the browser itself may be identifiable.
http://panopticlick.eff.org/
To be fair, as ridiculous as copyright has become, there were people working in the stable who would also be listening to the music, even if it was involuntarily.
I thought UPSTO was trying to clean its image by not granting anymore stupid patents this year?
Unfortunately, someone already had a patent on "A method for screening and selectively approving patent applications through a process of obviousness estimation".