I respectfully contend that congress is firmly in the back pocket of US corporations. Since the recording industry comprises 5 of the largest 50 companies in the country, I would suspect that congress would side with the RIAA instead of "the people".
In addition, they are clearly already willing to side against freedom in the name of prosecuting "suspected terrorists" when less than 10% of those brought up on terror related charges are ever convicted (no evidence, etc).
I just read an article about a guy who wrote in a blog that he was "thinking of" going to visit some friends in California. He happened to be conversing with an undercover officer in California who was posing as a 14 year old. It was specifically mentioned that he had never stated his intention to meet this person, nor had there been any sort of sexual communication of any kind.
He was arrested for "intent" to cross state lines to meet a minor for the purpose of sex.
It no longer matters whether it was clear you intend to have sex. It no longer matters whether you actually DID cross state lines, with or without stated intention. In fact, by the letter of the law (the 2001 PROTECT act), it says "action, conspiracy or intent, or any combination of these". By the letter of the law, if you were to intend to conspire to cross state lines with the perceived intent to meet a minor during which time presumably you might intend to have sex.
If you boil it down (look at the italicized words), it is illegal to intend to conspire to have a percieved intent to presumably maybe intend to do something.
Woot! "Think of the children" got that law passed.:-)
Imagine what "beware of terrorists" can achieve. "intent to think of maybe someday doing"
Most dual income families work because they THINK they need to.
They probably have digital cable and a 42" television and two late-model cars and a house in the suburbs.
I admire a friend of mine who chose to move from his suburban home into a townhouse a few minutes out of town and chose to sell his BMW for a 1998 Toyota so that his wife could stay home with his kids. They opted to get rid of Cable televion in favor of an Internet connection and they ditched the health club membership and bought themselves a few second-hand mountain bikes instead. They decided to invest in some good cookware and agree to eat dinner at home 6 days per week, instead of going out every other night. They agreed to a Basic netflix subscription instead of their weekly theatre movie and daily television habit. They decided to invest in a vegetable garden, which is both therapeutic to his wife and saves them a fair bit of money.
They actually have MORE money going into savings now than they did when both of them were working.
They are happier, healthier, have more money, better food, less stress, less conflict and more free time.
What they don't have is a BMW, American Idol, half an acre of expensive landscaping, a platinum Visa card and a six digit debt.... which is the aspiration of most Americans.
I am not denying there are a few families where both parents work to make minimum wage. I hate to say it, but it is irresponsible for someone making minimum wage to have a child unless they work in a job that enables them to be home during the day.
LET HIM SPEAK should be a rally cry of all americans.
Unfortunately those Americans who call themselves "congress" decided that giving porno to a 13 (or 17) year old is a Class 2 Felony punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of "not less than 5 years" and lifetime registration on sex offender registration.
And the parent's comment about "+2 immunity to ex post facto" is insightful as well, since sex crimes are the only ones that have had "retroactive" prohibitions applied to them.
That is akin to 1920s prohibition making it a crime to "have ever" drank and then promptly arresting anyone who admitted to having ever done it.
Granted, the crime is different, but from a legal sense, that is the approach.
The scary part is that it was upheld by a federal appeals court on the grounds of "community protection". While that's noble, it's in direct contradiction with our constitution and rights as free citizens.
So.... by the letter of the law, the parent who admitted to getting a porno from dad at 13 has admitted a felony offense and the justice department has enough grounds to get a search warrant to sieze the logs of Slashdot and his ISP, and have his parents arrested for "sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust" (a class 2 felony in this state).
Hence.... regardless of whether YOU think he should be allowed to speak, legally, he's on shaky ground.
Of course, we could rely on the "good will" of the law enforcement branch not to prosecute well-meaning parents.... but if our laws are so vague that the average American parent (more than 50% do know their teens have access to porn and do nothing) have to rely on the good will of the police forces to avoid being arrested for felony sex assault, we are in deep shi*.
It is practical, given long-term logical approach to things, that a society or culture could develop that while they had no empathy, relied on cold logic to sustain their cooperation.
However, as not quite so rational beings.... and the fact that the species we descended from are even less logical and rational, an emotional means of such cooperation is imperative.
So.... logically, yes, such a structure can work.
Realistically... no such a "pure logic" cooperation generally doesn't work in the animal word.
I guess one might refer to such a group as a "corporation" heh
I think..... that this is exactly what I said. I think perhaps I worded it poorly or you read it wrong.
I was saying that any animals with any sort of social structure (those structures being created as a survival tactic) are required to have some sense of empathy, or their social structure can't survive (not as a completely self-interested survival requirement, absent some biological underpinning for the feeling of kinship with a stranger).
Anger is not a moral judgment, though, yes, it is genetically linked.
Drug companies have depression drugs which change chemical levels within the brain, in much the same way that "recreational" drugs do.
To say that changing a chemical level within your brain causes you to be more "moral" is goofy. Yes, it makes people reason differently and have different motivations... but "fixing your morality"? where the heck did you come up with that?
When someone gets up on a pile of PCP and goes on a sociopathic rampage, has his "morality" been "unfixed"?
heh
We have a biologically ingrained sense of empahty. Yes, this varies amongst individuals. morality is just a logical and social extension of our empathic desires... a way to codify our empathy to ensure that everyone is treated on an equal level (unless, of course we view them as not-human, in which case, burn the fuckers).
Actually, no, it's not. He just didn't complete the sentence.
Animals have adopted a sense of empathy. This is apparent that it exists in many species. This is fact.
The reason animals adapted such a sense of empathy is because of a need to live in groups (just as the poster said). The "why" is.... animals which are entirely lacking empathy (reptiles perhaps?) live solitary lives. They fight any other same-sex same-species animals, because they are automatically "competitors" for whatever it is around, food, mates, etc.
The ability to live in a social group (beyond an immediate mating need) hinges on the ability to have empathy and protect those individuals around you as if you were protecting yourself. This is the essence of empathy.
"morality" is simply a social and intellectual construct that humans have come up with to codify their sense of ingrained empathy.
I believe, having read a little of this research, the term "moral judgment" is disingenuous.
The absolute construct that he has demonstrated is empathy. In other words, feeling for other people as you might feel yourself in the same situation. This is a biological imperative for animals to be able to live in a close-knit social group, as sociopathic selfishness would quickly cause the social groups to decay into anarchy and ultimately separate.
The "moral judgment" seems to me to be just a consistency of reasoning that ultimately stems from this biological imperative toward empathy.
The concept that there are hard-wired moral "conclusions" is silly.
The concept that there is a hard-wired root to our desire to FIND conclusions is very salient.
Empathy is observed in most community-based species. I'm sure it evolved as a "glue" to hold communities together.
If a species was entirely lacking empathy (sociopathic) they would be totally unable to create cohesive social units. Males would mate and then move on. Females might have a different biological imperative to rear their young, but as you go to simpler species you notice that they don't even have this urge. They simply pop out some eggs and let them float down the river and go on eating (or die immediately).
The more advanced the species, the more developed the empathy... first to familial and child rearing and later to social community and mutual protection, and even later to an abstract sense of empathy for any individuals which appear to be in harm's way.
I think there is a clear biological component to this.
Social animals MUST have a sense of empathy. Any social circle comprised exclusively of sociopaths would quickly degrade into... well something other than a social circle.
Social circles and cooperation are essential to the formation of intelligence and communication.
Therefore, any evolution of intelligence and communication inherently require animals that have an ingrained sense of empathy.
There is no implied moral code. There is no implied "absolute right and wrong", but simply a vague biological urge to "do unto others" that varies depending on individuals and age, just as the amount of hair on someone's head varies by the individual and his age.
This is expressed in the article with the phrase "empathy".
I think it is reasonable to assume that social animals have a sense of empathy. After all, a social structure without emapthy would quickly decay into chaos. It's an evolutionary trait to cause cohesion in communities.
Beyond that sense of empathy, it is hard to see any "hard wired" set of morality. That sense of empathy gives us a vague "do unto others" urge, but it can obviously be overridden by conditioning, etc.
They demonstrated a clearly ingrained sense of empathy.
Morality is simply a social construct we create in order to better frame a universal set of actions expected to appease the empathic response of most people.
We imagine "what would I want done if that was me" and we act in that way.
There is NO hard-wired morals, simply a hard-wired sense of empathy. It varies in different individuals. Some people are cripplingly empathic so they won't even go outside for fear of stepping on a bug. Others are sociopathic, meaning they have zero empathy and will act with ultimate selfishness in every situation.
As for "morality", that is merely a construct created to appease our sense of empathy.
This is an interesting discussion and I've heard this argued many times as theory, especially by those pushing a religious interpretation of "absolute morality".
On the other hand (and as TFA points out), the key word is empathy. Without empathy, social structures cannot exist. If everyone and everyone is solely self-interested, groups of cooperating individuals could never thrive as they would be destroyed internally by conflicting self-interest.
However, to claim that there are *specific* moral rules that are hard-wired is a bit silly, since it can be evidenced that there are a great many cultures in human history that use generalizations to appease the natural sense of empathy, while doing acts that would otherwise trigger an empathic reaction.
For example, cultures which practiced human sacrifice justified it by either portraying those sacrificed as "not quite human" or as "chosen by god" (being an honor, not a sacrifice). The Moors in Spain categorized Christians as "infidels" and were therefore justified in burning them by the thousands. The Nazis convinced their people that Jews were "subhuman" and people therefore often felt vindicated at sending them to their death. Blacks in pre-civil war America (and some time afterwards) were also seen as "subhuman" (legally, actually 1/3 of a person) and therefore slave owners were justified in treating them as domesticated animals.
Even today, we see the phrase "not quite human" bandied about to refer to criminals, especially murderers and sex offenders, to appease people's sense of empathy when calling for them to be "skinned alive" or "sliced into little pieces" as two well known political bloggers recently and eloquently demanded of pedophiles caught in the act.
However, our sense of morality is not so solid as one might think. Using the same example, for almost a thousand years, pederasty was not only a tolerated condition, but actually an expected behavior amongst social elite. Not only was it accepted by it was celebrated. Death has been similarly consecrated into social norms in past societies with warrior cultures killing merely for the sake of killing and maintaining their warrior culture.
Our sense of empathy may be ingrained. In fact, it may be essential to our humanity, but empathy is not so firmly defined as a set of "thou shalt not" rules and can't be assumed to imply those either.
I still contend that the (often religious) argument "all humans have some hard-wired moral rules" is a sham, created to perpetrate the spread of ignorance on controversial topics. We should always question our judgments using our intellect... because that is really what separates us from other mammals.
I would argue that people are never hurt by sex. However, they are sometimes hurt by being manipulated, used, lied to, coerced or otherwise handled poorly.
Sure, that can be in the context of sex. It can also be in a lot of other contexts.
What makes sex special other than the fundie interpretation of its magical powers?
They say that file sharing is a "threat to our children", but did you read WHY?
* that peer-to-peer networks could manipulate sites so children violate copyright laws more frequently than adults, exposing those children to copyright lawsuits and, in turn, make those who protect their copyrighted material appear antagonistic,
So... it's file sharing's fault that the RIAA looks like profiteering litigious bastards for suing a dozen teenage kids. Somehow, file sharing made them do it
It is astounding to me that someone could claim to speak authoratatively on the exact temporal nature of God.
It just seems like a silly think to claim special knowledge of. With such a claim under his belt, I would have trouble taking any of his other theories as anything more than wild guesses.:-)
If someone wanks to something that disgusts other people, they better damn well watch out because politicians and prosecutors make a living prosecuting you. Most of you are average middle class sorts and don't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
However, if someone launders hundreds of millions of dollars into overseas bank accounts, everyone secretly thinks "damn, I wish I was him, he's really lucky" and prosecutors think "crap, he can afford a dozen high priced lawyers. The press will have a field day with my career".
So while the diversion of money away from national defense and our economy may have an overall effect that is MUCH greater than the guy who wanks to some picture of a busty teenager, the public grandstanding that can be done after "getting a dirty perv off the street" is far higher than "I arrested this somewhat unknown, but wealthy, businessman for stealing money from Iraqi citizens".
I just googled this "webe web" case. I find it hilarious that the whole controversy is framed by a bill introduced by Mark Foley.
He's somehow special because he *chats* with the boys instead of looking at pictures of them. heh
In all seriousness, he was a creepy old man, but nothing i saw in his chats were anything even close to exploitative, or dangerous, except the fact that he was abusing his position as an elected official for personal gain (woooo big surprise).
But since the prosecutorial state is interested in prosecuting and sentencing as many people as possible for as long as possible, they have no incentive to actually DEFEND people... I guarantee the tone of these classes is "how to get more convictions".... where it should be "how to better determine the truth".
"How can we make an airtight case against the 15 year old who made a porno of his girlfriend?"
You have to know that if there is an insurrection, a good number of marines will be convinced that the "freedom fighters" are, in fact, terrorists. The brass will instruct them to "wipe out the terrorist threat" and they will do as ordered. Perhaps some will refuse and will be summarily arrested.
Spin is powerful. Especially with people who are extremely dedicated to their chain of command.
I thought it was clearly demonstrated in other cases that children are not citizens, and therefore do not deserve the protections of the constitution.
Of course, at 12:01am on their 18th birthday, they are immediately handed a pack of cigarettes and a "girls gone wild" video and told "good luck with the harsh cold world kid"
Yes, this is a GREAT way to handle it.... positively brilliant in fact.
Slashdot Mirror
I respectfully contend that congress is firmly in the back pocket of US corporations. Since the recording industry comprises 5 of the largest 50 companies in the country, I would suspect that congress would side with the RIAA instead of "the people".
In addition, they are clearly already willing to side against freedom in the name of prosecuting "suspected terrorists" when less than 10% of those brought up on terror related charges are ever convicted (no evidence, etc).
Just a thought.
Stew
But doesn't that already happen?
:-)
I just read an article about a guy who wrote in a blog that he was "thinking of" going to visit some friends in California. He happened to be conversing with an undercover officer in California who was posing as a 14 year old. It was specifically mentioned that he had never stated his intention to meet this person, nor had there been any sort of sexual communication of any kind.
He was arrested for "intent" to cross state lines to meet a minor for the purpose of sex.
It no longer matters whether it was clear you intend to have sex. It no longer matters whether you actually DID cross state lines, with or without stated intention. In fact, by the letter of the law (the 2001 PROTECT act), it says "action, conspiracy or intent, or any combination of these". By the letter of the law, if you were to intend to conspire to cross state lines with the perceived intent to meet a minor during which time presumably you might intend to have sex.
If you boil it down (look at the italicized words), it is illegal to intend to conspire to have a percieved intent to presumably maybe intend to do something.
Woot! "Think of the children" got that law passed.
Imagine what "beware of terrorists" can achieve. "intent to think of maybe someday doing"
Stew
Off topic, but funny.
Empathy is clearly present in non-verbal species.
Doesn't that lend itself to the idea that it isn't a socially constructed sensibility?
I guess primitive society of dogs or apes can still *teach* but not in a way that is as complex as the "enlightened" self-interest you speak of.
Stew
Most dual income families work because they THINK they need to.
They probably have digital cable and a 42" television and two late-model cars and a house in the suburbs.
I admire a friend of mine who chose to move from his suburban home into a townhouse a few minutes out of town and chose to sell his BMW for a 1998 Toyota so that his wife could stay home with his kids. They opted to get rid of Cable televion in favor of an Internet connection and they ditched the health club membership and bought themselves a few second-hand mountain bikes instead. They decided to invest in some good cookware and agree to eat dinner at home 6 days per week, instead of going out every other night. They agreed to a Basic netflix subscription instead of their weekly theatre movie and daily television habit. They decided to invest in a vegetable garden, which is both therapeutic to his wife and saves them a fair bit of money.
They actually have MORE money going into savings now than they did when both of them were working.
They are happier, healthier, have more money, better food, less stress, less conflict and more free time.
What they don't have is a BMW, American Idol, half an acre of expensive landscaping, a platinum Visa card and a six digit debt.... which is the aspiration of most Americans.
I am not denying there are a few families where both parents work to make minimum wage. I hate to say it, but it is irresponsible for someone making minimum wage to have a child unless they work in a job that enables them to be home during the day.
That's just my opinion though.
Stew
What you just said has a lot of merit.
LET HIM SPEAK should be a rally cry of all americans.
Unfortunately those Americans who call themselves "congress" decided that giving porno to a 13 (or 17) year old is a Class 2 Felony punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of "not less than 5 years" and lifetime registration on sex offender registration.
And the parent's comment about "+2 immunity to ex post facto" is insightful as well, since sex crimes are the only ones that have had "retroactive" prohibitions applied to them.
That is akin to 1920s prohibition making it a crime to "have ever" drank and then promptly arresting anyone who admitted to having ever done it.
Granted, the crime is different, but from a legal sense, that is the approach.
The scary part is that it was upheld by a federal appeals court on the grounds of "community protection". While that's noble, it's in direct contradiction with our constitution and rights as free citizens.
So.... by the letter of the law, the parent who admitted to getting a porno from dad at 13 has admitted a felony offense and the justice department has enough grounds to get a search warrant to sieze the logs of Slashdot and his ISP, and have his parents arrested for "sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust" (a class 2 felony in this state).
Hence.... regardless of whether YOU think he should be allowed to speak, legally, he's on shaky ground.
Of course, we could rely on the "good will" of the law enforcement branch not to prosecute well-meaning parents.... but if our laws are so vague that the average American parent (more than 50% do know their teens have access to porn and do nothing) have to rely on the good will of the police forces to avoid being arrested for felony sex assault, we are in deep shi*.
Oh wait, they ARE so vague.
Parents beware.
Stew
Stew
It is practical, given long-term logical approach to things, that a society or culture could develop that while they had no empathy, relied on cold logic to sustain their cooperation.
However, as not quite so rational beings.... and the fact that the species we descended from are even less logical and rational, an emotional means of such cooperation is imperative.
So.... logically, yes, such a structure can work.
Realistically... no such a "pure logic" cooperation generally doesn't work in the animal word.
I guess one might refer to such a group as a "corporation" heh
Stew
I think..... that this is exactly what I said. I think perhaps I worded it poorly or you read it wrong.
I was saying that any animals with any sort of social structure (those structures being created as a survival tactic) are required to have some sense of empathy, or their social structure can't survive (not as a completely self-interested survival requirement, absent some biological underpinning for the feeling of kinship with a stranger).
Bats, dogs, humans... same idea.
Stew
Hahahhaha!!!
"Genetical" is not a word.
Anger is not a moral judgment, though, yes, it is genetically linked.
Drug companies have depression drugs which change chemical levels within the brain, in much the same way that "recreational" drugs do.
To say that changing a chemical level within your brain causes you to be more "moral" is goofy. Yes, it makes people reason differently and have different motivations... but "fixing your morality"? where the heck did you come up with that?
When someone gets up on a pile of PCP and goes on a sociopathic rampage, has his "morality" been "unfixed"?
heh
We have a biologically ingrained sense of empahty. Yes, this varies amongst individuals. morality is just a logical and social extension of our empathic desires... a way to codify our empathy to ensure that everyone is treated on an equal level (unless, of course we view them as not-human, in which case, burn the fuckers).
Stew
Actually, no, it's not. He just didn't complete the sentence.
Animals have adopted a sense of empathy. This is apparent that it exists in many species. This is fact.
The reason animals adapted such a sense of empathy is because of a need to live in groups (just as the poster said). The "why" is.... animals which are entirely lacking empathy (reptiles perhaps?) live solitary lives. They fight any other same-sex same-species animals, because they are automatically "competitors" for whatever it is around, food, mates, etc.
The ability to live in a social group (beyond an immediate mating need) hinges on the ability to have empathy and protect those individuals around you as if you were protecting yourself. This is the essence of empathy.
"morality" is simply a social and intellectual construct that humans have come up with to codify their sense of ingrained empathy.
Stew
I believe, having read a little of this research, the term "moral judgment" is disingenuous.
The absolute construct that he has demonstrated is empathy. In other words, feeling for other people as you might feel yourself in the same situation. This is a biological imperative for animals to be able to live in a close-knit social group, as sociopathic selfishness would quickly cause the social groups to decay into anarchy and ultimately separate.
The "moral judgment" seems to me to be just a consistency of reasoning that ultimately stems from this biological imperative toward empathy.
The concept that there are hard-wired moral "conclusions" is silly.
The concept that there is a hard-wired root to our desire to FIND conclusions is very salient.
Stew
Empathy is observed in most community-based species. I'm sure it evolved as a "glue" to hold communities together.
If a species was entirely lacking empathy (sociopathic) they would be totally unable to create cohesive social units. Males would mate and then move on. Females might have a different biological imperative to rear their young, but as you go to simpler species you notice that they don't even have this urge. They simply pop out some eggs and let them float down the river and go on eating (or die immediately).
The more advanced the species, the more developed the empathy... first to familial and child rearing and later to social community and mutual protection, and even later to an abstract sense of empathy for any individuals which appear to be in harm's way.
Stew
I think there is a clear biological component to this.
Social animals MUST have a sense of empathy. Any social circle comprised exclusively of sociopaths would quickly degrade into... well something other than a social circle.
Social circles and cooperation are essential to the formation of intelligence and communication.
Therefore, any evolution of intelligence and communication inherently require animals that have an ingrained sense of empathy.
There is no implied moral code. There is no implied "absolute right and wrong", but simply a vague biological urge to "do unto others" that varies depending on individuals and age, just as the amount of hair on someone's head varies by the individual and his age.
Stew
This is expressed in the article with the phrase "empathy".
I think it is reasonable to assume that social animals have a sense of empathy. After all, a social structure without emapthy would quickly decay into chaos. It's an evolutionary trait to cause cohesion in communities.
Beyond that sense of empathy, it is hard to see any "hard wired" set of morality. That sense of empathy gives us a vague "do unto others" urge, but it can obviously be overridden by conditioning, etc.
Stew
The word used in the article is "emapthy".
They demonstrated a clearly ingrained sense of empathy.
Morality is simply a social construct we create in order to better frame a universal set of actions expected to appease the empathic response of most people.
morality is still entirely a social construct.
Stew
The key word is empathy
That is what is engrained.
We imagine "what would I want done if that was me" and we act in that way.
There is NO hard-wired morals, simply a hard-wired sense of empathy. It varies in different individuals. Some people are cripplingly empathic so they won't even go outside for fear of stepping on a bug. Others are sociopathic, meaning they have zero empathy and will act with ultimate selfishness in every situation.
As for "morality", that is merely a construct created to appease our sense of empathy.
Stew
This is an interesting discussion and I've heard this argued many times as theory, especially by those pushing a religious interpretation of "absolute morality".
On the other hand (and as TFA points out), the key word is empathy. Without empathy, social structures cannot exist. If everyone and everyone is solely self-interested, groups of cooperating individuals could never thrive as they would be destroyed internally by conflicting self-interest.
However, to claim that there are *specific* moral rules that are hard-wired is a bit silly, since it can be evidenced that there are a great many cultures in human history that use generalizations to appease the natural sense of empathy, while doing acts that would otherwise trigger an empathic reaction.
For example, cultures which practiced human sacrifice justified it by either portraying those sacrificed as "not quite human" or as "chosen by god" (being an honor, not a sacrifice). The Moors in Spain categorized Christians as "infidels" and were therefore justified in burning them by the thousands. The Nazis convinced their people that Jews were "subhuman" and people therefore often felt vindicated at sending them to their death. Blacks in pre-civil war America (and some time afterwards) were also seen as "subhuman" (legally, actually 1/3 of a person) and therefore slave owners were justified in treating them as domesticated animals.
Even today, we see the phrase "not quite human" bandied about to refer to criminals, especially murderers and sex offenders, to appease people's sense of empathy when calling for them to be "skinned alive" or "sliced into little pieces" as two well known political bloggers recently and eloquently demanded of pedophiles caught in the act.
However, our sense of morality is not so solid as one might think. Using the same example, for almost a thousand years, pederasty was not only a tolerated condition, but actually an expected behavior amongst social elite. Not only was it accepted by it was celebrated. Death has been similarly consecrated into social norms in past societies with warrior cultures killing merely for the sake of killing and maintaining their warrior culture.
Our sense of empathy may be ingrained. In fact, it may be essential to our humanity, but empathy is not so firmly defined as a set of "thou shalt not" rules and can't be assumed to imply those either.
I still contend that the (often religious) argument "all humans have some hard-wired moral rules" is a sham, created to perpetrate the spread of ignorance on controversial topics. We should always question our judgments using our intellect... because that is really what separates us from other mammals.
Stew
I would argue that people are never hurt by sex. However, they are sometimes hurt by being manipulated, used, lied to, coerced or otherwise handled poorly.
Sure, that can be in the context of sex. It can also be in a lot of other contexts.
What makes sex special other than the fundie interpretation of its magical powers?
Stew
They say that file sharing is a "threat to our children", but did you read WHY?
So... it's file sharing's fault that the RIAA looks like profiteering litigious bastards for suing a dozen teenage kids. Somehow, file sharing made them do it
I can't believe I just read that.
gah.
I'm moving to the Czech Republic or something.
Stew
It is astounding to me that someone could claim to speak authoratatively on the exact temporal nature of God.
:-)
It just seems like a silly think to claim special knowledge of. With such a claim under his belt, I would have trouble taking any of his other theories as anything more than wild guesses.
Stew
It comes down to social priorities.
If someone wanks to something that disgusts other people, they better damn well watch out because politicians and prosecutors make a living prosecuting you. Most of you are average middle class sorts and don't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
However, if someone launders hundreds of millions of dollars into overseas bank accounts, everyone secretly thinks "damn, I wish I was him, he's really lucky" and prosecutors think "crap, he can afford a dozen high priced lawyers. The press will have a field day with my career".
So while the diversion of money away from national defense and our economy may have an overall effect that is MUCH greater than the guy who wanks to some picture of a busty teenager, the public grandstanding that can be done after "getting a dirty perv off the street" is far higher than "I arrested this somewhat unknown, but wealthy, businessman for stealing money from Iraqi citizens".
hehe
No, I'm not cynical.
Stew
I just googled this "webe web" case. I find it hilarious that the whole controversy is framed by a bill introduced by Mark Foley.
He's somehow special because he *chats* with the boys instead of looking at pictures of them. heh
In all seriousness, he was a creepy old man, but nothing i saw in his chats were anything even close to exploitative, or dangerous, except the fact that he was abusing his position as an elected official for personal gain (woooo big surprise).
Stew
Damn good point.
But since the prosecutorial state is interested in prosecuting and sentencing as many people as possible for as long as possible, they have no incentive to actually DEFEND people... I guarantee the tone of these classes is "how to get more convictions".... where it should be "how to better determine the truth".
"How can we make an airtight case against the 15 year old who made a porno of his girlfriend?"
mmmmhmmm
You have to know that if there is an insurrection, a good number of marines will be convinced that the "freedom fighters" are, in fact, terrorists. The brass will instruct them to "wipe out the terrorist threat" and they will do as ordered. Perhaps some will refuse and will be summarily arrested.
Spin is powerful. Especially with people who are extremely dedicated to their chain of command.
Stew
I thought it was clearly demonstrated in other cases that children are not citizens, and therefore do not deserve the protections of the constitution.
Of course, at 12:01am on their 18th birthday, they are immediately handed a pack of cigarettes and a "girls gone wild" video and told "good luck with the harsh cold world kid"
Yes, this is a GREAT way to handle it.... positively brilliant in fact.
Stew