except the argument doesn't hold up. It smells bad. I mean what actions taken by human beings aren't 'evidence based' ? There is really no such thing, different actions are usually a result of filtering different evidence. If what you mean is 'science based' you will find very little science that can tell you how to make human beings more moral and less likely to exploit others. However I'd argue consistent training in viewing other people as PEOPLE helps, which is exactly the opposite of what porn and sex work encourage so, ending porn and sex work certainly would help the goal of putting an end to child exploitation.
They may be "coerced" by society, in a sense, but they have a choice. So is it also you view that if people want to self medicate depression using meth , they may have been co-erased by society but hey they have a choice? That's all fine and dandy till they rob you to get the meth. Sex work is all fine and dandy until the you have to deal with the attitudes that coercing people into having sex is 'Ok'. How about the woman that works for me? Is it all good if she agrees that I promote her? Why not a few kiddies, they agree to it right? How about a few drunk frat girls, they said yes to drinking and they weren't passed out? So their choice right?
Just because someone 'chooses' to allow themselves to be exploited doesn't make the exploitation any less disastrous. Did you ever hear of 'indentured servitude'. Life time 'indentured servitude' later became known as 'slavery' in the united states. So is slavery ok if someone 'chooses' to sell themselves because they can't find a better way to survive? How about if they sell thier kids? That used to happen too.
"What is right is what provides the greatest individual security for the greatest span of society at the least expense to any member of society who does not violate the social contract"
The first problem with your analysis is that it implies there is some 'logical' way of composing a social contract in such a way as there won't be some people who are 'made insecure' by violating the social contract. When you look at history, slavery , for instance, has served more then a few societies quite well for centuries.
The second problem is that even if what you claim was provably true and all ethics are basically evolutionary social contracts, that is not a logical reason for the individual to not violate them if they find they are able to with impunity and doing so has the desired effect. Basically if you can become the 'dictator for life' by enslaving all women , there is no good reason you shouldn't. ( I've removed the customary nazi allusion from this because they have just become silly).
So your claim would be provably false for the individual, and the correct answer would be for an entirely evidence based ethic 'The individual should take whatever action that is in their power that maximizes their persona pleasure' this is of coarse limited by the the others around them and so all laws are basically a impingement on personal freedom that should be ignored whenever possible. This of coarse destabilizes society , but why should the individual care so long as they get what they want?
A much better answer is this: It is evident from the study of human beings that we require a source of truth that is objective and transcends beyond any cause that exists within the individual members of society. The fact that we have evolved to need such a object is evidence that we evolved in response to the existence of the object even though the object itself is not directly measurable.
Further, there is a significant body of scientific evidence that such an object exists as it is reported by the experience of many millions of human beings throughout time and is connected with many physical events that cannot be explained in any other reasonable fashion ( in the composite if not the the specific). So it is incumbent on human beings through the use of there various arts and sciences to discover and respond correctly to the transcendent objective truth or we can reasonably expect less desirable outcomes of our moral decisions , very much the same way as would be expected with a lack of knowledge of any of the other laws encountered in the universe as a whole.
Human beings are the ONLY thing on this plant that engage in ANYTHING with an INTENT. There are no other creatures the provably INTENT to do anything because there is no evidence any other creatures have a sufficient understanding of self to do what human beings call intending.
The vacuously truth value of your statement aside. There is one simple reason why sex has a 'reward based response' and that is continuation of the species. Honestly from and evolutionary point of view that is why 'feeling good' exists. Either preservation of the individual or preservation or benefit to the offspring both of which happen in a feedback look in such a way they increase the likelihood of specific genetic variation surviving. The reward response exists because it increases the likelihood of survival. If some other environmental factor causes the reward system to fail , the species either fails or evolves. Consider your example with baboons. If there we baboons living in an area for a long time where cocaine was naturally present, they would either develop immunity to cocaine or they would go extinct.
However, if you attempt to define any debate narrowly by only provable science you will inevitably fail, because there is no such thing as evidence based ethics. There is no test for 'right or wrong' only outcome and there is no such thing a 'proof' we 'should' desire any outcome , even survival of the spices.
On the other hand if you think the exploitation of women is wrong and want to change the 'rape college' in modern american college, they you need to address what people 'intend' and why. Which basically involves training in morality and changes in philosophy. Weather or not people acknowledge the philosophy they ascribe to , everyone ascribes to some kind of philosophy , which in turn generates their ethical framework. Any philosophy that views random sexual acts outside the context of child rearing as positive, will create an ethical system when women ( and men) are treated as objects for sexual pleasure instead of other people due the same level of respect as oneself. Any philosophy the separates sex from child rearing will generate an ethical system were children are expendable and abuse tolerable.
I love how people just make up terms then think they are saying something useful. If there is such things a sex-negative. They you need to ask what sex-positive means. The article somehow implies that prostitution and pornography are sex-positive, which is about the farthest from the truth. Think about it. Sexual intercourse exists scientifically , in nature for a single purpose, propagation of the species? How does pornography help that? If anything it drags down sex and makes it about 'using' images of other people to gratify and appetite and does nothing to encourage healthy propagation of the species. It discourages monogamy, and reduces the effective relationship of the parental bond by encouraging both women and men to treat each other like objects and any child that might come from sex as byproduct or an afterthought.
Prostitution , exploits everyone involved and the sexual act itself and make it about money, not reproduction.
The effect of both of these actions is highly sex ( aka reproduction) negative they encourage irresponsible attitudes towards children and sex , so they are truly 'sex negative' activities. I'm not advocating specifically for any law, but the fact of the matter is a society without porn and prostitution would be a healthier place to live with a whole lot less need for #metoo because most of the cause of that is in the attitude that leads to the behavior, which is the same attitude that is encouraged by pornography and prostitution.
The one sure thing you can know when you embrace censorship is that opinions that oppose the censor will be censored and you have left no one to watch the watches.
The UK doesn't know anything about what 'hard right' means. Have you read the U.S. news lately. Of coarse both left and right can become so dictatorial that they become fascists. The real problem is , once you abandon the idea that human beings have an innate value that comes from their being created by God and therefore are due certain inalienable rights. What you have left is 'rule by the biggest stick'.
I call BS. How can having someone tell you things you don't like on platforms you voluntarily join have 'lasting negative impact on someone's life'.
I'll grant you that 'reject by your peer group' can have lasting effects but that happens with and without electronic media. I know it happened to me long before media existed.
If you don't like it PUT DOWN YOUR PHONE AND GET OFF FACEBOOK. it isn't anyone else's responsibility to make some like you, or to make you life easy when you don't 'fit in'.
You can't be cyber bullied if you stop being cyber my friend , it's called ignore it. ( and that isn't even counting our ability to filter, reject and white-list unwanted contents and comments.)
DRM is a content destroyer in the long term. There should be a addition made to copyrite law that says any any use of DRM must be continually supported by the creator until such time as they completely unlock the media and make it public domain.
That means if you make a DRM encumbered DVD that 80 years from now you are required to continue to ensure equipment exists at a reasonable price so that the original repurchase of the content can still access it in the original format OR you are required to provide a free upgrade.
The problem is what happens when that bug in that old drm is fixed or that codex isn't supported anymore. Millions of dollars worth of products that were sold are now useless to the consumer. So the entities that created them must be held responsible for keeping what they sold usable.
I'd be sure to have a button in my search engine and or brower that said "never list sites contain DRM" So you can choose between the 'open net' and the 'commercial net'.
I haven't actually played the game, however, I would think that such a character would be covered as a 'political satire' even if they exactly took her image.
No more funny pictures of my dog with Clinton's head on it ? Seriously , the only time you can 'fact check' a picture is if it is accompanied by the claim that it is real. I guess it's ok if all you do it put up a icon somewhere non intrusive that says ( picture likely edited). However, that would also show up on senior pictures with the zits air brushed from them.
1) There isn't a huge market for such a thing so the cost of it would be prohibitive. 2) There is more profit in making hardware that will be bought by the 90% then the 10% 3) There are probably some work around that get you near what you want. ( also, my guess would be such systems probably do exist for military use , but you would probably be hard pressed to find them and unwilling to the pay the price if you could get one.).
Of coarse there is no legal obligation for facebook to decide if someone is creating illegal adds. This is a case of trying to get private corporations to datamine their customers for legal violations that the feds should be required to get court orders for.
Not really , this is more like 'I have a legal obligation to indiscriminately stab people in the eye' Facebook makes it easy for me to do that , but also makes it easy for me to pick choose which people I slap in the face , but because i can also decide who I stab in that eye Facebook is at fault because they didn't figure out what I was using the information for and make me act legally. Or at least that is what the lawsuit claims.
actually, the phrase 'fake news' was first coined in liberal circles to label anything that supported trump and his opinions, he just took the phrase and ran with it. I do think it was one of his own that came up with 'alternative facts', but given the way reporting is done now it is a phrase that almost makes sense. consider: Liberal reporter Most climatologist agree that climate change is influenced by man. Many climatologist have concluded man is directly responsible for climate change The majority of data sets support the existence of rapid climate change.
Conservative reporter Not all scientists are in complete agreement about Global warming It is difficult to prove a direct link between human activity and climate change. There are multiple data sets the contradict the existence rapid human linked climate change.
You see, selectively reporting facts can be exactly the same as telling a lie. Depending on the issue liberal and conservative news agencies both engage in the same kind of disinformation. If for no other reason because they seek to engender themselves to specific market segments. Neither group bothers to give time to 'facts' that don't underscore the 'point' of their 'story'. Think about those words for a while. Do facts have a 'point'. No, facts provide information. Do they tell a compelling story. No, that is what entertainment is supposed to be for. Nowadays news is more entertainment then facts.
you left out one by both sides ( at least in the united states) the best way to embrace and or reject religion. ( as both sides tend to use it more as a tool to get their as opposed to acting as believers should.
1) standard of living has been proven to be nearly irrelevant to happiness, once ones basic needs have been met, 'precieved' differences in wealth tend to have a much higher effect on happiness then actual wealth.
2) your second statement is only true if you cherry pick your dataset. if you include all socialist republics , russia, china, cuba, etc what you are saying is decidedly not true or at best uprovable.
3) Sense of purpose and a feeling of community ( aka contentedness) are much more important to happiness in my personal observation. Socialism undermines the first by treating everything people do as of equal value and the often times undermines the second by creating a police state where any divination from the 'norm' frowned upon. It also robs people of the sense of purpose often derivative from the religious experience as many socialist governments are passively or even actively anti-religion.
"all people are lifted" I agree, but I think the problem is there are many out there who have no idea what direction is 'up'. Frankly people don't need anything beyond basic material needs ( food , shelter, medical care) to feel fulfilled. Other things that are required are , interpersonal relations, and to really be fulfilled a sense of purpose that can only be given by a relationship with a creator.
So, i think any definition of progress, that doesn't allow for and include the strengthening of peoples belief in God is missing the mark.
how about. It is just too much trouble to keep a current version of SUSE on the app store ( you know testing and validation and all) so we will make sure that the 25% of SUSE users who use windows are always at least 2 years behind. Clausing them frustration so they curse SUSE and cause it reputation harm AND causing the SUSE community to become bloated with people being hammered with questions about legacy software and compatibility.
unless of coarse, you job is security related and requires U.S Citezen ship. I guess Vijay 'could' be a U.S. citizen living in India, I understand that is common enough for IBM employees to be offered the 'opportunity' to move. In general though there are advantages to being in the same time zone , and or legal jurisdiction as your company head quarters.
if your employer expects you to get things done, and you actually get done the things they want, what difference does anything else make. If your employer doesn't have a good way of measuring your work product , then they have a different management issue that exists if you are in the office or not.
I mean , there are 'alot' of positions that will never be romote. Remote waiter? Remote real estate agent? factory worker? Home builder, gardener, cook. I mean, not that they can't have a 'remote office', but there is just a lot of work that actually requires a persons hands be in the same location as the work they are doing.
you don't really. You don't really have a hobbies unless you spent at least 5 hours a week on average at it. Other things are only interests. So you can't practically have more then like 5 or 6 hobbies. 50 or 60 hours per week and still expect to sleep.
Can you really call something a hobby you do less the 1/2 hour a week?
Slashdot Mirror
except the argument doesn't hold up. It smells bad. I mean what actions taken by human beings aren't 'evidence based' ? There is really no such thing, different actions are usually a result of filtering different evidence. If what you mean is 'science based' you will find very little science that can tell you how to make human beings more moral and less likely to exploit others. However I'd argue consistent training in viewing other people as PEOPLE helps, which is exactly the opposite of what porn and sex work encourage so, ending porn and sex work certainly would help the goal of putting an end to child exploitation.
They may be "coerced" by society, in a sense, but they have a choice.
So is it also you view that if people want to self medicate depression using meth , they may have been co-erased by society but hey they have a choice?
That's all fine and dandy till they rob you to get the meth.
Sex work is all fine and dandy until the you have to deal with the attitudes that coercing people into having sex is 'Ok'. How about the woman that works for me? Is it all good if she agrees that I promote her? Why not a few kiddies, they agree to it right? How about a few drunk frat girls, they said yes to drinking and they weren't passed out? So their choice right?
Just because someone 'chooses' to allow themselves to be exploited doesn't make the exploitation any less disastrous. Did you ever hear of 'indentured servitude'. Life time 'indentured servitude' later became known as 'slavery' in the united states. So is slavery ok if someone 'chooses' to sell themselves because they can't find a better way to survive? How about if they sell thier kids? That used to happen too.
"What is right is what provides the greatest individual security for the greatest span of society at the least expense to any member of society who does not violate the social contract"
The first problem with your analysis is that it implies there is some 'logical' way of composing a social contract in such a way as there won't be some people who are 'made insecure' by violating the social contract. When you look at history, slavery , for instance, has served more then a few societies quite well for centuries.
The second problem is that even if what you claim was provably true and all ethics are basically evolutionary social contracts, that is not a logical reason for the individual to not violate them if they find they are able to with impunity and doing so has the desired effect. Basically if you can become the 'dictator for life' by enslaving all women , there is no good reason you shouldn't. ( I've removed the customary nazi allusion from this because they have just become silly).
So your claim would be provably false for the individual, and the correct answer would be for an entirely evidence based ethic 'The individual should take whatever action that is in their power that maximizes their persona pleasure' this is of coarse limited by the the others around them and so all laws are basically a impingement on personal freedom that should be ignored whenever possible. This of coarse destabilizes society , but why should the individual care so long as they get what they want?
A much better answer is this: It is evident from the study of human beings that we require a source of truth that is objective and transcends beyond any cause that exists within the individual members of society. The fact that we have evolved to need such a object is evidence that we evolved in response to the existence of the object even though the object itself is not directly measurable.
Further, there is a significant body of scientific evidence that such an object exists as it is reported by the experience of many millions of human beings throughout time and is connected with many physical events that cannot be explained in any other reasonable fashion ( in the composite if not the the specific).
So it is incumbent on human beings through the use of there various arts and sciences to discover and respond correctly to the transcendent objective truth or we can reasonably expect less desirable outcomes of our moral decisions , very much the same way as would be expected with a lack of knowledge of any of the other laws encountered in the universe as a whole.
Human beings are the ONLY thing on this plant that engage in ANYTHING with an INTENT. There are no other creatures the provably INTENT to do anything because there is no evidence any other creatures have a sufficient understanding of self to do what human beings call intending.
The vacuously truth value of your statement aside. There is one simple reason why sex has a 'reward based response' and that is continuation of the species.
Honestly from and evolutionary point of view that is why 'feeling good' exists. Either preservation of the individual or preservation or benefit to the offspring both of which happen in a feedback look in such a way they increase the likelihood of specific genetic variation surviving. The reward response exists because it increases the likelihood of survival. If some other environmental factor causes the reward system to fail , the species either fails or evolves. Consider your example with baboons. If there we baboons living in an area for a long time where cocaine was naturally present, they would either develop immunity to cocaine or they would go extinct.
However, if you attempt to define any debate narrowly by only provable science you will inevitably fail, because there is no such thing as evidence based ethics. There is no test for 'right or wrong' only outcome and there is no such thing a 'proof' we 'should' desire any outcome , even survival of the spices.
On the other hand if you think the exploitation of women is wrong and want to change the 'rape college' in modern american college, they you need to address what people 'intend' and why. Which basically involves training in morality and changes in philosophy. Weather or not people acknowledge the philosophy they ascribe to , everyone ascribes to some kind of philosophy , which in turn generates their ethical framework. Any philosophy that views random sexual acts outside the context of child rearing as positive, will create an ethical system when women ( and men) are treated as objects for sexual pleasure instead of other people due the same level of respect as oneself. Any philosophy the separates sex from child rearing will generate an ethical system were children are expendable and abuse tolerable.
I love how people just make up terms then think they are saying something useful. If there is such things a sex-negative. They you need to ask what sex-positive means. The article somehow implies that prostitution and pornography are sex-positive, which is about the farthest from the truth.
Think about it. Sexual intercourse exists scientifically , in nature for a single purpose, propagation of the species? How does pornography help that? If anything it drags down sex and makes it about 'using' images of other people to gratify and appetite and does nothing to encourage healthy propagation of the species.
It discourages monogamy, and reduces the effective relationship of the parental bond by encouraging both women and men to treat each other like objects and any child that might come from sex as byproduct or an afterthought.
Prostitution , exploits everyone involved and the sexual act itself and make it about money, not reproduction.
The effect of both of these actions is highly sex ( aka reproduction) negative they encourage irresponsible attitudes towards children and sex , so they are truly 'sex negative' activities. I'm not advocating specifically for any law, but the fact of the matter is a society without porn and prostitution would be a healthier place to live with a whole lot less need for #metoo because most of the cause of that is in the attitude that leads to the behavior, which is the same attitude that is encouraged by pornography and prostitution.
well presumably there would be some kind of encryption. How that works without exposing keys is a mystery to me.
The one sure thing you can know when you embrace censorship is that opinions that oppose the censor will be censored and you have left no one to watch the watches.
The UK doesn't know anything about what 'hard right' means. Have you read the U.S. news lately. Of coarse both left and right can become so dictatorial that they become fascists. The real problem is , once you abandon the idea that human beings have an innate value that comes from their being created by God and therefore are due certain inalienable rights. What you have left is 'rule by the biggest stick'.
I call BS. How can having someone tell you things you don't like on platforms you voluntarily join have 'lasting negative impact on someone's life'.
I'll grant you that 'reject by your peer group' can have lasting effects but that happens with and without electronic media.
I know it happened to me long before media existed.
If you don't like it PUT DOWN YOUR PHONE AND GET OFF FACEBOOK. it isn't anyone else's responsibility to make some like you, or to make you life easy when you don't 'fit in'.
You can't be cyber bullied if you stop being cyber my friend , it's called ignore it. ( and that isn't even counting our ability to filter, reject and white-list unwanted contents and comments.)
DRM is a content destroyer in the long term. There should be a addition made to copyrite law that says any any use of DRM must be continually supported by the creator until such time as they completely unlock the media and make it public domain.
That means if you make a DRM encumbered DVD that 80 years from now you are required to continue to ensure equipment exists at a reasonable price so that the original repurchase of the content can still access it in the original format OR you are required to provide a free upgrade.
The problem is what happens when that bug in that old drm is fixed or that codex isn't supported anymore. Millions of dollars worth of products that were sold are now useless to the consumer. So the entities that created them must be held responsible for keeping what they sold usable.
I'd be sure to have a button in my search engine and or brower that said "never list sites contain DRM" So you can choose between the 'open net' and the 'commercial net'.
I haven't actually played the game, however, I would think that such a character would be covered as a 'political satire' even if they exactly took her image.
No more funny pictures of my dog with Clinton's head on it ?
Seriously , the only time you can 'fact check' a picture is if it is accompanied by the claim that it is real.
I guess it's ok if all you do it put up a icon somewhere non intrusive that says ( picture likely edited). However, that would also show up on senior pictures with the zits air brushed from them.
My untested hypothesis would be 3 fold.
1) There isn't a huge market for such a thing so the cost of it would be prohibitive.
2) There is more profit in making hardware that will be bought by the 90% then the 10%
3) There are probably some work around that get you near what you want. ( also, my guess would be such systems probably do exist for military use , but you would probably be hard pressed to find them and unwilling to the pay the price if you could get one.).
Of coarse there is no legal obligation for facebook to decide if someone is creating illegal adds. This is a case of trying to get private corporations to datamine their customers for legal violations that the feds should be required to get court orders for.
Not really , this is more like 'I have a legal obligation to indiscriminately stab people in the eye' Facebook makes it easy for me to do that , but also makes it easy for me to pick choose which people I slap in the face , but because i can also decide who I stab in that eye Facebook is at fault because they didn't figure out what I was using the information for and make me act legally. Or at least that is what the lawsuit claims.
actually, the phrase 'fake news' was first coined in liberal circles to label anything that supported trump and his opinions, he just took the phrase and ran with it. I do think it was one of his own that came up with 'alternative facts', but given the way reporting is done now it is a phrase that almost makes sense.
consider:
Liberal reporter
Most climatologist agree that climate change is influenced by man.
Many climatologist have concluded man is directly responsible for climate change
The majority of data sets support the existence of rapid climate change.
Conservative reporter
Not all scientists are in complete agreement about Global warming
It is difficult to prove a direct link between human activity and climate change.
There are multiple data sets the contradict the existence rapid human linked climate change.
You see, selectively reporting facts can be exactly the same as telling a lie. Depending on the issue liberal and conservative news agencies both engage in the same kind of disinformation. If for no other reason because they seek to engender themselves to specific market segments. Neither group bothers to give time to 'facts' that don't underscore the 'point' of their 'story'.
Think about those words for a while. Do facts have a 'point'. No, facts provide information. Do they tell a compelling story. No, that is what entertainment is supposed to be for. Nowadays news is more entertainment then facts.
you left out one by both sides ( at least in the united states) the best way to embrace and or reject religion. ( as both sides tend to use it more as a tool to get their as opposed to acting as believers should.
1) standard of living has been proven to be nearly irrelevant to happiness, once ones basic needs have been met, 'precieved' differences in wealth tend to have a much higher effect on happiness then actual wealth.
2) your second statement is only true if you cherry pick your dataset. if you include all socialist republics , russia, china, cuba, etc what you are saying is decidedly not true or at best uprovable.
3) Sense of purpose and a feeling of community ( aka contentedness) are much more important to happiness in my personal observation. Socialism undermines the first by treating everything people do as of equal value and the often times undermines the second by creating a police state where any divination from the 'norm' frowned upon. It also robs people of the sense of purpose often derivative from the religious experience as many socialist governments are passively or even actively anti-religion.
"all people are lifted" I agree, but I think the problem is there are many out there who have no idea what direction is 'up'.
Frankly people don't need anything beyond basic material needs ( food , shelter, medical care) to feel fulfilled.
Other things that are required are , interpersonal relations, and to really be fulfilled a sense of purpose that can only be given by a relationship with a creator.
So, i think any definition of progress, that doesn't allow for and include the strengthening of peoples belief in God is missing the mark.
how about. It is just too much trouble to keep a current version of SUSE on the app store ( you know testing and validation and all) so we will make sure that the 25% of SUSE users who use windows are always at least 2 years behind. Clausing them frustration so they curse SUSE and cause it reputation harm AND causing the SUSE community to become bloated with people being hammered with questions about legacy software and compatibility.
unless of coarse, you job is security related and requires U.S Citezen ship. I guess Vijay
'could' be a U.S. citizen living in India, I understand that is common enough for IBM employees to be offered the 'opportunity' to move.
In general though there are advantages to being in the same time zone , and or legal jurisdiction as your company head quarters.
if your employer expects you to get things done, and you actually get done the things they want, what difference does anything else make.
If your employer doesn't have a good way of measuring your work product , then they have a different management issue that exists if you are in the office or not.
I mean , there are 'alot' of positions that will never be romote.
Remote waiter? Remote real estate agent? factory worker? Home builder, gardener, cook.
I mean, not that they can't have a 'remote office', but there is just a lot of work that actually requires a persons hands be in the same location as the work they are doing.
you don't really. You don't really have a hobbies unless you spent at least 5 hours a week on average at it. Other things are only interests.
So you can't practically have more then like 5 or 6 hobbies. 50 or 60 hours per week and still expect to sleep.
Can you really call something a hobby you do less the 1/2 hour a week?