I actually learned about it when I was two, including the existence of homosexuality, kink, fellatio, contraceptives, diseases, emotional concerns... With this knowledge, I was still not ready. And knew it. And waited till I was engaged. Blue state, with blue parents.
Now, my aunt is a bit more conservative. Kinda purpley or something. So, when her kid was about 8, he came to ME asking where babies come from, and when I told him to ask his mom, she thought I was sexually abusing him.
It's still hypocritical for you to demand Biblical obedience from others when you don't do so yourself. You cannot effectively take a thorn out of your brother's eye when you have a plank of wood in your own.
I think it was Ghandi who said you should be the change you want to see in the world -- why don't more Christians do that, instead of ranting on about gays? It seems to agree with the 2x4 parable, at any rate.
"I think you would have to agree, however, that in our sex-conscious society most 12-year-olds of either sex are quite capable of informed consent. No?"
No. Simply knowing that Tab A going into Slot B makes a baby doesn't mean the kid groks what they're getting into, socially, physically, and emotionally. Depending on whether they were brought up in a red or blue state, they may or may not have it down intellectually, but one factor does not grokkage make.
As someone going through immigration procedures for a heterosexual marriage, I'd say that our current citizenship rules would probably work just fine, whichever sex applies.
We agree on one thing here.
But apparently for different reasons...
"I believe it is arrogant of man to think he is capable of damaging the earth to the point of it being uninhabitable"
I believe it is arrogant for man to use underestimation of his capabilities as a glib self-justification for the harm he CAN do.
No, we're not likely to, as RichardX jokes, blow up the sun or the earth in one fell swoop -- but that doesn't mean that we should abandon care of what we do have, under the assumption that there will be other opportunities (colonizing the moon) or that our actions make no difference (we can't ruin the world, so why worry about it?)
These are different classes of thought from the same school, encouraging us to be complacent about our responsibilities.
Not meant as a direct accusation, mind -- I get that your argument can simply come from the philosophy that humans aren't something outside of nature, but within it, and subject to the same balancing rules of nature as anything else -- but I want to point out that it can have similar outcomes of glib self-justification.
After all, having been given the capability to think and act as humans, if not as all-creating-and-destroying gods, why not use it -- same as we should use and care for the earth we already have?
Backup / replacement is really only a third of the purpose of P2P, though, with people also "sampling" or downright pirating the media offered there.
So it'll be hard to defend P2P with the argument that people mainly use it for legal purposes.
However, there are laws to allow for copyright protection and response to infringement. The same way I'd get in trouble for assaulting the next-door-neighbor who steals my mail, the *AA should get in trouble for attacking the systems of home-users.
Fair use clauses are also better maintained legally, and it is possible that a compromise will be met that way. But equally, fair use doesn't justify supporting the Black Market, and such action *won't* get the consumer's needs recognised.
This is meant as an objective response, not a direct attack.
I like this game a lot, but the one downside is that since it's flash, it doesn't work with a control pad. At least it didn't when I tried it. Great game though.
AFAIK N has no built in joypad option, but as a workaround you could always use one of the many joy-to-keys utilities avaliable
This wouldn't effect well-established piracy geeks.
It will effect the home user who's scuffed up their originals, found that their DRM keys are unrecognised after an upgrade, and want to download a new (quite legal!) copy.
Anti-piracy measures or not, this seems like both a very unnecessary and dastardly way to go about it: the pirates won't get caught out, but the mostly harmless (snrk) home users will. Home users won't know where the spyware came from, so they won't be scared out of piracy.
It seems like glib, sneaky profiteering to me. They want the money from somewhere, and infecting the vulnerable is a way to get ads clicked.
He seems to have based the need for evidence upon the urgency of the situation *as well as* the plausability of the claim. This seems sensible enough to me, since the only thing to balance one's own subjective view of things is to use logical assessment of the situation.
What it comes down to is making a subconscious list of check-points to cross out as you go along. There's a whole spectrum of belief, from none at all to complete belief, which are based on these subconscious check-points.
And yes. The checkpoints will be based largely on what's important to you, and your own interpretation of life, the universe, and everything -- but as long as you diligently follow your own assessment process, you'll not pass up your own bounds.
People get scammed, however, when they willfully ignore their own caution due to some level of greed or gullability.
In short, YOU decide what's an extreme claim, based on your own priorities. And everyone who warns you beforehand is allowed to tisk at you if you get tricked.
--cryptess
"You are so mercifully devoid of the ravages of intelligence."
I was at a Waffle House in Knoxville, TN. I was not proud of it, but it was late and I was hungry. So, I am sitting there with a book and the waitress comes up to me, (snapping her gum) and says, "Whatcha reading for?"
I said, "Well, I've never been asked that. I think you've stumped me. I suppose I read for a lot of reasons, but probably the main reason is so that I don't become some waffle waitress."
Then the trucker in the next booth goes, "Looks like we got a READER here."
- Bill Hicks
"You don't force changes in perception... you make people want to change."
If at all possible, yes, but that's a whole other psychology-based rant, all-together.
One of my usual rants is that no matter how bold, bright, or flashy you might make warning text, some people have the type of capacity to ignore/miss that information, and undoubtedly, many of those people will get angry once they DO realise what they've stumbled onto.
Some seem to do it on purpose, in order to expose things that they -- personally -- find objectionable, but don't have the rationale to support with an effective argument.
"Would somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!?"
For example, a man named Jesus Castillo was arrested and charged with two counts of obscenity for selling adult comics to adults.... To quote the prosecutor's main statement, "I don't care what type of evidence or...testimony is out there...; Comic books...are for kids." (The full story + quote is here: http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000146.shtml )
Also, an anonymous man in West Virginia was arrested and eventually pardoned for selling copies of Elfquest, a comic about nature elves which depicts idealised forms of all human interaction, including sexuality, and in this case, childbirth, to minors. ( http://www.cbldf.org/pr/991218-elfquest.shtml )
When things are marketted as "adult," people also tend to imagine tentacle rape or very strong violence, which might not necessarily be the case. "Friends" is marketted towards the younger spectrum of the adult audience, but isn't considered smutty or obscene (most of the time); however, when hearing the actual TERM "adult" as a maturity rating, people assume the worst, and even those adults who might enjoy certain animated features more than kid's films won't risk it.
There are a lot of barriers to the release, distribution, and common interest in expanding the use of previously child-based forms of media in the US, especially since we have so many different perspectives on the matter. In Seattle, it's not so much of a problem. In West Virginia, apparently, it is.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're disagreeing with a Biblical passage?
I actually learned about it when I was two, including the existence of homosexuality, kink, fellatio, contraceptives, diseases, emotional concerns ... With this knowledge, I was still not ready. And knew it. And waited till I was engaged. Blue state, with blue parents.
Now, my aunt is a bit more conservative. Kinda purpley or something. So, when her kid was about 8, he came to ME asking where babies come from, and when I told him to ask his mom, she thought I was sexually abusing him.
Cute, huh?
It's still hypocritical for you to demand Biblical obedience from others when you don't do so yourself. You cannot effectively take a thorn out of your brother's eye when you have a plank of wood in your own.
I think it was Ghandi who said you should be the change you want to see in the world -- why don't more Christians do that, instead of ranting on about gays? It seems to agree with the 2x4 parable, at any rate.
"I think you would have to agree, however, that in our sex-conscious society most 12-year-olds of either sex are quite capable of informed consent. No?"
No. Simply knowing that Tab A going into Slot B makes a baby doesn't mean the kid groks what they're getting into, socially, physically, and emotionally. Depending on whether they were brought up in a red or blue state, they may or may not have it down intellectually, but one factor does not grokkage make.
As someone going through immigration procedures for a heterosexual marriage, I'd say that our current citizenship rules would probably work just fine, whichever sex applies.
"I think colonizing space is overrated."
We agree on one thing here. ...
But apparently for different reasons
"I believe it is arrogant of man to think he is capable of damaging the earth to the point of it being uninhabitable"
I believe it is arrogant for man to use underestimation of his capabilities as a glib self-justification for the harm he CAN do.
No, we're not likely to, as RichardX jokes, blow up the sun or the earth in one fell swoop -- but that doesn't mean that we should abandon care of what we do have, under the assumption that there will be other opportunities (colonizing the moon) or that our actions make no difference (we can't ruin the world, so why worry about it?)
These are different classes of thought from the same school, encouraging us to be complacent about our responsibilities.
Not meant as a direct accusation, mind -- I get that your argument can simply come from the philosophy that humans aren't something outside of nature, but within it, and subject to the same balancing rules of nature as anything else -- but I want to point out that it can have similar outcomes of glib self-justification.
After all, having been given the capability to think and act as humans, if not as all-creating-and-destroying gods, why not use it -- same as we should use and care for the earth we already have?
Backup / replacement is really only a third of the purpose of P2P, though, with people also "sampling" or downright pirating the media offered there.
So it'll be hard to defend P2P with the argument that people mainly use it for legal purposes.
However, there are laws to allow for copyright protection and response to infringement. The same way I'd get in trouble for assaulting the next-door-neighbor who steals my mail, the *AA should get in trouble for attacking the systems of home-users.
Fair use clauses are also better maintained legally, and it is possible that a compromise will be met that way. But equally, fair use doesn't justify supporting the Black Market, and such action *won't* get the consumer's needs recognised.
This is meant as an objective response, not a direct attack.
You suggest, then, that the likes of Google and Yahoo be held responsible for every copyright infringement that is linked to in their directories?
I like this game a lot, but the one downside is that since it's flash, it doesn't work with a control pad. At least it didn't when I tried it. Great game though. AFAIK N has no built in joypad option, but as a workaround you could always use one of the many joy-to-keys utilities avaliable
This wouldn't effect well-established piracy geeks.
It will effect the home user who's scuffed up their originals, found that their DRM keys are unrecognised after an upgrade, and want to download a new (quite legal!) copy.
Anti-piracy measures or not, this seems like both a very unnecessary and dastardly way to go about it: the pirates won't get caught out, but the mostly harmless (snrk) home users will. Home users won't know where the spyware came from, so they won't be scared out of piracy.
It seems like glib, sneaky profiteering to me. They want the money from somewhere, and infecting the vulnerable is a way to get ads clicked.
He seems to have based the need for evidence upon the urgency of the situation *as well as* the plausability of the claim. This seems sensible enough to me, since the only thing to balance one's own subjective view of things is to use logical assessment of the situation.
What it comes down to is making a subconscious list of check-points to cross out as you go along. There's a whole spectrum of belief, from none at all to complete belief, which are based on these subconscious check-points.
And yes. The checkpoints will be based largely on what's important to you, and your own interpretation of life, the universe, and everything -- but as long as you diligently follow your own assessment process, you'll not pass up your own bounds.
People get scammed, however, when they willfully ignore their own caution due to some level of greed or gullability.
In short, YOU decide what's an extreme claim, based on your own priorities. And everyone who warns you beforehand is allowed to tisk at you if you get tricked.
--cryptess"You are so mercifully devoid of the ravages of intelligence."
I was at a Waffle House in Knoxville, TN. I was not proud of it, but it was late and I was hungry. So, I am sitting there with a book and the waitress comes up to me, (snapping her gum) and says, "Whatcha reading for?" I said, "Well, I've never been asked that. I think you've stumped me. I suppose I read for a lot of reasons, but probably the main reason is so that I don't become some waffle waitress." Then the trucker in the next booth goes, "Looks like we got a READER here." - Bill Hicks
One of my usual rants is that no matter how bold, bright, or flashy you might make warning text, some people have the type of capacity to ignore/miss that information, and undoubtedly, many of those people will get angry once they DO realise what they've stumbled onto.
Some seem to do it on purpose, in order to expose things that they -- personally -- find objectionable, but don't have the rationale to support with an effective argument.
"Would somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!?"
For example, a man named Jesus Castillo was arrested and charged with two counts of obscenity for selling adult comics to adults. ... To quote the prosecutor's main statement, "I don't care what type of evidence or...testimony is out there...; Comic books...are for kids." (The full story + quote is here: http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000146.shtml )
Also, an anonymous man in West Virginia was arrested and eventually pardoned for selling copies of Elfquest, a comic about nature elves which depicts idealised forms of all human interaction, including sexuality, and in this case, childbirth, to minors. ( http://www.cbldf.org/pr/991218-elfquest.shtml )
When things are marketted as "adult," people also tend to imagine tentacle rape or very strong violence, which might not necessarily be the case. "Friends" is marketted towards the younger spectrum of the adult audience, but isn't considered smutty or obscene (most of the time); however, when hearing the actual TERM "adult" as a maturity rating, people assume the worst, and even those adults who might enjoy certain animated features more than kid's films won't risk it.
There are a lot of barriers to the release, distribution, and common interest in expanding the use of previously child-based forms of media in the US, especially since we have so many different perspectives on the matter. In Seattle, it's not so much of a problem. In West Virginia, apparently, it is.