So, um - your concern over the application of the slippery slope argument here is that the same argument could be used to justify other, seemingly unrelated points?
if they can't tell the difference, they may put an innocent person in prison.
Damnit, man, we're talking about protecting children here! Who cares about the so-called "innocent"? A child's "innocence" was stolen from them! What are you, some kind of terrorist sympathizer?
But then I also know people that are 80 and smoked a pack of cigs a day since they where 12 and I know a few people that survived combat without a scratch.
I doubt that anybody would say those where both harmless.
I heard somebody died in a car accident driving to work. Ban cars!
Well, I think there's a difference between getting three disagreements and not a single agreement and getting three hundred disagreements and not a single agreement. I think actually Slashdot's moderation system helps demonstrate the depth of one's craziness, though. Consider this - all of his posts are modded -1 and people are still finding his post just to disagree with him.
Serial killers, for example, are "born that way" too, yet they are locked up when caught if they follow through on their desires using an actual human and sometimes executed.
But free speech advocates need to learn to work on a more complex set of assumptions than that there is no consequence whatsoever to speech
Actually, I think you're the one who's jumping to conclusions here. I've yet to see any evidence at all that anybody's speech (or, especially, images) create any actual consequences.
if you choose to engage in the making or willing consumption of speech which the vast majority of rational people find utterly abhorrent
It's worth noting that the vast majority of slashdot (it would appear) find the ideas expressed in your post utterly abhorrent. Should we lock you up, then?
what are the purposes of these images, from a social/personal/psychological perspective?
Ok - what are the purposes of any images, then? Certainly, we can continue to live our daily lives without porn in general, right? They serve no purpose, so why should they exist? And what about images of immoral behavior in general? They serve no purpose, so why should they exist?
My suspicion is that this is actually the long-term goal of the legislature here - to finally outlaw all "immoral" art piece by piece and finally return to the glorious Christfest of the middle ages.
Interestingly, every single person who's read this has vehemently disagreed with you. That should tell you something about yourself... but I doubt you're going to pick up on it.
I pay for everything I watch. Here's what bugs me about the "execute copyright infringers" legislative direction.
I went and watched Iron Man when it came out, with my son (so I ended up happily donating $15 to the "make Iron Man 2, please" fund). We left as soon as the credits started rolling - and the next day, I found out there had been a "surprise" scene at the end, after the credits. Dammit! Oh, wait - I'll bet somebody's got it up on YouTube! Well, that's certainly fair, I thought - I paid my money to see it already. So I search "Iron Man Ending" on YouTube. Hooray! It's there!
Nope. "This video has been removed due to copyright violation." I finally found the damned scene after scouring the darkest reaches of the internet - but I suspect that in the not-too-distant future both me and the kind soul who uploaded that (two-second) clip would both be rotting in federal PMITA prison for the rest of our lives as dirty, filthy, stinking, worthless pirate scum.
Well, I'm computer literate enough to download for free, but gainfully employed enough to go ahead and pay for it. I pay for it, if for no other reason than so that more of it gets made. Surely I'm not the only one?
Yep - I downloaded and ran Freenet 0.7 a few days ago and it's actually usable now (not like the other times I've tried it out over the years). This sort of thing is just going to drive people over to Freenet - and the more people that use Freenet, the more usable it becomes. They're not just shooting themselves in the foot, they're emptying the clip and reloading.
If you use censorship to stop it, then yes. In China, it's a crime to criticize the government. They use censorship to stop that crime. So if they gave you that poll, you'd have said yes?
Perhaps you should brush up on the concept of "definitions" of "words".
an opposing view point that often gets modded down.
So browse at -1, then. Even as rabidly, fanatically anti-censorship as I am, I totally agree with the slashdot moderation "censorship" approach. If I want to see what the "censors" have hidden from me, I can do so if I choose. If I don't, I don't have to. It's a win-win all around.
Slashdot Mirror
Cue the "slippery slope is a fallacy" idiots to assure you that all proposed laws are just fine and concerns over "abuse" are philosophically unsound.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
So, um - your concern over the application of the slippery slope argument here is that the same argument could be used to justify other, seemingly unrelated points?
Will they ever find out? And even if they do, how will they prove it? The list is secret.
Damnit, man, we're talking about protecting children here! Who cares about the so-called "innocent"? A child's "innocence" was stolen from them! What are you, some kind of terrorist sympathizer?
You haven't been paying attention to the comments on this thread very closely, have you?
Fixed that for you.
I heard somebody died in a car accident driving to work. Ban cars!
Well, I think there's a difference between getting three disagreements and not a single agreement and getting three hundred disagreements and not a single agreement. I think actually Slashdot's moderation system helps demonstrate the depth of one's craziness, though. Consider this - all of his posts are modded -1 and people are still finding his post just to disagree with him.
Fixed that for you.
"noone" may or may not be a word, but "occurance" definitely isn't. You probably meant to type "occurrence".
Actually, I think you're the one who's jumping to conclusions here. I've yet to see any evidence at all that anybody's speech (or, especially, images) create any actual consequences.
if you choose to engage in the making or willing consumption of speech which the vast majority of rational people find utterly abhorrentIt's worth noting that the vast majority of slashdot (it would appear) find the ideas expressed in your post utterly abhorrent. Should we lock you up, then?
Ok - what are the purposes of any images, then? Certainly, we can continue to live our daily lives without porn in general, right? They serve no purpose, so why should they exist? And what about images of immoral behavior in general? They serve no purpose, so why should they exist?
My suspicion is that this is actually the long-term goal of the legislature here - to finally outlaw all "immoral" art piece by piece and finally return to the glorious Christfest of the middle ages.
Interestingly, every single person who's read this has vehemently disagreed with you. That should tell you something about yourself... but I doubt you're going to pick up on it.
I pay for everything I watch. Here's what bugs me about the "execute copyright infringers" legislative direction.
I went and watched Iron Man when it came out, with my son (so I ended up happily donating $15 to the "make Iron Man 2, please" fund). We left as soon as the credits started rolling - and the next day, I found out there had been a "surprise" scene at the end, after the credits. Dammit! Oh, wait - I'll bet somebody's got it up on YouTube! Well, that's certainly fair, I thought - I paid my money to see it already. So I search "Iron Man Ending" on YouTube. Hooray! It's there!
Nope. "This video has been removed due to copyright violation." I finally found the damned scene after scouring the darkest reaches of the internet - but I suspect that in the not-too-distant future both me and the kind soul who uploaded that (two-second) clip would both be rotting in federal PMITA prison for the rest of our lives as dirty, filthy, stinking, worthless pirate scum.
Well, I'm computer literate enough to download for free, but gainfully employed enough to go ahead and pay for it. I pay for it, if for no other reason than so that more of it gets made. Surely I'm not the only one?
Well, hurry up already, dammit, I'm on a quarter of a tank and I'm going to have to fuel up in the next couple of days.
It wasn't luck. It's because all the southerners are afraid their computer will catch on fire if they click the "flamebait" option.
Yep - I downloaded and ran Freenet 0.7 a few days ago and it's actually usable now (not like the other times I've tried it out over the years). This sort of thing is just going to drive people over to Freenet - and the more people that use Freenet, the more usable it becomes. They're not just shooting themselves in the foot, they're emptying the clip and reloading.
Modded "-1, has a point", I see.
So, you like internet censorship, then. Just say so. Don't be so aggressive and snide.
If you use censorship to stop it, then yes. In China, it's a crime to criticize the government. They use censorship to stop that crime. So if they gave you that poll, you'd have said yes?
Perhaps you should brush up on the concept of "definitions" of "words".
No amount of censorship would have helped me if you had. Don't go patting yourself on the back, partner - you knew exactly what I meant.
For now.
So browse at -1, then. Even as rabidly, fanatically anti-censorship as I am, I totally agree with the slashdot moderation "censorship" approach. If I want to see what the "censors" have hidden from me, I can do so if I choose. If I don't, I don't have to. It's a win-win all around.