Well, it's a law, but we don't really hold with big national corporations poking their noses into our business
And then the **AA turns and says "But local representative, this person clearly broke copyright infringement laws. This person has downloaded/uploaded well over 1000 songs. We are taking our legally authorized action. Are you saying it is none of our business that someone infringed OUR copyrights? I don't understand how you say this is none of our business. In fact it is the business between us, the **AA who represent the copyright holders, and the person who comitted the copyright infringement. It really is not your business - but if you want to support someone who steals intellectual property, that is your right to do so....well do you support intellectual property thieves? Do you support people who break the laws, laws that people in your position helped right?"
In no sense of the word can it be said that anyone here is being deprived of anything.
You are depriving the producers of the music (from the artist, to the record label, etc) of a potential sale. They have copyright law on their side and each person who copies (assuming not for legit backup purposes) this content is depriving the copyright holders their money. You may not agree with it, but the law is the law. I don't agree with my cities income tax, but it is the law. I have a choice of not living in this city, but as long as I am here I better pay up or risk going to jail.
Also, as you noted in your first paragraph you said, "The problem is the definition of stealing. Traditionally, stealing always meant..." Well the word has been modified, a number of years ago to include copyright theft. Language is evolving and if a persons argument is a traditional definition then that is a weak argument. That is what the church uses...Or if you want something a little more tangeable, the US Constitution describes black men count as 3/5 a man. Sometimes language needs to be changed to keep with the times. BTW I noticed you are from the UK (based on your monetary descriptors. Feel free to substitute antiquated language from your country.
Of course, **AA argue that every single copy equals a lost sale.
I do not agree with this statement either. THere are many songs someone is willing to d/l but wouldn't buy (even if the person didn't have the option of d/ling it for free). Maybe they don't like the music enough, can't afford it, or whtever...It doesn't make it right. Saying "Well i wouldn't pay for the music anyhow, so that gives me the right to d/l it for free" is plain nonsense.
The real criminals are those who sell pirated items.
Selling is not a pre-requiste to being a theft criminal. Otherwise someone shoplifting a CD from Wal-Mart would not be considered a criminal if their intention was to listen to the music (as opposed to selling it to someone).
Downloading is just a convenience to most people
I agree, downloading is a convenience...so go to a legitimate website (i.e. Apple iTunes) and pay for the music you d/l. Then, do not share the music with your friends or strangers (i.e. don't let them copy it).
If I like it enough that I'll get more mileage out of it than the initial look, I'll buy it anyway.
Unfortuntely, for people with this mindset, the music is not yours to make that decision "I will d/l it, listen to it and if i like it enough I will buy it."....You don't own the music, the copyright holders do. The thing is, you have a choice. Music is not required for you to survive...you won't die if you don't get the latest and greatest CD. There is no moral ambiguity here, and anyone who argues otherwise is either a moron or trying to pander to get higher mod points.
But for the most part they're going after casual downloaders.
I am not sure who they are really going after, but I thought it was against the mega uploaders not the downloaders. Either way, it is their right to go after anyone they want. The law doesn't say "You are breaking copyright law if you are a major uploader only". The law allows to go after anyone that uploads, or downloads be it 1 song/movie or 1 million songs/movies.
Because the real argument isn't about theft, it never was. It's about control
I am not sure where you got this statement from. I think the real argument is about money. The **AA want every penny they can get from the music/movies they own. In the beginning of this mess the **AA was not complaining about people making backups and that was a valid argument "i was just backing up my stuff"....until they realized people were using that as an escape excuse. Put it this way, if the **AA raided your home, and in CD player found 50 copied CDs then you went to your closet and let them see that you had the original 50 cds (even if
Only n00b players have their asses get numb. Real gamers utilize the Hermen Miller Aeron chair. For about $600 US you too can enjoy this comfort. It is pourous so it airs out (no more sweaty smelly chair). It is so comfortable that you can fall asleep in it (I have and I am 6'3).
Actually, there are some hardcore addicted players - these are not the players who want to play for 5 hours, 8 hours or even spend their entire saturday playing. The addicted ones are those who
1) Take drugs to stay up insane hours (i.e. 24 hours)
2) Drop out of school, quit their jobs
3) Neglect to do things like, I don't know clean their house
4) Stop contacting anyone in their lives outside of the game or the pizza delivery guy
I am sure there is more to this list, and some will argue one or two of the items.....I play, and I play often - in fact unless I am going out I will play from when I get home from work/gym until I go to bed. I still go to work, go out with friends/girlfriend, go to the gym, visit my mom, clean my condo, cook dinner, etc.
Because Facebook is specifically geared towards college students/alumni and has a closer tie to schools. Not to mention it is hard to police a athlete student for every possible website out there. They will probably, eventually, say "for all sites". But it is a place to start as facebook is growing as one of the bigger and more reputable sites out there.
Personally I do not have a great problem with this. Those sites do represent the school, and do you really want some college kid responsible for the image your school presents? Especially when he/she is placing pics of them doing drugs, drinking, having sex, etc? Also, some of the information can be really personal. I have a g/f who was division 1 all-star. She had stalkers who would use, amongst other things, Myspace to find personal info about her and contact her. She had to tone down the amount of information she placed on these sites due to this.
Also, this school is saying "do this and we will not pay your tuition"....it is their right to do so.
What about using work processing software that allows for dummy terminal style work? You can do the work, but the programs are ran off a main server, which you have to VPN into (utilizing two-tier security measures - I would say go with passcode and fingerprint...but if they want to use key cards use a keycard similar to Citrix - which is a pain in the arse to use anyhow...but something with a constantly changing code).
Getting back to the remote system....yes you can work from your nephews computer, you ahve to VPN to the gov't server and you are not able to save the data to your local drive...meaning no internet connection = no work. People who need to take their work with them and won't have access to the Internet (maybe airplane, camping trip, remote area, etc.) can take the work on gov't provided/approved laptops.
Is all of this time consuming/expensive (more-so because it is gov't based) yes.....is it necessary, some of it yes.
It is not the person who is doing something pre-meditated that I am worried about it is the person who tries to grab the gun from a soldier, a cop, or anyone else. basically spur of the moment...also little kids. Chances are a six year old does not know how to hack, but pulling a trigger on a gun is not exactly rocket science.
Don't they already have in development guns that won't operate without the correct thumb scan? I mean, come on we all knwo that Judge Dredd has prior art on smart guns that work on dna, and encode the amunition with the shooters dna signature.
I would rather have a gun that beeps, or lights, or does something when I hold it...that way when I press the trigger I won'get an erro which you know could mean I don't shoot the guy trying to shoot me...Talk about BSOD.
but unwilling to stop being in contact with her boyfriend even then.
n00b....do you actually believe such a dribble of a human being would go on a camping trip without her b/f? People like that refuse to do anything (assuming it is possible) w/o their significant others. work she can't take her b/f, but camping oh yea.
I am sure you were being sarcastic (well hope) but on a more serious note. Write your congressman, governer, president, newspaper, etc and bitch at them for supporting religious zealots.
What we need is a president and a few high ranking congressman in wheel chairs. Once they know how it feels to be paralyzed they won't be so quick to say stem cell research is evil.
While I do not believe an embryo should be grown and harvested specifically for research, I do think that if a woman does have an abortion her embryo should go to research. At least put it to good use. For those pro-lifers....as long as abortion is legal, wouldn't you like to no that an "evil" will at least produce some good? Maybe save your family member, friend, or yourself of some incurable disease or life-impairing condition (like paralysis).
I didn't say give everyone a piece of paper - i contested your argument that some people don't deserve more education.
School resources are completely different from self-learning resources ala library. Formal education is also someone teaching you in a learning environment with other people.
Just because someone has to dig ditches does not mean they have to be dumb. It also does not mean they are not allowed to learn.
Fabricating? Pfft. Increasing the amount of knowledge people have increased the amount of positive input they can put into your society.
Actually, from your statements above you are against education for many people who don't meet your requirements. You are an elitist snob "unfortunately this doesn't quite kick out..."
If you wish to perform manual labor jobs then do so.
Unfortunately for you, your teachers sucked. When I went to my inner city highschool my teachers said that I have many options and I should seek the one that best suits me. They tried guiding me. I, luckily, realized that I would not perform well in a manual labor profession so I went to college.
Physical labor can and has been outsourced and if you don't believe me check the label on your clothes. The physical labor that cannot be outsourced is the ones requiring manufacture here (like construction of roads/buildings).
But I will stand by my argument...everyone - from the garbage man, to the short order cook, to the computer techy, to the worlds leading brain surgeon should ALL have the option of learning more - and to do it for free! Our schools should be free, and impressive. They should be built like forces. Our defense budget should be our school budget. Instead of having crap teachers who are doing this as their "fall-back" jobs, it should be done by teachers who are begging to get in because the work environment is healthy and the pay is in the six figure range.
Yea but I can do the pr0n in every room in my uber 1337 city condo. Bathroom, kitchen, living room, bedroom, balcony, hallway, laundry room, neighbors room, etc. All from my wireless pr0n.
how about teaching your kids enough common sense to know that you don't mix the internet and real life?
While I agree with the first part of your statement I disagree with the second. I have met many wonderful people from the internet...all the way back to the bulletin board days in the early 90's (when i first started doing the online thing). The internet can be a wonderful resource to meet people. I have friends who met and got married to someone from the Internet. In fact there is not much difference between meeting someone in a bar then meeting someone from the Internet, and I would say meeting someone from the Internet is safer (you got their phone number, talked to them for a while to get a feel for them, etc then meet them at a bar/restaurant).
The problem is that parents don't have open dialogue with their kids. Most kids feel that if they voice an opinion the parents don't agree with they will get punished...and for many kids that is very true. "Do as your told or your grounded" with no room for debate.
Teach your kids what is right from wrong, and most importantly be their friend - listen to what they have to say. Accept responsibility for your accomplismhments and failures. When you fail as a parent try and fix it - don't blame others (another terrible lesson) for a mistake you made.
In the defense of the mother (really she only barely gets this much because I blame her for not monitering her kid) the girl was picked up right after school. Actually I am shocked the school wasn't also sued.
It is very common for kids to walk home from school, take the bus from school, etc. That and since they are mentioning the mother and not the father I would presume they are separated/divorced...in that case the mother is probably at work. I can't blame her from not preventing this kid form being picked up.
Put it this way....do you honestly believe you could monitor some person 24/7 short of being with them 24/7? If not then you see why your statement fails to work.
This is a word that is based on opinion. "I consider that 19 year old to be an asshole". It is my opinion and nothing more. He may consider what he done to be ok. Highschool kid going out with highschool girl.
And as the post before yours said, expect is not obliged. He expected sex does not mean she was obliged to give it to him.
I seem to remember reading somewhere, or maybe it was a lecture from a law professor who said everyone is responsible for their own actions.
This idiot of a kid probably placed herself as an adult (listing her age as 18). Went and met some guy who she thought would be "sooo cool" to meet because he is older. Then got in way over her head.
That, or in related news 14 year old gets married to 19 year old who previously assaulted her.
The "think of the children" line can be used to justify banning anything and everything though
And until the majority of people consider this and realize it is a bad idea we will constantly have morons who vote for bigger morons and support ignorant morons.
I'm not terribly concerned whether or not other people's progeny
You should be for multiple reasons. If too many kids get fat and have an unhealthy living style then healthcare, on a national level, will rise - raising your prices. That includes medicare, but also private medicine. If too many kids are raised to believe that stealing is OK and that if you kill and don't get caught you really haven't done anything bad....well you might be the next victim.
I agree with the sentiment that minors need to have more restrictions then adults. I agree that parents don't always know (or care) at what is right from wrong. So I am for gov't intervention (game ratings, punishing parents/store owners for buying/selling inappropriate games so kids can play them). And I wish parents would have to take a course in how to be a parent before their kids are born.
Unfortunately, people like the guy in the article will use "think of the children" to ban everything from adults - who by 18 definitly know that killing/stealing is wrong.
you have no right to view or purchase a game.
The rights being steppped on are that of the company that sells the game.
So if the gov't says all gun manufacturers are no longer allowed to produce guns, my constitutional right to bear arms is not being violated? Because if that is the case I think the DCCC will love me.
Be it the gov't stops it at the manufacturing level, seller level, or purchaser level - in the end pulling it from the shelves prevents me from buying it so does infringe on my rights.
Unless there are some interstate laws that effect online commerce, an easy argument against an online version of this bill is due to the fact you need to have a credit card (checkcard) to purchase products online. Credit cards/check cards are only supposed to be given to people age 18 and older. While someoen here, I am sure, will say "well my nephew is 14 and has one" - well that is against the law. Does it happen? I know it does, I saw a personal banker (i used to manage a bank) help a minor apply for a check card (the minor being 17). I told the personal banker, and the kid they have to wait until 18 - no if's and or butts. I am sure this happend times before this when I wasn't around to stop it.
Remember, a minor's signature is worthless. Let us say a minor managed to buy a car. Drove it for a week, wrecked the car. The parents could go to the dealership, sue AND win, the money the minor paid for the car and then give the car to the dealership as-is. Dealership would be screwed.
So if little Johnny decides to go to an online retailer and purchase some highly violent/pornographic game then he needs mommy/daddy credit card. Even though the kid was pushing the buttons, it is considered that the parents did the purchasing (next time lock up your credit card).
If, however, an online version of this law came to pass it would only effect people (and companies) who residei n Louisiana.
inappropriate for minors and be subsequently pulled from store shelves
Why does it need to be pulled from shelves? Just make a "do not sell to minors" label on it and if they sell to a minor then they get fined/jail. I have no problem with preventing minors from buying particularly violent bad games themselves. Normally i would say it is against freedom of speech/privacy and what-not, but we are talking about minors. That segment of our population which cannot buy guns, alcohol (some states it is 21 others 18), pornography, etc.
So since we do not pull porn magazines from bookstore shelves (even some comic books are hard-core in their porn drawings) why should games be any different. Just label them as such...put them on a really high shelf or locked in a box (though every game store I get to has an EMPTY box for display, and all the games are behind the counter).
Again, my only problem is pulling the games from the shelves...that infringes on *MY* right to view and purchase the game...i am not a minor and should be able to do so. This law actually censers against me.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's a law, but we don't really hold with big national corporations poking their noses into our business
And then the **AA turns and says "But local representative, this person clearly broke copyright infringement laws. This person has downloaded/uploaded well over 1000 songs. We are taking our legally authorized action. Are you saying it is none of our business that someone infringed OUR copyrights? I don't understand how you say this is none of our business. In fact it is the business between us, the **AA who represent the copyright holders, and the person who comitted the copyright infringement. It really is not your business - but if you want to support someone who steals intellectual property, that is your right to do so....well do you support intellectual property thieves? Do you support people who break the laws, laws that people in your position helped right?"
In no sense of the word can it be said that anyone here is being deprived of anything.
You are depriving the producers of the music (from the artist, to the record label, etc) of a potential sale. They have copyright law on their side and each person who copies (assuming not for legit backup purposes) this content is depriving the copyright holders their money. You may not agree with it, but the law is the law. I don't agree with my cities income tax, but it is the law. I have a choice of not living in this city, but as long as I am here I better pay up or risk going to jail.
Also, as you noted in your first paragraph you said, "The problem is the definition of stealing. Traditionally, stealing always meant..." Well the word has been modified, a number of years ago to include copyright theft. Language is evolving and if a persons argument is a traditional definition then that is a weak argument. That is what the church uses...Or if you want something a little more tangeable, the US Constitution describes black men count as 3/5 a man. Sometimes language needs to be changed to keep with the times. BTW I noticed you are from the UK (based on your monetary descriptors. Feel free to substitute antiquated language from your country.
Of course, **AA argue that every single copy equals a lost sale.
I do not agree with this statement either. THere are many songs someone is willing to d/l but wouldn't buy (even if the person didn't have the option of d/ling it for free). Maybe they don't like the music enough, can't afford it, or whtever...It doesn't make it right. Saying "Well i wouldn't pay for the music anyhow, so that gives me the right to d/l it for free" is plain nonsense.
The real criminals are those who sell pirated items.
Selling is not a pre-requiste to being a theft criminal. Otherwise someone shoplifting a CD from Wal-Mart would not be considered a criminal if their intention was to listen to the music (as opposed to selling it to someone).
Downloading is just a convenience to most people
I agree, downloading is a convenience...so go to a legitimate website (i.e. Apple iTunes) and pay for the music you d/l. Then, do not share the music with your friends or strangers (i.e. don't let them copy it).
If I like it enough that I'll get more mileage out of it than the initial look, I'll buy it anyway.
Unfortuntely, for people with this mindset, the music is not yours to make that decision "I will d/l it, listen to it and if i like it enough I will buy it."....You don't own the music, the copyright holders do. The thing is, you have a choice. Music is not required for you to survive...you won't die if you don't get the latest and greatest CD. There is no moral ambiguity here, and anyone who argues otherwise is either a moron or trying to pander to get higher mod points.
But for the most part they're going after casual downloaders.
I am not sure who they are really going after, but I thought it was against the mega uploaders not the downloaders. Either way, it is their right to go after anyone they want. The law doesn't say "You are breaking copyright law if you are a major uploader only". The law allows to go after anyone that uploads, or downloads be it 1 song/movie or 1 million songs/movies.
Because the real argument isn't about theft, it never was. It's about control
I am not sure where you got this statement from. I think the real argument is about money. The **AA want every penny they can get from the music/movies they own. In the beginning of this mess the **AA was not complaining about people making backups and that was a valid argument "i was just backing up my stuff"....until they realized people were using that as an escape excuse. Put it this way, if the **AA raided your home, and in CD player found 50 copied CDs then you went to your closet and let them see that you had the original 50 cds (even if
Only n00b players have their asses get numb. Real gamers utilize the Hermen Miller Aeron chair. For about $600 US you too can enjoy this comfort. It is pourous so it airs out (no more sweaty smelly chair). It is so comfortable that you can fall asleep in it (I have and I am 6'3).
Actually, there are some hardcore addicted players - these are not the players who want to play for 5 hours, 8 hours or even spend their entire saturday playing. The addicted ones are those who
1) Take drugs to stay up insane hours (i.e. 24 hours)
2) Drop out of school, quit their jobs
3) Neglect to do things like, I don't know clean their house
4) Stop contacting anyone in their lives outside of the game or the pizza delivery guy
I am sure there is more to this list, and some will argue one or two of the items.....I play, and I play often - in fact unless I am going out I will play from when I get home from work/gym until I go to bed. I still go to work, go out with friends/girlfriend, go to the gym, visit my mom, clean my condo, cook dinner, etc.
bwahahaah - that's funny :D True about the fanboy but that part is still funny.
Because Facebook is specifically geared towards college students/alumni and has a closer tie to schools. Not to mention it is hard to police a athlete student for every possible website out there. They will probably, eventually, say "for all sites". But it is a place to start as facebook is growing as one of the bigger and more reputable sites out there.
Personally I do not have a great problem with this. Those sites do represent the school, and do you really want some college kid responsible for the image your school presents? Especially when he/she is placing pics of them doing drugs, drinking, having sex, etc? Also, some of the information can be really personal. I have a g/f who was division 1 all-star. She had stalkers who would use, amongst other things, Myspace to find personal info about her and contact her. She had to tone down the amount of information she placed on these sites due to this.
Also, this school is saying "do this and we will not pay your tuition"....it is their right to do so.
What about using work processing software that allows for dummy terminal style work? You can do the work, but the programs are ran off a main server, which you have to VPN into (utilizing two-tier security measures - I would say go with passcode and fingerprint...but if they want to use key cards use a keycard similar to Citrix - which is a pain in the arse to use anyhow...but something with a constantly changing code).
Getting back to the remote system....yes you can work from your nephews computer, you ahve to VPN to the gov't server and you are not able to save the data to your local drive...meaning no internet connection = no work. People who need to take their work with them and won't have access to the Internet (maybe airplane, camping trip, remote area, etc.) can take the work on gov't provided/approved laptops.
Is all of this time consuming/expensive (more-so because it is gov't based) yes.....is it necessary, some of it yes.
It is not the person who is doing something pre-meditated that I am worried about it is the person who tries to grab the gun from a soldier, a cop, or anyone else. basically spur of the moment...also little kids. Chances are a six year old does not know how to hack, but pulling a trigger on a gun is not exactly rocket science.
Don't they already have in development guns that won't operate without the correct thumb scan? I mean, come on we all knwo that Judge Dredd has prior art on smart guns that work on dna, and encode the amunition with the shooters dna signature.
I would rather have a gun that beeps, or lights, or does something when I hold it...that way when I press the trigger I won'get an erro which you know could mean I don't shoot the guy trying to shoot me...Talk about BSOD.
LOL. You are 100% correct.
but unwilling to stop being in contact with her boyfriend even then.
n00b....do you actually believe such a dribble of a human being would go on a camping trip without her b/f? People like that refuse to do anything (assuming it is possible) w/o their significant others. work she can't take her b/f, but camping oh yea.
Will I didn't buy the moto razr and I don't have to worry about my phone....no metal parts touching me.
I am sure you were being sarcastic (well hope) but on a more serious note. Write your congressman, governer, president, newspaper, etc and bitch at them for supporting religious zealots.
What we need is a president and a few high ranking congressman in wheel chairs. Once they know how it feels to be paralyzed they won't be so quick to say stem cell research is evil.
While I do not believe an embryo should be grown and harvested specifically for research, I do think that if a woman does have an abortion her embryo should go to research. At least put it to good use. For those pro-lifers....as long as abortion is legal, wouldn't you like to no that an "evil" will at least produce some good? Maybe save your family member, friend, or yourself of some incurable disease or life-impairing condition (like paralysis).
STFU
So many answers ...
I didn't say give everyone a piece of paper - i contested your argument that some people don't deserve more education.
School resources are completely different from self-learning resources ala library. Formal education is also someone teaching you in a learning environment with other people.
Just because someone has to dig ditches does not mean they have to be dumb. It also does not mean they are not allowed to learn.
Fabricating? Pfft. Increasing the amount of knowledge people have increased the amount of positive input they can put into your society.
Actually, from your statements above you are against education for many people who don't meet your requirements. You are an elitist snob "unfortunately this doesn't quite kick out..."
If you wish to perform manual labor jobs then do so.
Unfortunately for you, your teachers sucked. When I went to my inner city highschool my teachers said that I have many options and I should seek the one that best suits me. They tried guiding me. I, luckily, realized that I would not perform well in a manual labor profession so I went to college.
Physical labor can and has been outsourced and if you don't believe me check the label on your clothes. The physical labor that cannot be outsourced is the ones requiring manufacture here (like construction of roads/buildings).
But I will stand by my argument...everyone - from the garbage man, to the short order cook, to the computer techy, to the worlds leading brain surgeon should ALL have the option of learning more - and to do it for free! Our schools should be free, and impressive. They should be built like forces. Our defense budget should be our school budget. Instead of having crap teachers who are doing this as their "fall-back" jobs, it should be done by teachers who are begging to get in because the work environment is healthy and the pay is in the six figure range.
Yea but I can do the pr0n in every room in my uber 1337 city condo. Bathroom, kitchen, living room, bedroom, balcony, hallway, laundry room, neighbors room, etc. All from my wireless pr0n.
Some people just don't deserve better schooling
Yes, we want people to stay less knowledgable, because we know society is better off having more dumb people.
When you're 14, you don't meet people you met over the Internet.
I didn't say you should. I said the Internet can be a wonderful place to meet people, and in my experience it has.
how about teaching your kids enough common sense to know that you don't mix the internet and real life?
While I agree with the first part of your statement I disagree with the second. I have met many wonderful people from the internet...all the way back to the bulletin board days in the early 90's (when i first started doing the online thing). The internet can be a wonderful resource to meet people. I have friends who met and got married to someone from the Internet. In fact there is not much difference between meeting someone in a bar then meeting someone from the Internet, and I would say meeting someone from the Internet is safer (you got their phone number, talked to them for a while to get a feel for them, etc then meet them at a bar/restaurant).
The problem is that parents don't have open dialogue with their kids. Most kids feel that if they voice an opinion the parents don't agree with they will get punished...and for many kids that is very true. "Do as your told or your grounded" with no room for debate.
Teach your kids what is right from wrong, and most importantly be their friend - listen to what they have to say. Accept responsibility for your accomplismhments and failures. When you fail as a parent try and fix it - don't blame others (another terrible lesson) for a mistake you made.
In the defense of the mother (really she only barely gets this much because I blame her for not monitering her kid) the girl was picked up right after school. Actually I am shocked the school wasn't also sued.
It is very common for kids to walk home from school, take the bus from school, etc. That and since they are mentioning the mother and not the father I would presume they are separated/divorced...in that case the mother is probably at work. I can't blame her from not preventing this kid form being picked up.
Put it this way....do you honestly believe you could monitor some person 24/7 short of being with them 24/7? If not then you see why your statement fails to work.
to consider bound in duty or obligated
"Consider"
This is a word that is based on opinion. "I consider that 19 year old to be an asshole". It is my opinion and nothing more. He may consider what he done to be ok. Highschool kid going out with highschool girl.
And as the post before yours said, expect is not obliged. He expected sex does not mean she was obliged to give it to him.
I seem to remember reading somewhere, or maybe it was a lecture from a law professor who said everyone is responsible for their own actions.
This idiot of a kid probably placed herself as an adult (listing her age as 18). Went and met some guy who she thought would be "sooo cool" to meet because he is older. Then got in way over her head.
That, or in related news 14 year old gets married to 19 year old who previously assaulted her.
The "think of the children" line can be used to justify banning anything and everything though
And until the majority of people consider this and realize it is a bad idea we will constantly have morons who vote for bigger morons and support ignorant morons.
I'm not terribly concerned whether or not other people's progeny
You should be for multiple reasons. If too many kids get fat and have an unhealthy living style then healthcare, on a national level, will rise - raising your prices. That includes medicare, but also private medicine. If too many kids are raised to believe that stealing is OK and that if you kill and don't get caught you really haven't done anything bad....well you might be the next victim.
I agree with the sentiment that minors need to have more restrictions then adults. I agree that parents don't always know (or care) at what is right from wrong. So I am for gov't intervention (game ratings, punishing parents/store owners for buying/selling inappropriate games so kids can play them). And I wish parents would have to take a course in how to be a parent before their kids are born.
Unfortunately, people like the guy in the article will use "think of the children" to ban everything from adults - who by 18 definitly know that killing/stealing is wrong.
you have no right to view or purchase a game.
The rights being steppped on are that of the company that sells the game.
So if the gov't says all gun manufacturers are no longer allowed to produce guns, my constitutional right to bear arms is not being violated? Because if that is the case I think the DCCC will love me.
Be it the gov't stops it at the manufacturing level, seller level, or purchaser level - in the end pulling it from the shelves prevents me from buying it so does infringe on my rights.
Unless there are some interstate laws that effect online commerce, an easy argument against an online version of this bill is due to the fact you need to have a credit card (checkcard) to purchase products online. Credit cards/check cards are only supposed to be given to people age 18 and older. While someoen here, I am sure, will say "well my nephew is 14 and has one" - well that is against the law. Does it happen? I know it does, I saw a personal banker (i used to manage a bank) help a minor apply for a check card (the minor being 17). I told the personal banker, and the kid they have to wait until 18 - no if's and or butts. I am sure this happend times before this when I wasn't around to stop it.
Remember, a minor's signature is worthless. Let us say a minor managed to buy a car. Drove it for a week, wrecked the car. The parents could go to the dealership, sue AND win, the money the minor paid for the car and then give the car to the dealership as-is. Dealership would be screwed.
So if little Johnny decides to go to an online retailer and purchase some highly violent/pornographic game then he needs mommy/daddy credit card. Even though the kid was pushing the buttons, it is considered that the parents did the purchasing (next time lock up your credit card).
If, however, an online version of this law came to pass it would only effect people (and companies) who residei n Louisiana.
inappropriate for minors and be subsequently pulled from store shelves
Why does it need to be pulled from shelves? Just make a "do not sell to minors" label on it and if they sell to a minor then they get fined/jail. I have no problem with preventing minors from buying particularly violent bad games themselves. Normally i would say it is against freedom of speech/privacy and what-not, but we are talking about minors. That segment of our population which cannot buy guns, alcohol (some states it is 21 others 18), pornography, etc. So since we do not pull porn magazines from bookstore shelves (even some comic books are hard-core in their porn drawings) why should games be any different. Just label them as such...put them on a really high shelf or locked in a box (though every game store I get to has an EMPTY box for display, and all the games are behind the counter).
Again, my only problem is pulling the games from the shelves...that infringes on *MY* right to view and purchase the game...i am not a minor and should be able to do so. This law actually censers against me.