You're right, there isn't a simple verifiable answer. But that question is where the discussion belongs; on whether something is harmful, not on whether something is distasteful.
The analogy doesn't work quite well with viruses. Every virus is a unique problem that has a unique answer. Spamming is one problem with unique approaches, it's a little different. A better analogy would be a company trying to create the ultimate anti virus suit. And yes, I would expect a company working on such a suit to be creating new viruses to see if the suit can handle not only every virus they know about, but viruses that could possibly be created in the future.
This analogy is better but it's still not perfect. Creating a virus doesn't quite mesh with creating a new technique for spamming. There isn't a formal system of defence set up for viruses so you can't really anticipate the form that a new virus could take. But you anticipate that sort of thing with computers which is exactly why you want people looking into how best to break in, cause then they can turn around and tell you how best to keep others out.
A lot of specialized units like SWAT or the navy seals will take turns playing the bad guys and playing the good guys against each other. Not only so they can have practice fighting the bad guys but so they can walk a mile in the bad guys shoes and learn how they actually think. It may be more controversial but it's also more effective. A kid who's had classes on theory AND practice will do better then a kid who's had classes just on theory.
I think you hit it on the head right there. College has become a standard. Nowadays if you really want a higher education you need to go for a masters or a phd.
The point isn't whether people should be allowed to do something or not. The question you ask is does allowing it cause harm to others? If the answer is yes then you're justified in banning it, if the answer is no then you're not.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. If a minors credit card is cosigned by her parent, does that mean her parent has full access to the list of transactions?
I'm not discussing whether children should be able to buy video games or not, I happen to agree that they should have to go through their parents to get adult themed games. I'm discussing whether pornography should be allowed even though some feel it's degrading and cheapens sex.
Well then why restrict anything to kids. When I was under 21 I could always find a friend to buy me alcohaul, I never smoked but when I was under 18 I had friends that would have bought me cigarette's had I asked. It's never perfect, knowones arguing that it is, but it will make it harder.
I have taken psychology classes, what you need to take is a class in logic. There is certainly a corelation between sex, dominance and violence against women, but corelation does not mean causation. Furthermore that isn't specific to an early sexual awakening. There's a correlation between dominance and any type of violence, be it against women or whoever.
Uhh, yes? Otherwise, our species would have gone extinct long ago
Well no shit their born with those motivations, but are they born with an understanding of those motivations, specifically within the context of this culture? Of course not. The entire notion of waiting till marriage, for example, is a learned trait. The notion that your female partner should be a willing one is also a learned trait. You can find evidence of that in some less advanced cultures that don't hold either of those notions to be true.
1. The UN did impose sanctions and those sanctions were working. He had gotten rid of the weapons and UN reports indicated that. Sounds to me like they did a fine job backing up their threats. The fact that the UN took a more subtle root and imposed economic sanctions instead of just invading doesn't make them a coward, it makes them smart. If there's a way to get around war you should take it, and they did.
2. If you want to talk scandals the US is no stranger, so I don't see how that in any way elevates our morals above theirs.
3. We didn't fight over morals, we fought over taxes and to get out from under imperialism. You might be able to argue that that's fighting for morals except for the fact that the US has conducted it's fair share of imperialism as well. US culture is a direct descendant of european culture.
Functionally speaking, "swaying enough voters to go along with them" is the same as majority opinion. Just because you can sway the majority of the voters doesn't mean that you've in any way considered the rights of the minority opinion.
The entire point of raising children is to teach them to act responcibly. Children aren't born with beliefs, they develop them from their stimulus. That's why children shouldn't be given certain stimulus (like alcohaul or violent movies) until they've developed the ability to handle them. You think children are simply born with an inherrant understanding of the motivations behind sex?
Sexually awakening before one is ready can create all kinds of sexual deviance - NOT including a homocidal fetish. Seeing porn at a young age might weird you up a little bit, but it's not going to make you kill people. Ted Bundy was a sociopath. He had no concept of right or wrong. Porn gave him an urge that he chose to satisfy with murder. A normal human being would not even associate murder with the urge that porn delivers.
That's how democracy works, not by some elite deciding what is "right" but by the majority deciding what they want.
But that's not the whole picture is it? Remember, it's majority rule with respect to minority rights. That means that you cannot restrict the actions of a minority group simply because the majority finds those actions distasteful. You have to be able to show that those actions cause harm to society before you can justly restrict them.
If you believe there is only evolution, there's no penalty for being "evil" in life. Rape, murder, plunder, whatever.
Bullshit. I may be opening a can of worms but here goes...
There is certainly a link between instinct and morality. Humans are social creatures. Like any other social creatures our ability to survive and to thrive is directly proportional to how well we group and work together. Actions like rape, murder, or plunder of some person or group of people interfere with our ability to group and be social therefore it interfere's with our ability to survive and to thrive. You don't need god to see that murder is wrong. Just because someone is not christian does not mean that they don't posses morals.
And further I don't think a predator attacking it's prey should be defined as cruel nor is it even relevent to the discussion. Christians eat animals just like everyone else does.
Slashdot Mirror
You would probably assume the pressure of an open container at sea level. Just my guess....
You're right, there isn't a simple verifiable answer. But that question is where the discussion belongs; on whether something is harmful, not on whether something is distasteful.
This analogy is better but it's still not perfect. Creating a virus doesn't quite mesh with creating a new technique for spamming. There isn't a formal system of defence set up for viruses so you can't really anticipate the form that a new virus could take. But you anticipate that sort of thing with computers which is exactly why you want people looking into how best to break in, cause then they can turn around and tell you how best to keep others out.
A degree in locksmithing would probably have an entire class devoted to lockpicking.
A lot of specialized units like SWAT or the navy seals will take turns playing the bad guys and playing the good guys against each other. Not only so they can have practice fighting the bad guys but so they can walk a mile in the bad guys shoes and learn how they actually think. It may be more controversial but it's also more effective. A kid who's had classes on theory AND practice will do better then a kid who's had classes just on theory.
I think you hit it on the head right there. College has become a standard. Nowadays if you really want a higher education you need to go for a masters or a phd.
The point isn't whether people should be allowed to do something or not. The question you ask is does allowing it cause harm to others? If the answer is yes then you're justified in banning it, if the answer is no then you're not.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. If a minors credit card is cosigned by her parent, does that mean her parent has full access to the list of transactions?
By that logic an ID doesn't tell you shit either.
I'm not discussing whether children should be able to buy video games or not, I happen to agree that they should have to go through their parents to get adult themed games. I'm discussing whether pornography should be allowed even though some feel it's degrading and cheapens sex.
Well then why restrict anything to kids. When I was under 21 I could always find a friend to buy me alcohaul, I never smoked but when I was under 18 I had friends that would have bought me cigarette's had I asked. It's never perfect, knowones arguing that it is, but it will make it harder.
I have taken psychology classes, what you need to take is a class in logic. There is certainly a corelation between sex, dominance and violence against women, but corelation does not mean causation. Furthermore that isn't specific to an early sexual awakening. There's a correlation between dominance and any type of violence, be it against women or whoever.
Well no shit their born with those motivations, but are they born with an understanding of those motivations, specifically within the context of this culture? Of course not. The entire notion of waiting till marriage, for example, is a learned trait. The notion that your female partner should be a willing one is also a learned trait. You can find evidence of that in some less advanced cultures that don't hold either of those notions to be true.
2. If you want to talk scandals the US is no stranger, so I don't see how that in any way elevates our morals above theirs.
3. We didn't fight over morals, we fought over taxes and to get out from under imperialism. You might be able to argue that that's fighting for morals except for the fact that the US has conducted it's fair share of imperialism as well. US culture is a direct descendant of european culture.
Functionally speaking, "swaying enough voters to go along with them" is the same as majority opinion. Just because you can sway the majority of the voters doesn't mean that you've in any way considered the rights of the minority opinion.
Also, here here.
My girlfriends sister is 16, she has a credit card.
1. Europe is utterly and completely irrelevant in the world today...
2. ...precisely because you [europe] have no morals anymore.
3. Our morals do not come from that source [europe].
The entire point of raising children is to teach them to act responcibly. Children aren't born with beliefs, they develop them from their stimulus. That's why children shouldn't be given certain stimulus (like alcohaul or violent movies) until they've developed the ability to handle them. You think children are simply born with an inherrant understanding of the motivations behind sex?
Sexually awakening before one is ready can create all kinds of sexual deviance - NOT including a homocidal fetish. Seeing porn at a young age might weird you up a little bit, but it's not going to make you kill people. Ted Bundy was a sociopath. He had no concept of right or wrong. Porn gave him an urge that he chose to satisfy with murder. A normal human being would not even associate murder with the urge that porn delivers.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your claims?
But that's not the whole picture is it? Remember, it's majority rule with respect to minority rights. That means that you cannot restrict the actions of a minority group simply because the majority finds those actions distasteful. You have to be able to show that those actions cause harm to society before you can justly restrict them.
Bullshit. I may be opening a can of worms but here goes...
There is certainly a link between instinct and morality. Humans are social creatures. Like any other social creatures our ability to survive and to thrive is directly proportional to how well we group and work together. Actions like rape, murder, or plunder of some person or group of people interfere with our ability to group and be social therefore it interfere's with our ability to survive and to thrive. You don't need god to see that murder is wrong. Just because someone is not christian does not mean that they don't posses morals.
And further I don't think a predator attacking it's prey should be defined as cruel nor is it even relevent to the discussion. Christians eat animals just like everyone else does.
He already mentioned sell only to people with credit cards. Credit cards can be used to verify someones age.
So what about people who do buy games over the internet?