"The Unites States, Great Britian, Germany, Israel, and France and other free democracies are morally superior to China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Jordan, and other repressive regimes."
People (like bible-belt fanatics) may believe they are superior too, yet, even if one accepts that as true, then I still don't see why they should be entitled to a vote, and an atheist not.
Mind you, this holds true EVEN if the premise that one is morally spuerior would be true. That's because moral superiority doesn't enter the picture when it comes down to voting, and neither does it when it's about representing the world at large. If you truelly represent the world, you represent it as it is, not as a group of only 'moral superior' countries.
"There are more non-free speach countries than free speach countries. You want them to control the internet?"
What, you counted them AND you decided who had free speech and not? Because, unless you claim to be the sole judge about what countries should be allowed, then the question remains who will decide it.
And since when did that became the standard of being able to join the united nations anyway? The UN is supposed to represent the world at large, not only a part of like-minded countries. If you don't have an institution that encompasses 'no-speech'-countries like China, then little chance it has to come to any consensus or agreement, or even provide a platform of discusion about world affairs. You seem to go for another NATO, but we already have that concept, and it doesn't have the tendency to claim it speaks for the entire world.
So, please tell me how you are going to erect an organisation that represents the world, but only has 60% of the existing countries in it? Leaving out future economical heavyweights like china (and perhaps even Russia, because 'free speech' isn't their strong point neither)? The idea is absurd and contradictory on itself: you can't claim representing the world and give world-opinion on matters, and yet leave a large part of the world out of it.
So, yes, let the UN deal with the internet, and make an 'internet-constitution' and ask a 3/4 majority for every major change, if you're so afraid that 'non-free-speech' countries will take it over.
"The UN is so corrupt, incompetent, and inept that it make the U. S. Govt look brilliant!"
Maybe that was the plan of the USA all along?;-)
Seriously though, many problems of the UN stem from problems its members make (e.g. sovereign nations). It's only as strong (or inept) as those countries that make up the UN and have to decide when to act and when not. Some countries actively undermine the UN, and thus, obviously, this has its repercusions on the UN as a whole.
The USA shouldn't shout to loud in this regard, since it's often *they* that contribute in a major way to make the UN inept and incompetent, using its veto arbitrarily and destroying a united policy.
"Hmm our enemies took that position a _long_ time ago."
Your argument is doubtful, seen the fact that even in the 70ies, the CIA was 'educating' torture to police-departements of Pinochet. But even when taken as true; your argument is, then, because vile terrorists used it before us, we must now start using the same vile position?
"While I am against torture, I have a hard time feeling sorry for any of the people in Guantanamo,"
That's your lack of empathy: I feel sorry for *any* humans being treated inhumane, even if they themselves would have less moral scrupules. The whole point is of being *above their* level of acting. And not only do you show a lack of empathy and little sense of justice (which should be applied equally to all), you also make the awful generalisation that shows blind stupidity... Not for *any* of the prisoners? So not even for those who, after years, were released from prison, without being found guilty of anything? Well, good for you, sir. I guess you *always* sleep sound.
"and I find it amazing that people like you do. These people will kill you if they are given the chance and yet you stand by them. Amazing."
Yes, I'm sure it's amazing to people like you, who seem to think that human rights are only due towards some people, and not others. I, as well as the parent poster (I presume), stand by the rights of those people, not because we stand by their viewpoints, but because every human deserves basic rights, regardless of their actions. That's what the difference between a state with a rule of law, and a dictatorial state is all about.
I guess the difference is wasted upon you, as it is for the current USA government.
Read the hyperion-serie myself several years ago, and found it to be quite good. Especially the first two books are definately above the SF-average (and I've read a lot of SF and fanatsy).
No doubt some day, someone will make a movie out of it, and there will be a 80% chance they screw it up big time... after all, I know only of a handful of films that are equal or better then the books they're based on.
Another very good one, but contrary to Hyperion very unknown, is 'the ring' (at least, that was the translation of the title). Strangely enough, there isn't even a reference to it on wikipedia, so either the original title is different, or it's truelly a gem of a book who never got the attention it deserved.
"There is no reason not to simultaneously provide medical aid, food aid, aid to repair infrastructure, and etcetera, and computers. That is a phony dichotomy."
It's not mutual exclusive, that is true. Yet, seen the limited amount of money being spend (it's not as if the budget for foreign aid has no limits, after all), there is *something* to it: you really can't do everything. At least, not becoming meaningless: say, hypothetically,j you have a budget of 10 dollar, then you can spend it on 2 or perhaps three topics in a meaningful manner, but not on 200. (For instance; buying food would not prevent starvation if the food was only one grain, worth 0.00001 dollar, a day).
In short: one *does* often have to prioritise.
Once one acknowledges that fact, it becomes a matter of deciding how the money is most efficiently spend. When there is an acute issue of starvation, then clearly food should be prioritised...but as said by others, this can't be a long-term solution (and in fact, will have an adverse effect when applied long-term, because it destroys the local economy). Now, projects that makes them learn (in a better way) to grow food, are much, much more valuable in the long run.
Now, as for laptops...I don't know; it really doesn't seem that wiortwhile, compared to the myriads of other things that could be done with this money. Sure, you can do both things; but it still is less efficient then when your budget is spend on more useful things. And as far as usefulnes goes, as is said earlier: there are no conclusive educational benefits being shown when laptops are used (compared to other teaching material). Even the most scientific research can not show any clear advantage, which rather indicates that, even if there is one, it can't be that big a difference. So that leaves us with the question if the money couldn't be better spend, maybe on projects who *have* proven to be of considerable benefit.
"Also, the concern about health effects may seem silly, but there have been plenty of cases where things that were relatively harmless for adults turn out to have adverse effects on still-developing children."
Actually, almost everything that is harmful to children is also harmful to adults, though perhaps greater quantities are needed to inflict the same damage to the latter, sometimes.
Thus, you choose your words 'relatively harmful' very well.;-)
"This has got to be the funniest thing that I've read today. If my boy was really interested in it, then he should be able to find my storage directory that has gigs of that type of data. My son shouldn't have to search the internet for what is already on the local computer!"
The most sensible and rational thing I heard in ages, concerning this topic. (Well, ok, not ages: I remember some USA rap-star saying more or less the same thing about his kid).
In any case, I bet you're not some below-the-bible-belt USA citizen.
It's really crazy for europeans to see some americans making a fool out of themselves trying to prohibit and forbid that what comes natural at a certain age, most notably when you become a teenager.
Sure, it depends on the age and the kind of porn, and often a 'talk' is in order... but for gods' sake, do people forget how they themselves were at that age?! I've never understood the panicked reaction of some USA-prudes to the fact that kids grow up and might do what comes natural; searching for sexually tinted stuff. For ages and ages young (and old;-) people have done that, and yet some still act as if it's a deadly sin for which punishment is in order. I can NOT believe all those adults shouting about 'protection' did not do the same when they were 14. Sure, we hadn't internet at the time, but we tried to get our hands on Playboys and the like, then.
It should be the parents who watches their kids (and not sites who have to watch their words in metatags), and decide what's appropriate for what age, but I'm getting a bit tired from all the hypocrisy that is shown by bible-belt twats. Let me help you guys out of a dream: our kids don't stumble on pornsites because they were looking for the latest Barbie-model or for the newest Pokemon-card, ok?
And, as the parent poster indicates, there is no reason to get panicked, nor to punish the kids for it. That's like in the 60ies, when kids were punished when they masturbated (evil! unhealthy!, etc.); a quite futile effort that made much more harm then (imagined) good. The only law necessary, would be one where the parents have to watch what their kids are up to, and have a alk with them about certain issues, when appropriate - and without being hypocritical about it.
But hey, it's much more simple to outright forbid sites to use 'innocent' words!
Next thing, you'll correctly point out that teenagers don't just suddenly become interested in sexual things (including pornsites) the moment they turn 18! Or that most adults of today were just as inquisitive (not to say horny) when they were 16 or younger themselves!
We, the prudes beneath the bible-belt, won't have you say those common facts! It destroys our save-the-children mantra!
No, no: people, including kids, stumble unwittingly on pornsites while searching for the newest barbie-doll or Pokemon! They must be protected from all that stumbling - especially the recurrent stumbling, as it seems they often can't be helped wanting to be traumatised by reviewing that false Pokemon-site over and over again, probably in the vain hope that Picachu must be *somewhere* there...
And the best way to protect everyone, and especially those traumatised kids (always think of the children!), is to forbid the words itself, obviously, *not* to ask pornsites to do an effort to restrict access according to age, or God forbid, to expect parents to watch what their kids are doing. No, that would be far to reasonable, and we, prudes beneath-the-bible-belt can't stand for such a thing!
I only wonjder why you posted it as anonymous coward? I mean, it's not unreasonable, what you say, and it reflects reality better then those prudes-from-the-USA-beneath-the-bible-belt. Or is THAT the reason you posted as such?;-)
In europe, however, you expressed a moderate view. I would even go as far as being a bit more tolerant in respect to your: "In fact, my 14 year old son has in the past and it was not by accident. He was actively looking for it. I noticed it in my squid logs and he got a form of talking and punishment from me."
I mean, it would depend on what exactly was the kind of porn I guess, but, let's face it: as boys we all began looking for that kind of stuff around that age. Sure, internet didn't exist yet, but then we tried to get our hands on Playboys, or something. It's just a quite natural and normal thing to do, so I don't see why people should be punished for it (mostly this leads to avoiding, as you yourself demonstrated with his linux-attempt). Sure, some 'serious talk' may be in place, but to expect a 14-year old teenager to abandon searching for any porn would be naive, and even hypocrite, seen the fact most of us did (or would have done) the same thing at that age.
Of course, I don't know the exact circumstances (maybe it was really over-the-top porn or something), but still, the general line of thought on the matter should be clear: it's often better to have a talk and place things in a right context, then to outright forbid it.
"This bill, though, does not ban any speech. It only bans speech that is used specifically on porn websites with the intent to deceive."
So...ermm...it does ban speech?
You *do* realise, I hope, that your statement is contradictory.
Anyway, you are mistaken: you can say to old ladies whatever you want, it's when you make them sign deals based on misleading information that is illegal.
Thus, a more accurate analogy would be: websites may use whatever words they want, it's when they are offering porn to kids that it becomes illegal. For that to be the case, it would have to be demonstrated that 1)kids go to that site, 2)the site didn't do any effort in restricting access to kids (which is usually done by commercial pornsites by asking for your VIsa-number). And, in fact, 3)it's in the first place the parents who have to watch what their kids do.
None of these - albeit reasonable - things, is being asked for... instead, the 'think-of-the-children'-senators(&ilk) go for the easy one-liner-way, and try to forbid using the words itself.
In conclusion, you are confusing the content with the principle of free speech, as is often the case. We *all* want free speech, don't we? Exept, ofcourse, when it's really, really, really awful and vile, and corrupts the youth (I believe Socrates was already sentenced to death on those grounds 2000 years ago) and what not. What doesn't seem to get though is that forbidding some (narrowly, limited, etc.) free speech...is still forbidding free speech. I don't care what the reason is websites use certain words (for instance, it can be just to get higher on the google ranking); it's doesn't mean I agree to it, but I still allow them to 'say' what they want.
So countering this with "There is nothing in this bill that threatens your free speech. " doesn't make any sense: it threatens part of free speech, even if it's not *my* free speech. Anti-racist-speech laws, as is common in europe, don't threaten my free speech neither, because I'm not a racist... it still doesn't mean no free speech is being curtailed, however. Making speech itself illegal is never a good sign, and is always a ban on (some part of) free speech. That's why you can tell that old lady what you want, it only counts as being illegal if you make her sign an agreement based on false information. That's the ACT, that is illegal, not the speech.
For the same token, it should be (and is, no doubt) illegal to knowingly grant kids access to porn sites, but it isn't (and shouldn't) be illegal for pornsites to place whatever words they want to in their metatags.
Hope I made the difference clear; I tried to give a logical reasoning for my stance, so as to make your opinion about "I think it just makes you guys feel smart and important to get apocalyptic and pissed about everything." seem like the misplaced generalisation that it is, even to yourself.
At least that guy remains consistent in his argumentation. And he chooses an argument (communication) which actually makes sense, contrary to 'being attached to the mother'.
In fact, it just occured to me that this would mean the 'clumps of cells' which *aren't* attached to the mother , like in many medical labs these days, couldn't be destroyed (or killed, if you prefer) because they aren't attached to the mother anymore, and it was the attachement you gave as the reason why it could be killed. So, like, a mother that keeps a beginning foetus in a lab can't kill it (morally), but if it's in her womb, she can? This, as you can see, makes no sense at all, and therefor, the 'attachement' on itself can't really be a sensible distinction.
Argumentation with 'being able to communicate', or having a sense of self-awareness, or free will makes more sense in that case, because it goes to the matter of when and what can be considered a defining human trait.
That trait surely is not the physical attachement to a woman.
I already made an elaborate post on this, but, following Murphies Law, just when I was proof-reading it the last time, my computer went 'wham' - dead in the water. I kid you not. (Managed to restart it, but happend again some hours ago, don't know what's wrong with it, but lukily I have more then one puter).
Anyay, what I'll repeat (in a short version), what I wanted to post 3 days ago:
Kudos to you! I am very appreciative and pleasantly surprised to see that you actually go through with the reasoning, and lead it to its logical conclusion. This is very, very rare. I often see the 'it's only a clump of cells'-argument being used, but rather fully arbitrarily and inconsitently, and while I do not agree with it (because I start with a different premise), it is nice to see finally *someone* saying like it is, when that reasoning is consistently applied.
So, while I do not agree with your conclusion, I really applaud you for remaining logical and consistent. Once you start with the premise that a baby/foetus is only a clump of cells and can be killed, it, indeed, begs the question what makes the difference then - because, in the sense of the development of the baby, killing a baby right before, or right after birth, makes no difference. And in fact, it could be logically argued it's much easier and safer to kill a baby after it has been born, then prodding with metal objects in the womb of the woman.
So, indeed, seen from the 'mentally developed/free-will'-standpoint, your conclusion is very logical and consistent, and if I started with the same premise as you (and most other 'a foetus-is-only-a-clump-of-cells' argumentalists), I would come to the same inevitable conclusion. I'm so tired of hypocrits who argue this line of thought, but then back away when the inherent rationale leads them to the logical conclusion. From the standpoint of consistency, your argumentation is certainly a strong one. As is mine, though from a different standpoint alltogether - which is pretty difficult and annoying to do these days, because the only ones 'pro-life' (misnomer to begin with) seem to be religious nutcases, while I want to argument it purely from secular, logical argumentation. (I am in fact hoovering between agnosticism and atheism; I couldn't care less about religious arguments or 'morality from the bible').
I have discussed this topic with some other poster too; feel free to have a look at my posts in this regard.
Once again: very well done. I only wished more people would apply the same principles of logical reasoning, rational argumentation, and consistency, even when I don't agree with their premise. Keep it up!
I thought of not reacting to it, but here I go after all (thinking it might be usefull for any civil debate):
"That female thing that you typically ignore."
Ermm? Let's be honest: this is a non-argument with strong ad hominem tendencies. If by 'female thing', you mean a woman, your conclusion that I am ignoring women is self-invented and unsubstantiated. The whole matter in moral cases like abortion, is where the rights of one life begins, and the rights of others end. This IS what the endless debate about abortion boils down too, after all. And it's not because people argument another conclusion then yours that it means one ignores the other 'side'. If such a conclusion would be valid, then one could as well say 'that child thing you typically ignore'.
Such remarks don't add anything useful to the debate.
Let alone it would be 'typical' of me. What? Do you know me? Have you telepathic abilities that you can say those things with any certainty? I don't think so, especially seen that remark.
That comment really had no place in the discussion.
"What did she do, eat it?"
I'm not native english, and you understood perfectly well what I meant, so let's not be pedantic.
"Also, there is a real line between 8-9 months and baby. Specificly the mother is still attached. That female thing that you typically ignore."
Two remarks:
1)In that case, the argument is not any longer 'the clump of cells' (thus, from the viewpoint of the development of the baby)
2)While the line is a more defined one, it doesn't say anything about the morality on itself. I mean by that, it is arbitrarily chosen (as are all lines, in effect). Why would it matter if the baby is still attached or not? Why would it be immoral for a woman to decide to kill a baby just after it was 'detached', and not just before? Is there any real reason for that? I mean, if the argument is from the viewpoint of the develoment of the baby, then, as said earlier, ntohing really has changed before or after. If it's from the viewpoint of the woman decides, then, if the will is there to kill it after birth, then nothing changes in this respect neither.
And my former reasoning still applies: it would be more logic (easier, safer - at least for the mother) to kill the baby after birth. And if it still has to be 'attached' to make it morally ok, then kill it right after birth, when the baby is still attached by the umbilical cord.
"They only real line is when they start actually creative thinking around 2 years old."
Right. So, remaining consistent in regard to the development-of-the-baby argumentation, one should argument it would be ok up untill a year or two to kill the tod.
I have seen many use that argumentation, yet, apart from one individual, I never saw anyone of that line-of-thought willing to argument that this the logical consequence of that reasoning. The one individual that did has my greatest respect, not because I agree with him (since I start with another premise), but because he one of the very few not being hypocritical about it.
I'm going to try to find him back, because I forgot to comment on it. And it's rare enough to see someone remain consistent even when the reasoning becomes higly impopular. Kudos to him. (I'll post his url/post if I can find it back).
"I can do things which makes me very much human, from about 2 year old on, I can reason to my own goals. I become, as Kant would say, and end within myself."
I'm a great fan of the ethical principles laid out by Kant. But, as said, one could as well argue toddlers should be allowed to be killed up untill a year or two, then.
"Infanticide is wrong because adoption is very easy to do."
That conclusion is not inherent. It boils down too: something is wrong, because something that prevents the wrong thing is easy. This is a circular reasoning. If infanticide is not considered wrong, then it could well be more easier to just kill it, then to go through the process of getting it adopted - and it wouldn't be 'wrong', obviously. Your statement would only have some truth, if you start with the premise that infanticide is wrong in the first place - unless you want to claim that because something is easier, it is more moral on itself, but I don't think anyone is stupid enough to argument such a notion.(especially seen the fact it's mostly the reverse; what is easiest is often the immoral thing).
"Most late term abortions are done because the fetus itself isn't viable anyway."
I doub that, frankly. I've seen women argument their baby should be aborted because they wanted to go on hollidays, and it didn't suited them very well. Granted, this is probably a minority which deals in such a frivolous way, but I think the 'non-viability' of the foetus is rather a minority too. All in all, I think a lot of reasons come into play, especially things like relationships that get broken, financial troubles, etc. But anyway, it's difficult to argument on this particular topic without hard data, and even if it is 'most', you still would have others.
Secondly, if the reasoning was that the baby is not viable anyway, then it's -again - another reasoning then the one formerly used. Just as it is wi
In my days it was so dark as to be virtually blindfolded and we had to wait for any light, in the snow, uphill, both ways, unable to measure it! AND WE LIKED IT!
"A fetus is a bit more than a clump of cells, but not that much more."
Well, one could claim every human is not much more then a clump of cells. But there is a point in which this becomes a matter of rationalisation.
That point is arbitrary and subjective, and thus, the opinion of one person is a valid as that of another, in this matter. This is reflected by the different allowed 'time-periods' around the world in which the abortion is allowed (or even IF it is allowed). There's no clear boundary when something is 'a clump of cells' and when it is not. There is not much difference betwen a baby in the 8th or 9th month, and just after birth.
Yet, some countries allow the first, but almost all don't allow the latter - in fact, it's often seen as a hideous crime.
Yet, logically speaking, there is no biological ground for this, and in fact, it can be rationally argued it would be much easier and safer to kill the baby after it is born, instead of in the belly of the mother.
Any argument solely based on 'it's only a bunch of cells' does nothing to explain anything, let alone give some moral guideline or justification. Because, when consistently applied, most of the proponents of those line of reasoning would become quite hypocritical about it.
" They're making money off of the effort of editting the gratuitous violence, language, and sex out of your movie."
No. People don't pay for the parts that are edited, since those are just the things you can't see. Those people actually pay for what's left over, which is, the film minus the edits. For those people the edits obviouslmy added more value to the work, but it's still the work they buy, not the edits.
Only, with the edits, it's no longer 'my' work. And thus, it shouldn't have my name on it anymore.
"Your work is still yours AND you still get your sales"
As explaned above, it is no longer my work. (Note: I'm speaking about the issue in TFA where they sell modified versions of the movies itself).
I don't understand what it is that makes the issue so difficult to understand. Yes, IP rights, including copyrights and certainly patnts have gone way overboard, and I'm a strong proponent of reducing or in some cases abolshing it alltogether.
But THIS is one of the examples that does show it's use, as a former poster already indicated.
To speak in more traditional capitalistic terms (some people only seem to comprehend this line of thought):
If you buy a Coca Cola, you may decide how, when, and even if you are going to drink it. That much is clear.
What you *can't* do, is taking that Coke, alter it's composition, make copies of it, and sell those under the name of Coca Cola without their permission. It's NOT their product, how small and well-intended your changes may be, and thus you have no right to sell it under their name.
It's exactly the same with books/movies/etc.: you can decide how you view it, but you can't actually alter it and sell it under their name, without their permission.
Yes, I know, with modern technology the result might be largely the same (at least, when it's for your personal viewing), but the principle of the matter remains.
It must be pointed out that, if you are one of those FOX-watchers too, your post and the one you dispute, could *both* be in accordance with eachother.
In that case, there would be no contradiction, and you would be further substantiating the post you rile against.
Thus, the question arises: do you watch FOX?
Depending on the answer, your post could become self-explanatory.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Unites States, Great Britian, Germany, Israel, and France and other free democracies are morally superior to China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Jordan, and other repressive regimes."
People (like bible-belt fanatics) may believe they are superior too, yet, even if one accepts that as true, then I still don't see why they should be entitled to a vote, and an atheist not.
Mind you, this holds true EVEN if the premise that one is morally spuerior would be true. That's because moral superiority doesn't enter the picture when it comes down to voting, and neither does it when it's about representing the world at large. If you truelly represent the world, you represent it as it is, not as a group of only 'moral superior' countries.
"There are more non-free speach countries than free speach countries. You want them to control the internet?"
What, you counted them AND you decided who had free speech and not? Because, unless you claim to be the sole judge about what countries should be allowed, then the question remains who will decide it.
And since when did that became the standard of being able to join the united nations anyway? The UN is supposed to represent the world at large, not only a part of like-minded countries. If you don't have an institution that encompasses 'no-speech'-countries like China, then little chance it has to come to any consensus or agreement, or even provide a platform of discusion about world affairs. You seem to go for another NATO, but we already have that concept, and it doesn't have the tendency to claim it speaks for the entire world.
So, please tell me how you are going to erect an organisation that represents the world, but only has 60% of the existing countries in it? Leaving out future economical heavyweights like china (and perhaps even Russia, because 'free speech' isn't their strong point neither)? The idea is absurd and contradictory on itself: you can't claim representing the world and give world-opinion on matters, and yet leave a large part of the world out of it.
So, yes, let the UN deal with the internet, and make an 'internet-constitution' and ask a 3/4 majority for every major change, if you're so afraid that 'non-free-speech' countries will take it over.
"The UN is so corrupt, incompetent, and inept that it make the U. S. Govt look brilliant!"
;-)
Maybe that was the plan of the USA all along?
Seriously though, many problems of the UN stem from problems its members make (e.g. sovereign nations). It's only as strong (or inept) as those countries that make up the UN and have to decide when to act and when not. Some countries actively undermine the UN, and thus, obviously, this has its repercusions on the UN as a whole.
The USA shouldn't shout to loud in this regard, since it's often *they* that contribute in a major way to make the UN inept and incompetent, using its veto arbitrarily and destroying a united policy.
"Hmm our enemies took that position a _long_ time ago."
Your argument is doubtful, seen the fact that even in the 70ies, the CIA was 'educating' torture to police-departements of Pinochet. But even when taken as true; your argument is, then, because vile terrorists used it before us, we must now start using the same vile position?
"While I am against torture, I have a hard time feeling sorry for any of the people in Guantanamo,"
That's your lack of empathy: I feel sorry for *any* humans being treated inhumane, even if they themselves would have less moral scrupules. The whole point is of being *above their* level of acting. And not only do you show a lack of empathy and little sense of justice (which should be applied equally to all), you also make the awful generalisation that shows blind stupidity... Not for *any* of the prisoners? So not even for those who, after years, were released from prison, without being found guilty of anything? Well, good for you, sir. I guess you *always* sleep sound.
"and I find it amazing that people like you do. These people will kill you if they are given the chance and yet you stand by them. Amazing."
Yes, I'm sure it's amazing to people like you, who seem to think that human rights are only due towards some people, and not others. I, as well as the parent poster (I presume), stand by the rights of those people, not because we stand by their viewpoints, but because every human deserves basic rights, regardless of their actions. That's what the difference between a state with a rule of law, and a dictatorial state is all about.
I guess the difference is wasted upon you, as it is for the current USA government.
Like in the very first posts? ;-)
That only shows how useful SF can be! ;-)
Read the hyperion-serie myself several years ago, and found it to be quite good. Especially the first two books are definately above the SF-average (and I've read a lot of SF and fanatsy).
No doubt some day, someone will make a movie out of it, and there will be a 80% chance they screw it up big time... after all, I know only of a handful of films that are equal or better then the books they're based on.
Another very good one, but contrary to Hyperion very unknown, is 'the ring' (at least, that was the translation of the title). Strangely enough, there isn't even a reference to it on wikipedia, so either the original title is different, or it's truelly a gem of a book who never got the attention it deserved.
Seen the fact I got a -1, it seems some slashdotters are completely unaware of the meaning and the poetic reference.
;-)
Ah well, one can't expect that much, I suppose.
Nice to see some people still know their poetry. :-)
('their' being used lightly, of course, since I'm not native english myself)
"There is no reason not to simultaneously provide medical aid, food aid, aid to repair infrastructure, and etcetera, and computers. That is a phony dichotomy."
It's not mutual exclusive, that is true. Yet, seen the limited amount of money being spend (it's not as if the budget for foreign aid has no limits, after all), there is *something* to it: you really can't do everything. At least, not becoming meaningless: say, hypothetically,j you have a budget of 10 dollar, then you can spend it on 2 or perhaps three topics in a meaningful manner, but not on 200. (For instance; buying food would not prevent starvation if the food was only one grain, worth 0.00001 dollar, a day).
In short: one *does* often have to prioritise.
Once one acknowledges that fact, it becomes a matter of deciding how the money is most efficiently spend. When there is an acute issue of starvation, then clearly food should be prioritised...but as said by others, this can't be a long-term solution (and in fact, will have an adverse effect when applied long-term, because it destroys the local economy). Now, projects that makes them learn (in a better way) to grow food, are much, much more valuable in the long run.
Now, as for laptops...I don't know; it really doesn't seem that wiortwhile, compared to the myriads of other things that could be done with this money. Sure, you can do both things; but it still is less efficient then when your budget is spend on more useful things. And as far as usefulnes goes, as is said earlier: there are no conclusive educational benefits being shown when laptops are used (compared to other teaching material). Even the most scientific research can not show any clear advantage, which rather indicates that, even if there is one, it can't be that big a difference. So that leaves us with the question if the money couldn't be better spend, maybe on projects who *have* proven to be of considerable benefit.
"Also, the concern about health effects may seem silly, but there have been plenty of cases where things that were relatively harmless for adults turn out to have adverse effects on still-developing children."
;-)
Actually, almost everything that is harmful to children is also harmful to adults, though perhaps greater quantities are needed to inflict the same damage to the latter, sometimes.
Thus, you choose your words 'relatively harmful' very well.
"My name is written in water" has lost all it's meaning, now!
"This has got to be the funniest thing that I've read today. If my boy was really interested in it, then he should be able to find my storage directory that has gigs of that type of data. My son shouldn't have to search the internet for what is already on the local computer!"
;-) people have done that, and yet some still act as if it's a deadly sin for which punishment is in order. I can NOT believe all those adults shouting about 'protection' did not do the same when they were 14. Sure, we hadn't internet at the time, but we tried to get our hands on Playboys and the like, then.
The most sensible and rational thing I heard in ages, concerning this topic. (Well, ok, not ages: I remember some USA rap-star saying more or less the same thing about his kid).
In any case, I bet you're not some below-the-bible-belt USA citizen.
It's really crazy for europeans to see some americans making a fool out of themselves trying to prohibit and forbid that what comes natural at a certain age, most notably when you become a teenager.
Sure, it depends on the age and the kind of porn, and often a 'talk' is in order... but for gods' sake, do people forget how they themselves were at that age?! I've never understood the panicked reaction of some USA-prudes to the fact that kids grow up and might do what comes natural; searching for sexually tinted stuff. For ages and ages young (and old
It should be the parents who watches their kids (and not sites who have to watch their words in metatags), and decide what's appropriate for what age, but I'm getting a bit tired from all the hypocrisy that is shown by bible-belt twats. Let me help you guys out of a dream: our kids don't stumble on pornsites because they were looking for the latest Barbie-model or for the newest Pokemon-card, ok?
And, as the parent poster indicates, there is no reason to get panicked, nor to punish the kids for it. That's like in the 60ies, when kids were punished when they masturbated (evil! unhealthy!, etc.); a quite futile effort that made much more harm then (imagined) good. The only law necessary, would be one where the parents have to watch what their kids are up to, and have a alk with them about certain issues, when appropriate - and without being hypocritical about it.
But hey, it's much more simple to outright forbid sites to use 'innocent' words!
Next thing, you'll correctly point out that teenagers don't just suddenly become interested in sexual things (including pornsites) the moment they turn 18! Or that most adults of today were just as inquisitive (not to say horny) when they were 16 or younger themselves!
We, the prudes beneath the bible-belt, won't have you say those common facts! It destroys our save-the-children mantra!
No, no: people, including kids, stumble unwittingly on pornsites while searching for the newest barbie-doll or Pokemon! They must be protected from all that stumbling - especially the recurrent stumbling, as it seems they often can't be helped wanting to be traumatised by reviewing that false Pokemon-site over and over again, probably in the vain hope that Picachu must be *somewhere* there...
And the best way to protect everyone, and especially those traumatised kids (always think of the children!), is to forbid the words itself, obviously, *not* to ask pornsites to do an effort to restrict access according to age, or God forbid, to expect parents to watch what their kids are doing. No, that would be far to reasonable, and we, prudes beneath-the-bible-belt can't stand for such a thing!
I only wonjder why you posted it as anonymous coward? I mean, it's not unreasonable, what you say, and it reflects reality better then those prudes-from-the-USA-beneath-the-bible-belt. ;-)
Or is THAT the reason you posted as such?
In europe, however, you expressed a moderate view. I would even go as far as being a bit more tolerant in respect to your: "In fact, my 14 year old son has in the past and it was not by accident. He was actively looking for it. I noticed it in my squid logs and he got a form of talking and punishment from me."
I mean, it would depend on what exactly was the kind of porn I guess, but, let's face it: as boys we all began looking for that kind of stuff around that age. Sure, internet didn't exist yet, but then we tried to get our hands on Playboys, or something. It's just a quite natural and normal thing to do, so I don't see why people should be punished for it (mostly this leads to avoiding, as you yourself demonstrated with his linux-attempt). Sure, some 'serious talk' may be in place, but to expect a 14-year old teenager to abandon searching for any porn would be naive, and even hypocrite, seen the fact most of us did (or would have done) the same thing at that age.
Of course, I don't know the exact circumstances (maybe it was really over-the-top porn or something), but still, the general line of thought on the matter should be clear: it's often better to have a talk and place things in a right context, then to outright forbid it.
"This bill, though, does not ban any speech. It only bans speech that is used specifically on porn websites with the intent to deceive."
So...ermm...it does ban speech?
You *do* realise, I hope, that your statement is contradictory.
Anyway, you are mistaken: you can say to old ladies whatever you want, it's when you make them sign deals based on misleading information that is illegal.
Thus, a more accurate analogy would be: websites may use whatever words they want, it's when they are offering porn to kids that it becomes illegal. For that to be the case, it would have to be demonstrated that 1)kids go to that site, 2)the site didn't do any effort in restricting access to kids (which is usually done by commercial pornsites by asking for your VIsa-number). And, in fact, 3)it's in the first place the parents who have to watch what their kids do.
None of these - albeit reasonable - things, is being asked for... instead, the 'think-of-the-children'-senators(&ilk) go for the easy one-liner-way, and try to forbid using the words itself.
In conclusion, you are confusing the content with the principle of free speech, as is often the case. We *all* want free speech, don't we? Exept, ofcourse, when it's really, really, really awful and vile, and corrupts the youth (I believe Socrates was already sentenced to death on those grounds 2000 years ago) and what not. What doesn't seem to get though is that forbidding some (narrowly, limited, etc.) free speech...is still forbidding free speech. I don't care what the reason is websites use certain words (for instance, it can be just to get higher on the google ranking); it's doesn't mean I agree to it, but I still allow them to 'say' what they want.
So countering this with "There is nothing in this bill that threatens your free speech. " doesn't make any sense: it threatens part of free speech, even if it's not *my* free speech. Anti-racist-speech laws, as is common in europe, don't threaten my free speech neither, because I'm not a racist... it still doesn't mean no free speech is being curtailed, however. Making speech itself illegal is never a good sign, and is always a ban on (some part of) free speech. That's why you can tell that old lady what you want, it only counts as being illegal if you make her sign an agreement based on false information. That's the ACT, that is illegal, not the speech.
For the same token, it should be (and is, no doubt) illegal to knowingly grant kids access to porn sites, but it isn't (and shouldn't) be illegal for pornsites to place whatever words they want to in their metatags.
Hope I made the difference clear; I tried to give a logical reasoning for my stance, so as to make your opinion about "I think it just makes you guys feel smart and important to get apocalyptic and pissed about everything." seem like the misplaced generalisation that it is, even to yourself.
here you go:
6 91680
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190727&cid=15
At least that guy remains consistent in his argumentation. And he chooses an argument (communication) which actually makes sense, contrary to 'being attached to the mother'.
In fact, it just occured to me that this would mean the 'clumps of cells' which *aren't* attached to the mother , like in many medical labs these days, couldn't be destroyed (or killed, if you prefer) because they aren't attached to the mother anymore, and it was the attachement you gave as the reason why it could be killed. So, like, a mother that keeps a beginning foetus in a lab can't kill it (morally), but if it's in her womb, she can? This, as you can see, makes no sense at all, and therefor, the 'attachement' on itself can't really be a sensible distinction.
Argumentation with 'being able to communicate', or having a sense of self-awareness, or free will makes more sense in that case, because it goes to the matter of when and what can be considered a defining human trait.
That trait surely is not the physical attachement to a woman.
I already made an elaborate post on this, but, following Murphies Law, just when I was proof-reading it the last time, my computer went 'wham' - dead in the water. I kid you not. (Managed to restart it, but happend again some hours ago, don't know what's wrong with it, but lukily I have more then one puter).
Anyay, what I'll repeat (in a short version), what I wanted to post 3 days ago:
Kudos to you! I am very appreciative and pleasantly surprised to see that you actually go through with the reasoning, and lead it to its logical conclusion. This is very, very rare. I often see the 'it's only a clump of cells'-argument being used, but rather fully arbitrarily and inconsitently, and while I do not agree with it (because I start with a different premise), it is nice to see finally *someone* saying like it is, when that reasoning is consistently applied.
So, while I do not agree with your conclusion, I really applaud you for remaining logical and consistent. Once you start with the premise that a baby/foetus is only a clump of cells and can be killed, it, indeed, begs the question what makes the difference then - because, in the sense of the development of the baby, killing a baby right before, or right after birth, makes no difference. And in fact, it could be logically argued it's much easier and safer to kill a baby after it has been born, then prodding with metal objects in the womb of the woman.
So, indeed, seen from the 'mentally developed/free-will'-standpoint, your conclusion is very logical and consistent, and if I started with the same premise as you (and most other 'a foetus-is-only-a-clump-of-cells' argumentalists), I would come to the same inevitable conclusion. I'm so tired of hypocrits who argue this line of thought, but then back away when the inherent rationale leads them to the logical conclusion. From the standpoint of consistency, your argumentation is certainly a strong one. As is mine, though from a different standpoint alltogether - which is pretty difficult and annoying to do these days, because the only ones 'pro-life' (misnomer to begin with) seem to be religious nutcases, while I want to argument it purely from secular, logical argumentation. (I am in fact hoovering between agnosticism and atheism; I couldn't care less about religious arguments or 'morality from the bible').
I have discussed this topic with some other poster too; feel free to have a look at my posts in this regard.
Once again: very well done. I only wished more people would apply the same principles of logical reasoning, rational argumentation, and consistency, even when I don't agree with their premise. Keep it up!
I thought of not reacting to it, but here I go after all (thinking it might be usefull for any civil debate):
"That female thing that you typically ignore."
Ermm? Let's be honest: this is a non-argument with strong ad hominem tendencies. If by 'female thing', you mean a woman, your conclusion that I am ignoring women is self-invented and unsubstantiated. The whole matter in moral cases like abortion, is where the rights of one life begins, and the rights of others end. This IS what the endless debate about abortion boils down too, after all. And it's not because people argument another conclusion then yours that it means one ignores the other 'side'. If such a conclusion would be valid, then one could as well say 'that child thing you typically ignore'.
Such remarks don't add anything useful to the debate.
Let alone it would be 'typical' of me. What? Do you know me? Have you telepathic abilities that you can say those things with any certainty? I don't think so, especially seen that remark.
That comment really had no place in the discussion.
"What did she do, eat it?"
I'm not native english, and you understood perfectly well what I meant, so let's not be pedantic.
"Also, there is a real line between 8-9 months and baby. Specificly the mother is still attached. That female thing that you typically ignore."
Two remarks:
1)In that case, the argument is not any longer 'the clump of cells' (thus, from the viewpoint of the development of the baby)
2)While the line is a more defined one, it doesn't say anything about the morality on itself. I mean by that, it is arbitrarily chosen (as are all lines, in effect). Why would it matter if the baby is still attached or not? Why would it be immoral for a woman to decide to kill a baby just after it was 'detached', and not just before? Is there any real reason for that? I mean, if the argument is from the viewpoint of the develoment of the baby, then, as said earlier, ntohing really has changed before or after. If it's from the viewpoint of the woman decides, then, if the will is there to kill it after birth, then nothing changes in this respect neither.
And my former reasoning still applies: it would be more logic (easier, safer - at least for the mother) to kill the baby after birth. And if it still has to be 'attached' to make it morally ok, then kill it right after birth, when the baby is still attached by the umbilical cord.
"They only real line is when they start actually creative thinking around 2 years old."
Right. So, remaining consistent in regard to the development-of-the-baby argumentation, one should argument it would be ok up untill a year or two to kill the tod.
I have seen many use that argumentation, yet, apart from one individual, I never saw anyone of that line-of-thought willing to argument that this the logical consequence of that reasoning. The one individual that did has my greatest respect, not because I agree with him (since I start with another premise), but because he one of the very few not being hypocritical about it.
I'm going to try to find him back, because I forgot to comment on it. And it's rare enough to see someone remain consistent even when the reasoning becomes higly impopular. Kudos to him. (I'll post his url/post if I can find it back).
"I can do things which makes me very much human, from about 2 year old on, I can reason to my own goals. I become, as Kant would say, and end within myself."
I'm a great fan of the ethical principles laid out by Kant. But, as said, one could as well argue toddlers should be allowed to be killed up untill a year or two, then.
"Infanticide is wrong because adoption is very easy to do."
That conclusion is not inherent. It boils down too: something is wrong, because something that prevents the wrong thing is easy. This is a circular reasoning. If infanticide is not considered wrong, then it could well be more easier to just kill it, then to go through the process of getting it adopted - and it wouldn't be 'wrong', obviously. Your statement would only have some truth, if you start with the premise that infanticide is wrong in the first place - unless you want to claim that because something is easier, it is more moral on itself, but I don't think anyone is stupid enough to argument such a notion.(especially seen the fact it's mostly the reverse; what is easiest is often the immoral thing).
"Most late term abortions are done because the fetus itself isn't viable anyway."
I doub that, frankly. I've seen women argument their baby should be aborted because they wanted to go on hollidays, and it didn't suited them very well. Granted, this is probably a minority which deals in such a frivolous way, but I think the 'non-viability' of the foetus is rather a minority too. All in all, I think a lot of reasons come into play, especially things like relationships that get broken, financial troubles, etc. But anyway, it's difficult to argument on this particular topic without hard data, and even if it is 'most', you still would have others.
Secondly, if the reasoning was that the baby is not viable anyway, then it's -again - another reasoning then the one formerly used. Just as it is wi
I'm intrigued, please explain.
You had light??!!
In my days it was so dark as to be virtually blindfolded and we had to wait for any light, in the snow, uphill, both ways, unable to measure it! AND WE LIKED IT!
"Or were you using the sarcasm tag? I could not tell."
I could tell you couldn't tell.
Dude, the guy couldn't have made it more obvious; one point after another were so plainly wrong as to be overwhelmingly ironic.
"A fetus is a bit more than a clump of cells, but not that much more."
Well, one could claim every human is not much more then a clump of cells. But there is a point in which this becomes a matter of rationalisation.
That point is arbitrary and subjective, and thus, the opinion of one person is a valid as that of another, in this matter. This is reflected by the different allowed 'time-periods' around the world in which the abortion is allowed (or even IF it is allowed). There's no clear boundary when something is 'a clump of cells' and when it is not. There is not much difference betwen a baby in the 8th or 9th month, and just after birth.
Yet, some countries allow the first, but almost all don't allow the latter - in fact, it's often seen as a hideous crime.
Yet, logically speaking, there is no biological ground for this, and in fact, it can be rationally argued it would be much easier and safer to kill the baby after it is born, instead of in the belly of the mother.
Any argument solely based on 'it's only a bunch of cells' does nothing to explain anything, let alone give some moral guideline or justification. Because, when consistently applied, most of the proponents of those line of reasoning would become quite hypocritical about it.
"They aren't making money off of your work."
Of course they are.
" They're making money off of the effort of editting the gratuitous violence, language, and sex out of your movie."
No. People don't pay for the parts that are edited, since those are just the things you can't see. Those people actually pay for what's left over, which is, the film minus the edits. For those people the edits obviouslmy added more value to the work, but it's still the work they buy, not the edits.
Only, with the edits, it's no longer 'my' work. And thus, it shouldn't have my name on it anymore.
"Your work is still yours AND you still get your sales"
As explaned above, it is no longer my work. (Note: I'm speaking about the issue in TFA where they sell modified versions of the movies itself).
I don't understand what it is that makes the issue so difficult to understand. Yes, IP rights, including copyrights and certainly patnts have gone way overboard, and I'm a strong proponent of reducing or in some cases abolshing it alltogether.
But THIS is one of the examples that does show it's use, as a former poster already indicated.
To speak in more traditional capitalistic terms (some people only seem to comprehend this line of thought):
If you buy a Coca Cola, you may decide how, when, and even if you are going to drink it. That much is clear.
What you *can't* do, is taking that Coke, alter it's composition, make copies of it, and sell those under the name of Coca Cola without their permission. It's NOT their product, how small and well-intended your changes may be, and thus you have no right to sell it under their name.
It's exactly the same with books/movies/etc.: you can decide how you view it, but you can't actually alter it and sell it under their name, without their permission.
Yes, I know, with modern technology the result might be largely the same (at least, when it's for your personal viewing), but the principle of the matter remains.
It must be pointed out that, if you are one of those FOX-watchers too, your post and the one you dispute, could *both* be in accordance with eachother.
In that case, there would be no contradiction, and you would be further substantiating the post you rile against.
Thus, the question arises: do you watch FOX?
Depending on the answer, your post could become self-explanatory.