Markets will see to it that your reliance on scarce resources becomes more expensive as they get scarcer. That's fine. What bugs me is that people whine when it happens. And here is the problem. Those "scarce" resources are ARTIFICIALLY scarce. While I can't speak for Britain, here in the US, we have enough oil to supply most, if not all of our domestic needs at about $40-$60/barrel. Why are we paying $135/barrel? Because congress won't allow for companies to get the oil HERE. It's gotten so ridiculous that Cuba is about to start drilling off the coast of Florida because environmentalists won't let us do it!
Likewise, I wouldn't deign to deprive you of your right to breed. But I don't see other people's taxes should make parenthood an even more attractive prospect than it is already. Agreed. But don't make me pay MORE because I have to take a job across town to support my family.
Well, I come from a society where artificial dependence on the government is considered pretty normal. But our disagreement seems to hinge on this: you think I'm advocating 'artificially high' fuel costs. I think you're advocating 'artificially low' fuel pricing. Well, here in the States (colonies?:-) we have become pretty independent. That includes being able to go and do as we please, but if we fall, then we fall and we don't expect any help from Big Brother.
I hear stories about the fuel prices you guys pay on the "other side of the pond". I can tell you that those prices are artificially high. I know this because we pay so much less (Yes, I'm a spoiled American) and even our gasoline is taxed. So it is artificially inflated here as well, just at a much more reasonable rate. What makes it so much higher is our refusal to allow for domestic production of energy. Nuclear, petroleum, coal are all but banned here. Even refineries have been banned for over 30 years. We use 25% of the world's oil. Dammit, we should be responsible and make it ourselves. The way it is right now, everyone is having to pay the higher prices because of our refusal to make what we use.
Seriously, I hope we develop some alternative fuels and crops soon, so that people can drive around and reproduce cheaply. Until then, as oil becomes scarcer, it's going to get more expensive and we're going to have to make difficult choices -- grit our teeth and pay what it costs, or use less. When and if we can do this without causing people to starve due to food shortages, I'm all for it. Hell, I welcome the idea of getting off fossil fuels. I even think we should tax the hell out of domestic production to fund such research. But to simply ban new energy is the hard way of going about it.
There will be consequences when we run out of oil and we need to be prepared for it. To artificially produce those consequences today is not ideal. Hell, it would better to wait for the REAL oil shortages to come. Maybe then technology will be better prepared for it.
BTW Smug as I am about the walk to work, I'm no eco saint. I do own a car. I piss away electricity and heating fuel. But I don't complain about the price. Sorry, I get a bit snippy when I think people bitch about my driving my car to work. Not everyone can live walking distance from work. It would be nice, but it's simply not an option. Besides, it's not like I drive an SUV. I drive a little 4-banger as is! If you did bitch about it, I would have happily pointed out the energy we are wasting posting to Slashdot.:-)
So in order to punish the Walmart shopping 300-lb father of eight, you are willing to punish me, a 170 lb father of one who uses his car to drive to work and to the grocery store to feed my "spawn"?
Yeah, why not? You've chosen your lifestyle: pay the going rate for it. If fuel for your commute is punitively expensive, evidently you live too far from your job. Change job, move house, or pay. This seems terribly simple to me. My office is a pleasant 20 minute stroll from my home. Yes, I see how this sounds smug - but anyone can engineer their lifestyle the same way, save money and suffer less in a car.
(I do own a car -- I just don't use it for commuting)
As for your spawn - well, I understand that parenthood is extremely rewarding. Why does society have any duty to make this pleasure cheaper for you? Especially when the world's population is too high, and growing.
This is a personal bugbear for me: in the UK there's a non-means-tested 'family allowance' for parents - doesn't that just encourage people to add kids to a planet that doesn't need any more?
I'm sorry that you have such disdain for people having children. Why don't you get off my ass and travel to the countries where the population is truly booming? That way, you could do something about it and let the parents in the industrialized world enjoy their one child, guilt free. I say that because we both live in countries where the population is not a problem. Asia and Africa are the trouble spots. So why should I have to give up my reproductive rights or feel guilt for doing what has brought 100% of the people in the world here?
That's great that you are able to live that close to your job. I used to live a nice twenty minute stroll from work too. I worked there for seven years. I reached the pinnacle of what I could do there and as the company was recently taken over by an overseas mega-corp, I decided it was time to pursue different opportunities. My new job is a bit out of "strolling range". For that matter, any house within strolling range of my new job is out of our price range. So I need a vehicle to get there and back.
Is that a sin? NO. Does it make me any less of a person than you? NO. Should I sit back and allow people like you to make me pay more money to live my life so you can sit back and feel even more smug? FUCK NO! Sorry, but if you want to walk to work, that's your choice. If I choose to drive my ass to work, then that's my choice. Don't like my choice? Tough shit. That's what freedom is all about. If you want your freedom, you need to get your nose out of other people's business. Blood is spilled to earn freedom. An open mind is the price for keeping it.
And that is the problem. People like you don't like that I drive a car. People like you don't like that I have a child. It bugs you that I use up so many resources. So the only way that you can stop me is to artificially drive up the price of those resources so I can no longer live the way I choose. Then you are forcing me to live the way YOU CHOOSE. How about you keep your eyes on the sidewalk in front of you and stop worrying about what I do.
How about that little old lady in Michigan who has to decide between food and a heated home in January?
That's not the same at all. Home heating is a basic necessity. Driving is not. This can be sorted out by providing winter fuel payments to the elderly, and by taxing the different kinds of fuel appropriately. So, you are going to take a woman that can support herself, and make her artificially dependent of the government because you want to artificially drive up the fuel prices to punish me for my lifestyle choices? Sorry, but you are not going to punish me without punishing her too. If you raise my prices for fuel, you're raising hers as well. She also has to drive to the grocery store. She also has to pay the increased prices for food because growers could no longer afford to transport it.
Environmentalists were around long before global warming. GW is just their latest tactic. Yup, and the fact that they were damn right most of the time should tell you something. REALLY!!??! You're joking, right? How many millions of people have died due to the banning of DDT? Where are the food shortages and mass starvation I read about so long ago? Why are we all not dying from skin cancer due to the depleted Ozone layer? Aren't we supposed to be in an ice age now?
I could go on and on and on, but I think these few examples from just the past 30 years should do the trick.
Don't get me wrong, there are a few times that environmentalist have been correct. But more times than not, their attempts to save the world ends up doing more harm than good. Take their successful resistance nuclear power for example. A more modern example would be the successful blocking of using Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage. OK, so there is a remote possibility that something bad may happen in Yucca Mountain. There is a greater risk of something WORSE happening when nuclear waste is stored all over the country. So what happens? We store our nuclear waste all over the country. Thank you, tree huggers!
Any time a group of so-called scientists need to resort to exaggeration and fear mongering to get public opinion on their side, take with much sodium chloride as they are always full of shit.
You know, this is really discouraging. Why don't you people talk about what you care about, instead of what you hate about each other? Jesus, this is sickening.
Halfway around the planet real human beings just like you and me are being forced to return to the charnel ground where they used to live by a military junta, because that junta prefers them to be hopeless and cowed instead of hopeful and possibly trying for change. They get to smell their dead neighbors as they sit in their ruined houses.
And your life is so trivial that you worry about how much it costs to drive your 170 pound ass to work? Get some perspective, man. If the price of gas doubles, you're still one of the most fortunate people in the world. If the roof over your head gets repossessed, and you're forced to live in a cardboard box, you're still better off than those people.
I don't wish that fate on you; I'm just saying, count your blessings. Stop beating up on each other. Try to find some common ground.
BTW, pop quiz: do you know which military junta I'm talking about, and where they are? I assume you are speaking of Burma. If that is the case, then let me present the following:
As a caring American, I'd love nothing more than to see our president call a military strike on this particular group of tyrants and take them down, liberating the good people in this country, and the surviving leadership being put on trial for crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, due to the backlash our president has received from the last time we tried that, I don't expect to see it happening again any time soon. What would be the cry this time, I wonder; "No blood for rice!" I would suggest taking your concerns to the UN, but they really couldn't care less.
Also, I think the GP was being sarcastic, but his sarc beacon light is dim and my detector didn't pick it up.
If environmentalists were concerned about human-centric issues, then we WOULD be drilling of the coasts of Florida, California and ANWR. But since this may harm a dolphin, jelly fish or caribou, they are against it.
You can call me a latte-sipping proust-quoting turtleneck-wearning liberal if you like, but I still can help but look down on people who are ready to trample on any species and bulldoze roads through any forest so they can line the pockets of oil company executives and pay a quarter less a gallon to drive their 300-lb ass to Wal-Mart twice a week to pick up Dora the Explorer DVD's for their eighteen spawn.
See, I can play the tribalism game too without any shame. So do you think your scorn is actually having any effect? So in order to punish the Walmart shopping 300-lb father of eight, you are willing to punish me, a 170 lb father of one who uses his car to drive to work and to the grocery store to feed my "spawn"? How about that little old lady in Michigan who has to decide between food and a heated home in January? Must everyone be punished because you hold such bigotry towards those that are not as "enlightened" as yourself?
Funny how you are so worried about tearing down a forest to "line the pockets of an oil CEO" (no mention of the rest of us who have oil stocks in our 401K), but you don't seem to mind when a family of gophers has their home plowed over to grow the wheat that goes into your crumpets. As for your latte, you don't seem to mind when rain forests are chopped down so that coffee beans can be grown, nor the OIL that it takes to transport those beans to your local Starbucks. However, I notice that so many like you seemed to get pissed when an auto plant in a Michigan forest gets shut down so another can be opened in the deserts of Mexico.
If you are going to bitch about it, at least be consistent.
Do you seriously think America can function with even 20% less oil ?
Given that most of the world, including most industrialized nations, can function with a fraction of the per capita oil consumption of the US, I'd say yes. Granted, some American habits and conveniences might have to go, but they're not essential for functioning.
Given the current rise in oil prices, we'll probably soon get a chance to find out whether my guess is correct. I hope it is, since we'll be in even deeper shit than we're already in otherwise.
Given the size of our economy, we are actually quite efficient in our use for energy when compared to economies like China. China releases more carbon than the US while its economy is a fraction of the size.
Peak Oil: when discoveries don't match what's taken out of the ground.
One of the ad hoc tests of the theory is how quickly opponents refer to the people with the evidence as "loonies". It's axiomatic that there's only so much oil and that it will end some day. A good way to gauge whether or not we've passed the peak is to actually look at production records and see if the production has declined. According to Kenneth Deffeyes, the chief academic petrologist in the country before his retirement, production peaked in the 4th quarter of 2005. You may be right, but people have been saying the same thing about food production for decades, if not centuries.
You quote Che, "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
I wonder if Che would see the irony of the trials in Gitmo. Che would certainly be against any trials at Gitmo. By his quote, those people would already be dead. I put the quote up there because it's usually the same people screaming Constitutional rights for foreign terrorists and the complete closure of Gitmo are usually the ones wearing a Che shirt. Now THAT is irony!
"Because, frankly, the stated aims of environmentalists - improving the forests, saving the fuzzy animals, and so on, is actually served by the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, as plants grow better in richer CO2 atmospheres and that leads to a stronger biosphere all round."
Hold up there buddy, that is simply not true, many animals depend on icy habitats (polar bears, penguins) which are going to disappear with increasing temperature. Increased melting will disrupt the north Atlantic drift which will completely change the climate of northern Europe to something like the previous ice age. Increased levels of CO2 interacting with the sea will cause the oceans to become more acidic, this is already happening.
Whatever the result, the planet is likely to be going through the most rapid period of change to its internal distribution of gases ever recorded, as a direct result of pollution from burning fossil fuels. As a species, humanity has emerged in a relatively calm period in the earth's climatic history, now, our children and their children, and heaven forbid, maybe even we, will have to deal with the consequences of these actions, which I doubt will "lead to a stronger biosphere all round." I'm curious. The climate has changed much faster in the past than it is changing today. Of course, this was before SUV's and even man were on the planet. So, if man didn't cause it then, isn't it even remotely possible that man is not causing it today? This is backed up when you consider that the earth has heated and cooled all on its own throughout history. When it was warm, it cooled. When it was cool, the earth warmed. Seeing as we are in a historical cool spell, doesn't it makes sense that the earth would warm itself, with, or without our help?
It seems to me that when we see something happen, we immediately try to figure out what WE did to cause it. It's the same kind of self-centered belief system that led Native Americans to believe that a certain dance or sacrifice would lead to rain.
I thought when Gasoline hit $4 and oil up in the got up in the $130 people would stop calling the folks who say that 'oil is going to become expensive after the cheap oil is extracted'... loonies. Drat.
Also, as far as I recall the only peak oil claim about food is that it will cost more to transport when gas costs $3.50 a gallon or whatever ridiculously high yanked out of their ass number those loons tossed around (this claim was from like four years ago). How can we claim to have reached "peak oil" when we have oil that we refuse to extract? When I hear oil companies state that they are drilling all they can and simply can't produce any more, then we may have reached "peak oil". That's not the case right now. Currently, the oil companies are saying to congress, "We can't produce any more oil because YOU WON'T LET US!"
I did read your post. To paraphrase: [quote] The stated aim of environmentalists is to save fluffy animals etc. We should be worrying about human needs instead. [/quote]... and I disagreed with the first part. Most of what I read about fighting climate change, concentrates on the effects it has on human society. Environmentalists were around long before global warming. GW is just their latest tactic.
Because, frankly, the stated aims of environmentalists - improving the forests, saving the fuzzy animals, and so on, Where have you found these "stated aims"? Look up the arguments against drilling in ANWR. There you will find that environmentalists are putting the lives of porcupine caribou over the lives of humans. (Of course, they disregard the facts that the caribou do better in places were drilling is taking place, like Prudhoe Bay, which leads me to believe that their goal is simply to stop progress or keep someone other than themselves from making money.)
Most of the climate speculation I've seen concentrates on very human-centric concerns such as food production, extreme weather and the effect of rising sea levels on major cities. If environmentalists were concerned about human-centric issues, then we WOULD be drilling of the coasts of Florida, California and ANWR. But since this may harm a dolphin, jelly fish or caribou, they are against it.
Of course, the case could be made that off shore drilling could cause an environmental problem that would affect the land owners in areas such as CA and FL, but this doesn't explain the stink over ANWR, where no one lives.
As for CO2 and global warming, the plants seem to dig the extra CO2 and warmth and will thrive, soaking up the excess CO2 and growing in areas that were previously unfriendly to plants.
Why do want to go to the moon? Because the Chinese are going?
Let's see... why did we want to go last time? Oh, because the Russians were going. Aha.
Putting a man on the moon may be inspiring and make for great geopolitical drama, and it's fun to touch the moon rock at the Air and Space Museum... but it's otherwise an utterly worthless dick-swinging contest.
It's extremely expensive to get there, and the fact that we still have no idea what to do with it (as evidenced by this very article!!) suggests it ain't worth it. Until there's some compelling economic or scientific reason for a moon visit, I believe it's simply a boondoggle for the things-we-can-do-by-wasting-enough-fossil-fuel industry. Simple:Helium-3
Fusion a good enough reason for ya?
Let's suppose that by the time we're slinging tanks of He3 off the moon, the world-wide demand is 100 tonnes of the stuff a year, and people are happy to pay $3 billion per tonne. That gives us gross revenues of $300 billion a year.
To put that number in perspective: Ignoring the cost of money and taxes and whatnot, that rate of income would launch a moon shot like our reference mission every day for the next 10,000 years.
Of course, with those two, all I can read is the abstract, since I'm not paying for the whole shebang.
The ObscenityCrimes story is full of references if you care to look them up. However, many of them are books and others are print media that you may or may not have free access to over the web, (New York Times, 16 May 2000, F7) for example.
Finally, HERE is another one that looked full of data and IS a real world study. It also, has an order form. However, there are several links of the bottom that link back to this article. Just about all the sagepub articles include them.
So they are there. I'm sorry that the one you researched got you nowhere. There are others that you may consider to be more reputable if you look hard enough.
Oh, here is another, but it's 43 pages long. I found it by googling the article title from another sources sited list. Here is the google search I used.
How about posting something that is not from a nanny -state, "think of the children" website. First, I'm sorry that you have such a problem with children. Does it piss you off that so many people are thinking about the children and not thinking of you? Did your mommy not pay enough attention to you when you were a child? Either way, I'm terribly sorry that people may ask you to give something up in order to protect a child, truly the most innocent among us, from being subjected to the most heinous of crimes. I'm so terribly sorry that you are so wrapped up in yourself that you expect everyone else to give up their security, just so you can have the OPTION to view something you have no real interest in (unless you actually DO view kiddy porn. If so, speak up and I'll correct myself).
Next, how about you read my post before you respond to it. My first link was from sexscience.org, which is not a "think of the children" website, but a collection of articles written mostly by psychologists and psychiatrists studying sexual behavior.
BTW, what's wrong with thinking of the children anyway? I mean, that is the point of this whole fucking thing, right? We are talking about child porn here. If NOW is not the time to "think of the children" then when is? Geez dude, get fuckin grip. The whole world ain't about YOU.
The quote you provide is a summary. It is not the actual study. Not to mention that the methodology of the studies cited are completely missing. And without the methodology, it is impossible to judge the quality of the study.
Sorry, try again. I'll look for the studies mentioned, but so far, I still have squat. Here is one study (PDF Warning). However, it's a study that shows that there is evidence that supports both sides, and there is. Also keep in mind that many of these studies were published on printed paper rather than digital HTML format.
If you can't find the actual articles listed in the reference page from this article, then I suggest you google the author's names and/or the title of the publication.
If anything, this stuff should be promoted and definitively legalized. However, the "think of the children" folk can't grasp economics. Some things are more important than money. Would you sell your children?
But that's not the point, is it? The fear underlying all this legislation is that someone "might" want to view such images, and "might" want to do something after viewing them. Given the current hysteria, any degree of "might" (in any context) is considered unacceptable. That's where the thinking starts and stops. There are studies that show that there are people who DO perform violent/sexual acts on children after viewing child porn.
Slightly more than one-third of the child molesters and rapists in this study claimed to have at least occasionally been incited to commit an offense by exposure to pornography. Among the child molesters incited, the study reported that 53 percent of them deliberately used the stimuli of pornography as they prepared to offend. Given this, your question about the "degree of might", that degree gets pushed to 100% So, this is not exactly a boogeyman, but appears to be a real world problem. Now as to the question of "do the numbers warrant action" or the causation/correlation, that's up to you to decide. However, you view might be a bit different if you were on the receiving side of one these crimes. Still, don't assume that there is no evidence to support that this stuff really is harmful to both the viewer and the victim.
The connection is that, in order to view child porn, you have to acquire child porn, which means you are on the demand side of a trade, raising the price for child porn and thereby increasing the incentive for producing child porn. Not necessarily. Say you're viewing porn in a newsgroup or other source where the public posts the pictures. Most of what you will find is perfectly legal, but occasionally, some asshole will post kiddie porn. So it is possible to find kiddie porn when you are not looking for it.
However, CG raises other questions. What if you take a girl who is a perfectly legal age of 18 years, who happens to look 15, put her in pig tails and dress her up like a 10-yr old and take pictures of her giving a Lewinski to a 50-yr-old? If CG child porn becomes illegal, would this type of picture constitute child porn?
On the flip-side of this is to consider groups like NAMBLA. They release publications on the topic of child porn, on the pro side. Should their group be banned? I think so. But the question is, how can you ban a group like NAMBLA, who writes articles promoting child porn and not ban someone who takes pictures of models of legal age dressed up to LOOK like child porn?
I further submit that children are not harmed by porn. There is evidence that disagrees with your submission. (the article links to several studies to back up their assertions)
Slightly more than one-third of the child molesters and rapists in this study claimed to have at least occasionally been incited to commit an offense by exposure to pornography. Among the child molesters incited, the study reported that 53 percent of them deliberately used the stimuli of pornography as they prepared to offend. However, it does agree with one assumption you made. From the same source (intro paragraph):
While there are many ways that pornography harms children, I want to assure you that every child who views pornography will not necessarily be affected and, at worst, traumatized in the same way. The effects of pornography are progressive and addictive for many people. Just as every person who takes a drink does not automatically become an alcoholic, every child who is exposed to pornography does not automatically become a sexual deviant or sex addict. However, since pornography has a new door to the home, school, and library through the Internet, it is important for us to look at the many ways that pornography can potentially harm our children.
[T]o someone with tendencies already, this may push them over the edge whereas they may have lived a normal life without it. And the blob you quoted can be used just as well as an argument to legalise pornography:
child molesters [...] were significantly more likely [...] to employ pornography to relieve an impulse to act out. Sorry for the two cuts in this quote, but it's not changing the context. You argue pornography may push them over the edge, on the other hand the article you quote gives the argument that pornography can prevent just that.
Actually I believe it works indeed both ways. Porn can satisfy a need, stimulate a fantasy, without actually doing it. Porn in itself is fantasy. The making of it of course is not - and that's a problem when children or otherwise non-consenting people are involved in the act.
Porn on the other hand can also give ideas, and maybe the desire for more. It's certainly not an easy matter.
Whether a certain kind of porn is legal or not, should in my opinion only be determined by the process of making it. I caught that in the link and mentioned that data goes both ways on this. However, seeings as these men were convicted child molesters, it appears that using child porn as a release didn't work out too well for these guys. The point was just to illustrate that there really is a relationship between the two. I am unable to find a link from anyone saying, "I would have been a child molester, but since I can live out my fantasies in my computer chair, I don't have to be." There is a ton of evidence out there, however, that states that viewing such images and videos, virtual or not, can push someone over the edge. Read the arguments against groups like NAMBLA for examples.
Or, to put it another way, this study doesn't in any establish a causal link between pornographic exposure and child molestation, nor does even hint at your suggestion that a lack of exposure to child pornography might prevent a person from acting on their sexual desires for child. This study does:
Photographs, videos, magazines, virtual games, and Internet pornography that depict rape and the dehumanization of females in sexual scenes constitute powerful but deforming tools of sex education. The danger to children stems at least partly from the disturbing changes in attitude that are facilitated by pornography. Replicated studiesx have demonstrated that exposure to significant amounts of increasingly graphic forms of pornography has a dramatic effect on how adult consumers view women, sexual abuse, sexual relationships, and sex in general. These studies are virtually unanimous in their conclusions: When male subjects were exposed to as little as six weeks' worth of standard hard-core pornography, they:
* developed an increased sexual callousness toward women
* began to trivialize rape as a criminal offense or no longer considered it a crime at all
* developed distorted perceptions about sexuality
* developed an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (normal sex no longer seemed to do the job)
* devalued the importance of monogamy and lacked confidence in marriage as either a viable or lasting institution
* viewed nonmonogamous relationships as normal and natural behaviorxi the actual study is Baron, Larry; Straus, Murray. (1984). Sexual stratification, pornography, and rape in the United States. In Neil Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography and Sexual Aggression (pp. 185-209). New York: Academic Press. (can't find on web)
"Disclaimer: I like porn and violent video games as much as the next guy, but there is research that shows that it does have negative consequences to the weak minded."
But you see....a weak or weak minded individual can be susceptible to most anything....but, is that reason to remove the choice to view pr0n or play vi0lent video games? Some people are going to get addicted to any number of things, and abuse any number of things...some of those acts are criminal. But for the majority of us that are 'normal'...why should our freedom to indulge in pleasurable things, as long as they don't physically harm REAL people (ok, a little leeway on the S&M people who enjoy being hurt, but, that's a side topic) be infringed upon. If someone gets off on watching rape videos, why not let them...if the act (which is illegal in real life) is simulated by actors or CGI...what's the harm?
Did you not read the quote from the link? Here is part of it again:
Playing violent video games like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Kombat can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life, according to two studies... Does that qualify as harm? I would think so. However, since you seem to value my own opinion over that of trained psychologists, I'll answer that question for you with another question. Is the damaged caused by violent video games greater than the harm caused by the gov't stepping in trying to regulate such things? Then ask yourself the same thing about child molestation and child porn. Be sure to recognize that while violent video games are not illegal, child porn is. Also, be sure to consider if your opinion would change if you had been a victim of either crime.
If I supply a link, will you change your mind? I doubt it, but here it is anyway. Of course, it is one of many. You know, it took me about 2 minutes to find this on Google. Rather than speaking from your ass, you could do a little research on your own.
The present study examined exposure to and use of pornography in the familial, developmental and criminal histories of 38 rapists and 26 child molesters incarcerated at the Massachusetts Treatment Center. While both groups reported similar exposure to pornography in the home and during development, child molesters indicated significantly more exposure than rapists in adulthood and were significantly more likely both to use such materials prior to and during their offenses and to employ pornography to relieve an impulse to act out. The findings are discussed with regards to the "catharsis hypothesis" and the role of pornography in the commission of sexual offenses for certain types of rapists and child molesters. Of course, there is a causation/correlation argument that could be made here, but to someone with tendencies already, this may push them over the edge whereas they may have lived a normal life without it.
Slashdot Mirror
I hear stories about the fuel prices you guys pay on the "other side of the pond". I can tell you that those prices are artificially high. I know this because we pay so much less (Yes, I'm a spoiled American) and even our gasoline is taxed. So it is artificially inflated here as well, just at a much more reasonable rate. What makes it so much higher is our refusal to allow for domestic production of energy. Nuclear, petroleum, coal are all but banned here. Even refineries have been banned for over 30 years. We use 25% of the world's oil. Dammit, we should be responsible and make it ourselves. The way it is right now, everyone is having to pay the higher prices because of our refusal to make what we use. Seriously, I hope we develop some alternative fuels and crops soon, so that people can drive around and reproduce cheaply. Until then, as oil becomes scarcer, it's going to get more expensive and we're going to have to make difficult choices -- grit our teeth and pay what it costs, or use less. When and if we can do this without causing people to starve due to food shortages, I'm all for it. Hell, I welcome the idea of getting off fossil fuels. I even think we should tax the hell out of domestic production to fund such research. But to simply ban new energy is the hard way of going about it.
There will be consequences when we run out of oil and we need to be prepared for it. To artificially produce those consequences today is not ideal. Hell, it would better to wait for the REAL oil shortages to come. Maybe then technology will be better prepared for it. BTW Smug as I am about the walk to work, I'm no eco saint. I do own a car. I piss away electricity and heating fuel. But I don't complain about the price. Sorry, I get a bit snippy when I think people bitch about my driving my car to work. Not everyone can live walking distance from work. It would be nice, but it's simply not an option. Besides, it's not like I drive an SUV. I drive a little 4-banger as is! If you did bitch about it, I would have happily pointed out the energy we are wasting posting to Slashdot.
So in order to punish the Walmart shopping 300-lb father of eight, you are willing to punish me, a 170 lb father of one who uses his car to drive to work and to the grocery store to feed my "spawn"?
Yeah, why not? You've chosen your lifestyle: pay the going rate for it. If fuel for your commute is punitively expensive, evidently you live too far from your job. Change job, move house, or pay. This seems terribly simple to me. My office is a pleasant 20 minute stroll from my home. Yes, I see how this sounds smug - but anyone can engineer their lifestyle the same way, save money and suffer less in a car.
(I do own a car -- I just don't use it for commuting)
As for your spawn - well, I understand that parenthood is extremely rewarding. Why does society have any duty to make this pleasure cheaper for you? Especially when the world's population is too high, and growing.
This is a personal bugbear for me: in the UK there's a non-means-tested 'family allowance' for parents - doesn't that just encourage people to add kids to a planet that doesn't need any more?
I'm sorry that you have such disdain for people having children. Why don't you get off my ass and travel to the countries where the population is truly booming? That way, you could do something about it and let the parents in the industrialized world enjoy their one child, guilt free. I say that because we both live in countries where the population is not a problem. Asia and Africa are the trouble spots. So why should I have to give up my reproductive rights or feel guilt for doing what has brought 100% of the people in the world here?
That's great that you are able to live that close to your job. I used to live a nice twenty minute stroll from work too. I worked there for seven years. I reached the pinnacle of what I could do there and as the company was recently taken over by an overseas mega-corp, I decided it was time to pursue different opportunities. My new job is a bit out of "strolling range". For that matter, any house within strolling range of my new job is out of our price range. So I need a vehicle to get there and back.
Is that a sin? NO. Does it make me any less of a person than you? NO. Should I sit back and allow people like you to make me pay more money to live my life so you can sit back and feel even more smug? FUCK NO! Sorry, but if you want to walk to work, that's your choice. If I choose to drive my ass to work, then that's my choice. Don't like my choice? Tough shit. That's what freedom is all about. If you want your freedom, you need to get your nose out of other people's business. Blood is spilled to earn freedom. An open mind is the price for keeping it.
And that is the problem. People like you don't like that I drive a car. People like you don't like that I have a child. It bugs you that I use up so many resources. So the only way that you can stop me is to artificially drive up the price of those resources so I can no longer live the way I choose. Then you are forcing me to live the way YOU CHOOSE. How about you keep your eyes on the sidewalk in front of you and stop worrying about what I do.
How about that little old lady in Michigan who has to decide between food and a heated home in January?
That's not the same at all. Home heating is a basic necessity. Driving is not. This can be sorted out by providing winter fuel payments to the elderly, and by taxing the different kinds of fuel appropriately. So, you are going to take a woman that can support herself, and make her artificially dependent of the government because you want to artificially drive up the fuel prices to punish me for my lifestyle choices? Sorry, but you are not going to punish me without punishing her too. If you raise my prices for fuel, you're raising hers as well. She also has to drive to the grocery store. She also has to pay the increased prices for food because growers could no longer afford to transport it.
I could go on and on and on, but I think these few examples from just the past 30 years should do the trick.
Don't get me wrong, there are a few times that environmentalist have been correct. But more times than not, their attempts to save the world ends up doing more harm than good. Take their successful resistance nuclear power for example. A more modern example would be the successful blocking of using Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage. OK, so there is a remote possibility that something bad may happen in Yucca Mountain. There is a greater risk of something WORSE happening when nuclear waste is stored all over the country. So what happens? We store our nuclear waste all over the country. Thank you, tree huggers!
Any time a group of so-called scientists need to resort to exaggeration and fear mongering to get public opinion on their side, take with much sodium chloride as they are always full of shit.
Halfway around the planet real human beings just like you and me are being forced to return to the charnel ground where they used to live by a military junta, because that junta prefers them to be hopeless and cowed instead of hopeful and possibly trying for change. They get to smell their dead neighbors as they sit in their ruined houses.
And your life is so trivial that you worry about how much it costs to drive your 170 pound ass to work? Get some perspective, man. If the price of gas doubles, you're still one of the most fortunate people in the world. If the roof over your head gets repossessed, and you're forced to live in a cardboard box, you're still better off than those people.
I don't wish that fate on you; I'm just saying, count your blessings. Stop beating up on each other. Try to find some common ground.
BTW, pop quiz: do you know which military junta I'm talking about, and where they are? I assume you are speaking of Burma. If that is the case, then let me present the following:
As a caring American, I'd love nothing more than to see our president call a military strike on this particular group of tyrants and take them down, liberating the good people in this country, and the surviving leadership being put on trial for crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, due to the backlash our president has received from the last time we tried that, I don't expect to see it happening again any time soon. What would be the cry this time, I wonder; "No blood for rice!" I would suggest taking your concerns to the UN, but they really couldn't care less.
Also, I think the GP was being sarcastic, but his sarc beacon light is dim and my detector didn't pick it up.
You can call me a latte-sipping proust-quoting turtleneck-wearning liberal if you like, but I still can help but look down on people who are ready to trample on any species and bulldoze roads through any forest so they can line the pockets of oil company executives and pay a quarter less a gallon to drive their 300-lb ass to Wal-Mart twice a week to pick up Dora the Explorer DVD's for their eighteen spawn.
See, I can play the tribalism game too without any shame. So do you think your scorn is actually having any effect? So in order to punish the Walmart shopping 300-lb father of eight, you are willing to punish me, a 170 lb father of one who uses his car to drive to work and to the grocery store to feed my "spawn"? How about that little old lady in Michigan who has to decide between food and a heated home in January? Must everyone be punished because you hold such bigotry towards those that are not as "enlightened" as yourself?
Funny how you are so worried about tearing down a forest to "line the pockets of an oil CEO" (no mention of the rest of us who have oil stocks in our 401K), but you don't seem to mind when a family of gophers has their home plowed over to grow the wheat that goes into your crumpets. As for your latte, you don't seem to mind when rain forests are chopped down so that coffee beans can be grown, nor the OIL that it takes to transport those beans to your local Starbucks. However, I notice that so many like you seemed to get pissed when an auto plant in a Michigan forest gets shut down so another can be opened in the deserts of Mexico.
If you are going to bitch about it, at least be consistent.
Given that most of the world, including most industrialized nations, can function with a fraction of the per capita oil consumption of the US, I'd say yes. Granted, some American habits and conveniences might have to go, but they're not essential for functioning.
Given the size of our economy, we are actually quite efficient in our use for energy when compared to economies like China. China releases more carbon than the US while its economy is a fraction of the size.Given the current rise in oil prices, we'll probably soon get a chance to find out whether my guess is correct. I hope it is, since we'll be in even deeper shit than we're already in otherwise.
Peak Oil: when discoveries don't match what's taken out of the ground.
One of the ad hoc tests of the theory is how quickly opponents refer to the people with the evidence as "loonies". It's axiomatic that there's only so much oil and that it will end some day. A good way to gauge whether or not we've passed the peak is to actually look at production records and see if the production has declined. According to Kenneth Deffeyes, the chief academic petrologist in the country before his retirement, production peaked in the 4th quarter of 2005. You may be right, but people have been saying the same thing about food production for decades, if not centuries. You quote Che, "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
I wonder if Che would see the irony of the trials in Gitmo. Che would certainly be against any trials at Gitmo. By his quote, those people would already be dead. I put the quote up there because it's usually the same people screaming Constitutional rights for foreign terrorists and the complete closure of Gitmo are usually the ones wearing a Che shirt. Now THAT is irony!
Hold up there buddy, that is simply not true, many animals depend on icy habitats (polar bears, penguins) which are going to disappear with increasing temperature. Increased melting will disrupt the north Atlantic drift which will completely change the climate of northern Europe to something like the previous ice age. Increased levels of CO2 interacting with the sea will cause the oceans to become more acidic, this is already happening.
Whatever the result, the planet is likely to be going through the most rapid period of change to its internal distribution of gases ever recorded, as a direct result of pollution from burning fossil fuels. As a species, humanity has emerged in a relatively calm period in the earth's climatic history, now, our children and their children, and heaven forbid, maybe even we, will have to deal with the consequences of these actions, which I doubt will "lead to a stronger biosphere all round." I'm curious. The climate has changed much faster in the past than it is changing today. Of course, this was before SUV's and even man were on the planet. So, if man didn't cause it then, isn't it even remotely possible that man is not causing it today? This is backed up when you consider that the earth has heated and cooled all on its own throughout history. When it was warm, it cooled. When it was cool, the earth warmed. Seeing as we are in a historical cool spell, doesn't it makes sense that the earth would warm itself, with, or without our help?
It seems to me that when we see something happen, we immediately try to figure out what WE did to cause it. It's the same kind of self-centered belief system that led Native Americans to believe that a certain dance or sacrifice would lead to rain.
Also, as far as I recall the only peak oil claim about food is that it will cost more to transport when gas costs $3.50 a gallon or whatever ridiculously high yanked out of their ass number those loons tossed around (this claim was from like four years ago). How can we claim to have reached "peak oil" when we have oil that we refuse to extract? When I hear oil companies state that they are drilling all they can and simply can't produce any more, then we may have reached "peak oil". That's not the case right now. Currently, the oil companies are saying to congress, "We can't produce any more oil because YOU WON'T LET US!"
[quote]
The stated aim of environmentalists is to save fluffy animals etc. We should be worrying about human needs instead.
[/quote]
Of course, the case could be made that off shore drilling could cause an environmental problem that would affect the land owners in areas such as CA and FL, but this doesn't explain the stink over ANWR, where no one lives.
As for CO2 and global warming, the plants seem to dig the extra CO2 and warmth and will thrive, soaking up the excess CO2 and growing in areas that were previously unfriendly to plants.
Let's see... why did we want to go last time? Oh, because the Russians were going. Aha.
Putting a man on the moon may be inspiring and make for great geopolitical drama, and it's fun to touch the moon rock at the Air and Space Museum
It's extremely expensive to get there, and the fact that we still have no idea what to do with it (as evidenced by this very article!!) suggests it ain't worth it. Until there's some compelling economic or scientific reason for a moon visit, I believe it's simply a boondoggle for the things-we-can-do-by-wasting-enough-fossil-fuel industry. Simple: Helium-3
Fusion a good enough reason for ya? Let's suppose that by the time we're slinging tanks of He3 off the moon, the world-wide demand is 100 tonnes of the stuff a year, and people are happy to pay $3 billion per tonne. That gives us gross revenues of $300 billion a year.
To put that number in perspective: Ignoring the cost of money and taxes and whatnot, that rate of income would launch a moon shot like our reference mission every day for the next 10,000 years.
OK, here is a study.
HERE is another.
Of course, with those two, all I can read is the abstract, since I'm not paying for the whole shebang.
The ObscenityCrimes story is full of references if you care to look them up. However, many of them are books and others are print media that you may or may not have free access to over the web, (New York Times, 16 May 2000, F7) for example.
Finally, HERE is another one that looked full of data and IS a real world study. It also, has an order form. However, there are several links of the bottom that link back to this article. Just about all the sagepub articles include them.
So they are there. I'm sorry that the one you researched got you nowhere. There are others that you may consider to be more reputable if you look hard enough.
Oh, here is another, but it's 43 pages long. I found it by googling the article title from another sources sited list. Here is the google search I used.
Next, how about you read my post before you respond to it. My first link was from sexscience.org, which is not a "think of the children" website, but a collection of articles written mostly by psychologists and psychiatrists studying sexual behavior.
BTW, what's wrong with thinking of the children anyway? I mean, that is the point of this whole fucking thing, right? We are talking about child porn here. If NOW is not the time to "think of the children" then when is? Geez dude, get fuckin grip. The whole world ain't about YOU.
Sorry, try again. I'll look for the studies mentioned, but so far, I still have squat. Here is one study (PDF Warning). However, it's a study that shows that there is evidence that supports both sides, and there is. Also keep in mind that many of these studies were published on printed paper rather than digital HTML format.
If you can't find the actual articles listed in the reference page from this article, then I suggest you google the author's names and/or the title of the publication.
So, this is not exactly a boogeyman, but appears to be a real world problem. Now as to the question of "do the numbers warrant action" or the causation/correlation, that's up to you to decide. However, you view might be a bit different if you were on the receiving side of one these crimes.
Still, don't assume that there is no evidence to support that this stuff really is harmful to both the viewer and the victim.
However, CG raises other questions. What if you take a girl who is a perfectly legal age of 18 years, who happens to look 15, put her in pig tails and dress her up like a 10-yr old and take pictures of her giving a Lewinski to a 50-yr-old? If CG child porn becomes illegal, would this type of picture constitute child porn?
On the flip-side of this is to consider groups like NAMBLA. They release publications on the topic of child porn, on the pro side. Should their group be banned? I think so. But the question is, how can you ban a group like NAMBLA, who writes articles promoting child porn and not ban someone who takes pictures of models of legal age dressed up to LOOK like child porn?
Actually I believe it works indeed both ways. Porn can satisfy a need, stimulate a fantasy, without actually doing it. Porn in itself is fantasy. The making of it of course is not - and that's a problem when children or otherwise non-consenting people are involved in the act.
Porn on the other hand can also give ideas, and maybe the desire for more. It's certainly not an easy matter.
Whether a certain kind of porn is legal or not, should in my opinion only be determined by the process of making it. I caught that in the link and mentioned that data goes both ways on this. However, seeings as these men were convicted child molesters, it appears that using child porn as a release didn't work out too well for these guys. The point was just to illustrate that there really is a relationship between the two. I am unable to find a link from anyone saying, "I would have been a child molester, but since I can live out my fantasies in my computer chair, I don't have to be." There is a ton of evidence out there, however, that states that viewing such images and videos, virtual or not, can push someone over the edge. Read the arguments against groups like NAMBLA for examples.
* developed an increased sexual callousness toward women
* began to trivialize rape as a criminal offense or no longer considered it a crime at all
* developed distorted perceptions about sexuality
* developed an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (normal sex no longer seemed to do the job)
* devalued the importance of monogamy and lacked confidence in marriage as either a viable or lasting institution
* viewed nonmonogamous relationships as normal and natural behaviorxi the actual study is Baron, Larry; Straus, Murray. (1984). Sexual stratification, pornography, and rape in the United States. In Neil Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography and Sexual Aggression (pp. 185-209). New York: Academic Press. (can't find on web)
And here
Gee! What could that possibly imply? Like I said, you will find evidence for both sides. In this case, you found both sides in the same article.
On the flipside. How did that work out for these guys? Keep in mind, they are incarcerated.
Fixed that for you.
That's a fallacy of "attack the messenger". If you don't agree with the findings of those who are more educated than yourself, attack their integrity.I would think that you would know better.
But you see....a weak or weak minded individual can be susceptible to most anything....but, is that reason to remove the choice to view pr0n or play vi0lent video games? Some people are going to get addicted to any number of things, and abuse any number of things...some of those acts are criminal. But for the majority of us that are 'normal'...why should our freedom to indulge in pleasurable things, as long as they don't physically harm REAL people (ok, a little leeway on the S&M people who enjoy being hurt, but, that's a side topic) be infringed upon. If someone gets off on watching rape videos, why not let them...if the act (which is illegal in real life) is simulated by actors or CGI...what's the harm?
Did you not read the quote from the link? Here is part of it again: Playing violent video games like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Kombat can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life, according to two studies... Does that qualify as harm? I would think so. However, since you seem to value my own opinion over that of trained psychologists, I'll answer that question for you with another question. Is the damaged caused by violent video games greater than the harm caused by the gov't stepping in trying to regulate such things? Then ask yourself the same thing about child molestation and child porn. Be sure to recognize that while violent video games are not illegal, child porn is. Also, be sure to consider if your opinion would change if you had been a victim of either crime.