" 'Second, it doesn't matter if he facilitates illegal file-sharing.'
Bzzt! Depends on context." "If he assisted, he's complicitous. The pawn broker who assists the thief in selling stolen merchandise is an accomplice. "
Bzzt! Irrelevant to the case and the current interpretation of the law ex parte Grokster. Providing the means for illegal P2P filesharing (which is what we mean by facilitating, in this context) is not illegal. Promoting the use of your P2P system to illegally fileshare, however, is illegal.
Please pay attention to the context if you are going to refute my argument based on the fact that it depends on context.
"The pawn broker who assists the thief in selling stolen merchandise is an accomplice. "
According to this example, and your interpretation of the law (as I can see it), then the pawn shop is violating the law simply by being in existence -- since, after all, any item in the shop could be a stolen good.
The difference here is in affirmative action -- does the pawn broker affirmatively take action to assist the thief in illegal activity? If so, he is culpable. Complicity requires willful, knowing action.
In the eDonkey case, there is no affirmative action on the part of eDonkey to promote illegal activity.
"The trouble began with the first wave of TV ads for video games. They'd inevitably portray the player as a spastic in mid-seizure, flailing away on a joystick while jumping and twitching.""
I think there are two reasons for the change.
First, the game grpahics are much better now -- they can focus on portraying the game itself. Back in the day, they had to convey exciting gameplay by depicting excited gamers.
Second, the market has changed. The industry has changed its primary market from kids and teenagers, to young adults and just plain adults. In terms of movies, I think the entertainment industry is just a little behind the curve -- it wasn't so long ago that Twitchy McJump was the typical gamer.
"The acting was so bad in the third I was embarrassed to even be watching it"
I don't think the acting was any better in Episodes 4-6.
The difference was that we were not yet jaded by the setting and story.
What Lucas seemingly failed to realize is that since Return of the Jedi, others have done similar sci-fi movies and stories better. Lucas failed to leap past these other movies, and instead made movies only marginally better than Ep 4-6. Since we expect better movies, in general, we were majorly disappointed.
Absolutely correct. But, the OP was saying that he was culpable because it is reasonable to believe that his intent was to gain popularity by allowing illegal filesharing, which is not how the law is interpreted.
I'm not sure I'd take it so far -- but the concept is the same. Does the hospital promote violence to increase its bottom line? Does the pawn shop promote theft to increase profits? If so, the hospital or pawn shop would be guilty of a crime.
Whether or not the businesses profit from illegal activity is irrelevant to this case. What matters is if they promote illegal activity.
"No reasonable person can claim anything except that his plan to achieve popularity with eDonkey was through facilitating illegal file-sharing.
"
First, I disagree. Plenty of reasonable people could claim otherwise. What may seem obvious to you (and a lot of us other/.ers) may not seem obvious to other reasonable people.
Second, it doesn't matter if he facilitates illegal file-sharing. What matters is if he expressly promotes illegal filesharing, or takes other affirmative steps to foster infringement.
Justice Souter, from the Grokster decision:"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.""
Whether or not his business plans hinged on ease of infringement to gain popularity -- if he didn't promote it, and if he didn't distribute eDonkey with the expressed intent of promoting illegal filesharing, then he would not lose the case.
"What is the ethical problem with executing all the people in jail for life terms? They are otherwise going to die in jail anyways."
How long do you think a life sentence is? I'll give you a hint, it's not until the prisoner dies.
The average prisoner sentenced to "life in prison" is released after about 15 years.
The ethical problem is that though they may be prisoners, and have limited civil rights, they are still humans. They are not property to do with as we wish.
"But the far more common accident AFAIK is actually the converse: you resurface while your lungs still hold air pressurized for 5, 10, 20 metres. Your lungs get stretched (ie they "explode"), and you're in a world of pain."
The lungs, since they are open to the outside, can easily disperse of increased volumes of gas -- this is why divers exhale so much when rising to the surface. I think you are referring to the bends, which is different. The bends are due to the fact that nitrogen is more soluble in blood at higher pressures. As the pressure decreases, nitrogen will precipitate from the blood, forming bubbles that can block blood vessels (particularly capillaries) and damage soft tissue (like nerve tissue -- ouch!). The bends, if serious, can lead to permanent paralysis or death.
By rising to the surface slowly, with lengthy pauses, the nitrogen can be passed from the body as very small, not dangerous bubbles, or by respiration. It's when the drop in pressure is fast that large, dangerous bubbles form.
"3. Don't let your local community decide what should be taught in schools. Curriculum should be decided by a national panel made up of leaders in each field of study. Education should be a national issue, not one decided based on local beliefs no matter how "intelligent" those beliefs are."
It is vital that local systems can determine their own curriculum, within reason. If the national government controls all curriculum, then that curriculum will quickly stagnate. In addition, national curriculum lends itself very easily to mass indoctrination (since everyone will read the same books, etc). As in anything else, we need variation and experimentation with new curriculums that might offer better instruction.
One example of this would be Gifted & Talented programs. Uniform curriculum will quickly erode the opportunities that these programs offer the best and brightest of our students -- this has already happened in many, many school districts.
That said, there need to be national standards to set a minimum level of education.
"Look dude, YOU are the one saying that porn causes harm"
No. Read the thread -- in your original post you claim that porn is harmless. I never claimed it causes harm, I am saying that you cannot assert that it is harmless without better proof that it is so.
"Now, you may want to continue arguing with me over that, but you have a serious burden of proof given the MULTIPLE MILLENNIA that porn has existed side-by-side with civilization without causing any damage"
Just because something has been around for millenia (and that is not even applicable here, since the form has advanced so much over the past century), does not mean that it is harmless. No one would claim that alcohol is harmless -- yet it has been used by humans for millenia.
"Oh no, you would say that there's a POSSIBILITY that saccharin causes harm, at which point I would give you a tinfoil hat.
"
No, because scientifically valid studies have conclusively shown saccharin to be harmless. The difference with porn is that there is not conclusive evidence on either side. Saccharin's effects are easily quantifiable and studiable -- not so with porn. Definitions of 'harm' may vary, since the effects are not purely biological, which also makes it difficult to make conclusive studies.
"If they go overboard and start trampling on peoples' rights, then you can damn sure bet this will go to the Supreme Court."
I believe they have already gone overboard and are trampling people's rights, yet the Supreme Court has not stopped the actions. Guantanamo, "Free Speech Zones," etc.
My problem is not with your viewpoint, since I agree. My problem is that by refusing to acknowledge that the other side DOES have potentially valid points, you are encouraging the other side to do the same.
Also, I just wanted to point out from your previous post, when you pointed out that the restrictions on porn have nothing to do with what's in the bible -- that's exactly why I say we should not allow the "family values" movement to use the Christian label.
"No, you were the first to bring up any idea of fascism and ascribe that to Islamic states.
"
Read your original post. In your post that deals with the issue of repression of personal rights (free speech or what-have-you, as it relates to porn), which is one of the principle aspects of a fascist government, you quite clearly implied that Islamic Republics have this characteristic.
"NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE has been shown that porn harms people"
Not conclusive does not mean no evidence. There is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that porn does not cause harm. Show me a double-blind study of a sufficiently large group that demonstrates that porn does not have the potential to cause harm to the viewers, or those that they have relationships with. I will say it once again, because apparently you keep dismissing it as not true -- LACK OF EVIDENCE AGAINST IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR. Were the research to overwhelmingly find that there is no harm, I could agree with you -- but the research is mixed, and is not conclusive on either side.
"Well, the burden of proof is on YOU to say that it does cause harm, because EVERYTHING ELSE says it doesn't."
I do not want to say that porn causes harm -- I want to say that the jury is still out, and that you cannot claim that it is harmless just because conclusive proof hasn't been offered. Is is absolutely untrue that EVERYTHING ELSE says it is harmless. Why don't you bother actually reviewing some of the research out there? Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true.
"The LACK of evidence saying that it causes harm COMPLETELY justifies my claim that porn is harmless.
"
Dude, did you miss out on the fundamentals of logic? Here's an example of your logic: There is no evidence out there that Compound-x is toxic; we've been studying it for years. Therefore, Compound-x is harmless. Yet how many drugs that have been studied for decades end up being harmful in a way that we didn't understand, or in a way that we didn't think to look for, or that we chose only to look at studies that backed our claim?
Once again, because you can't get it through your thick head:
LACK OF EVIDENCE AGAINST IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR
You cannot claim that porn is harmless. Period. You might be able to say that "All the evidence I've read says it's harmless," but that's nowhere near the same, is it?
RE: government, do you really think that there is any burden of proof anywhere in re: legislation? That's what you keep saying, but it is blatantly not so. I am fully aware of what kinds of things drive legislator's votes, while you seem to ascribe to some ideal that no law like this would be passed without proof. Re: the Supreme Court, do you think what the FBI is doing now will go all the way to the SCOTUS? Obviously, there must be laws on the books that allow them to do this -- why haven't those laws gone to SCOTUS, and if they have, why did SCOTUS uphold them?
"Interesting that people only think posts are trolls if they disagree with them. It's even more interesting in that you can't come up with one good argument against ANYTHING that I've written.
No, I happen to agree with your views, except for your unsubstantiated claim that porn is harmless. I see it as a troll because of all the reasons listed in my first response -- mostly because of the Islamic state implication.
All of my arguments against are good; you just choose not to accept the FACT that you are talking out your bum when you claim that EVERY STUDY shows porn to be harmless. You ignore all the literature out there that contradicts your view, and expect people to think you informed about a subject?
"So you're suggesting that, in a country where you can be DNA-catalogued, arrested, detained and imprisoned without trial without evidence or judicial review of your situation, you should vocally dissent and make yourself a mark? Screw that. That didn't work so well for people in Germany, Russia or China and since we're following suit in practice, it won't work here.
"
It didn't work in in China, at Tiananmen Square? Did not the actions of the protestors bring massive world attention to a problem, and push the Chinese government to institute some reform?
Or how about all the other places where such loud dissent prevented government from going that far?
"As much as I appreciate the advanced concepts of true freedom and autonomy, I prefer the reality of not being disappeared more.
Ignore tyranny to save your own skin? This is the exact attitude that allows fascist governments to take complete control. "Hey, as long as I'm personally doing OK, what does it matter?"
I'm sorry if you feel insulted by this, but you should have posted as an anonymous coward.
"Exactly...what do we do? We vote, but as I voted in the last election, the guy I was voting against still won. OK...now what? I've written to both my congressmen and senators about topics like the National ID and things like this...they write back to me with a form letter stating that they too are concerned, yet they never say one way or another if they're for or against anything. Which leads us back to the voting booth which has lead no where in the past.
"
Legislators have teams of people tracking correspondence like this... and it definitely makes a difference. They rank correspondence according to medium, from emails on the low end to hand-written letters on the highest end.
Organize friends and acquaintances to write letters and make phone calls. Support organizations that lobby for your position(s).
Get the main-stream media involved. Write a letter to the editor, follow up to get it published. Create a group consisting of like-minded people and hold a press conference, send out press releases. It helps if you build a coalition of acitivst groups. Organize protests. Catch your legislators coming out of lunch, and videotape yourself asking them their stances, and their responses.
Voting is not participating in government. Voting is one way of deciding who participates in government. If you want to participate in government, you can... but it takes more than voting, and to be really effective, it takes more than writing a letter.
Remeber, one vote doesn't mean anything to a US legislator. 10,000 votes do. 1,000 votes do.
"Have you ever heard of failure of proof of the negative is not proof of the positive?"
But, you see, that is how most slashdotters justify their arguments. If you take that away, how can we have flamewars about semi-political topics?
Also, I'd like to point out the the Guardian is kinda like the British version of the Weekly World News. Other than the dolphins-with-frickin-poison-darts to sharks-with-frickin-laser-beams comparison, there is really no reson for this article to be/. at all.
" Look if you want light on the freaking bag, why not just make it transparent on one side, or maybe add a stupid PLASTIC WINDOW instead of the solar cell?
"
Becaause most women don't want to be showing off their feminine hygiene products / contraceptive devices / general mess that exists in their handbags.
: "BREE even sees a realistic chance of getting these innovative bags into stores by the coming year - and thus staying one step ahead of the competition as well. Because Axel and Philipp Bree are convinced of one thing: 'In less than five years, interior light will be just as common in handbags as mobile telephones are today.'"
Umm... no. Not unless they can convince all the people who don't carry handbags at all (most men, for example) to start carrying them.
"Eckard Foltin, head of the Creative Center at Bayer Polymers, says the main field of application for this quantum leap in technology is in the automotive industry: "Incandescent lamps in cars will soon be a thing of the past. Instrument panels will be designed to take up less room. The headliner on the interior of a car will glow in a soft, glare-free light and provide a pleasant atmosphere in the passenger compartment."
"
Now this sounds like an application more likely to penetrate deep into the market.
"This is an example of why it's good to have women in engineering/CS programs. Would a guy ever have thought of this?
"
Well, yes, they would. Not to say that more women in engineering/CS programs is not a good thing, but for the purpose of imporving handbags? That's a very sexist stance that misses the whole point of having women in engineering*.
That purpose, of course, is to provide targets for slashdotters' awkward advances;)
"This is just further proof that highly complex forms suited to particular functionality don't just happen randomly."
(emhpasis mine)
Yes, a rectangle to fit in a rectangular pocket and a circle because it is symmetrical on all axes and can therefore revolve... highly complex forms.
C'mon now, we all know that such forms could have evolved all on their own.
Any day now, atechogenesis will be demonstrated in vitro.
You are right, but this is exactly why, as members of society, need to act to mitigate the "profit only" actions that corporations take. We need to make it unprofitable for them to take actions we don't agree with.
"I thought it was fairly obvious that I was using the fact that looking at porn and/or wanking is harmless to the consenting adult individual "
But, you are assuming it is harmless to the individual. Not only that, but you cannot infer that harmless to the individual = harmless to society.
"No, we do not prohibit expression "all the time", only when it presents imminent danger to others. Porn does nothing of the sort."
No, we prohibit expression that presents an imminent danger all the time -- that is what I'm saying. Also, you are again assuming porn causes no harm. Lack of evidence against != evidence of.
"SOME people do, therefore 'people do'."
But your argument is predicated on all people using porn that way, or at least a majority. ~Some pork is not infected with trichinosis or salmonella -- therefore we shouldn't have any regulations concerning food cleanliness? You have to consider all people, not just some people.
"The idea is for someone to have to seek it out rather than be bombarded with messages about it that may reach people who a) are offended by the message enough to seek to curtail freedoms because of that offense, or b) are not adults"
If porn is harmless, then neither a nor b are valid. Regarding a, that you are saying that we should curtail freedom so that other people don't act to curtail freedom? This argument is used to justify tons of government restrictions, and I don't think it's valid there either.
"Children are going to be exposed to adult things now and again, but parents should be able to keep that exposure minimized until they have developed the rationality to moderate themselves."
The assumption here is Children are going to be exposed to adult things now and again, but parents should be able to keep that exposure minimized until they have developed the rationality to moderate themselves.
So you are advocating restrictions on it -- why, if it is harmless and presents no iminent danger?
"Legalization of drugs should adopt the same approach I think. And that includes banning alcohol, cigarette and other direct-to-consumer drug advertising except in venues where it is clear that only adults will be present."
Except, of course, that these are things that have been proven to be harmful. Why should porn be treated the same as these things, if it is not harmful?
"There are no "fascist" values ascribed here towards Islamic states, unless YOU put them here yourself."
No, you ascribe and imply the repression of free speech to an Islamic state.
"This is totally off-topic. Stick to the topic.
"
Off-topic? You brought it into play... deal with it.
"While people can use the Bible to justify just about anything, the fact that they ARE using the Bible DOES make this an argument based on Christian values.
"
Ar ethey using the bible? Did the FBI say that they are using the bible as guidance? By allowing the discussion with them to continue under the assumptian that it's based on the Bible, you allow them the argument that their position is irrefutable, since it's a matter of faith.
"The burden of proof is on the people making the claim that porn causes harm. And despite DECADES of research, they have been completely UNABLE to substantiate said claim. "
My point is not that porn causes harm -- my point is that you offered an unsubstantiated claim as evidence for your argument -- don't do that, since it's exactly what they are doing that you have such a problem with. And there is no burden of proof required, all that is required is for a majority of lawmakers to think it causes harm. You don't really understand the US governmental system, do you?
"not thought out"... an assumption on your part. I've thought about, studied this topic, and argued over this for many years. I've argued about this starting on Usenet back in 1993. If anything, I am impatient in my arguments, citing my conclusions before making my case.
"not thought out"... an assumption on your part. I've thought about, studied this topic, and argued over this for many years. I've argued about this starting on Usenet back in 1993. If anything, I am impatient in my arguments, citing my conclusions before making my case.
"
I didn't say that your stances were not well thought out, I said your post was.
And I could really care less that you've been arguing about this topic since 1993 on Usenet -- what does that make you, some kind of UBER1337 arguer?
You posted a troll, and even if it happens to agree with the views of most slashdotters, it was a troll.
"If porn depicting these acts is made illegal, do you think it will still be legal to publicly (even on a membership-based website) seek out another adult for such purposes?"
Yes, but it's a slippery slope, and it wouldn't be too hard for government to take the nextstep if we allow it. But, I do think that both the porn and the seeking out of partners should be legal.
"I think it was understood that he meant not harmful to adults. Therefore regulations against offering porn magazines in the book pile at daycare centers would seem appropriate.
"
Point taken. But if porn were truly harmless, then we would allow children to see it... or leave it up to the parents, not the state, to decide.
"I think the plan should be to point out the same sorts of flaws in their reasoning. Unfortunately, most christian evangelicals and other fundamentalists that I've had the misfortune of interacting with are largely immune to logic and reason.
Slashdot Mirror
" 'Second, it doesn't matter if he facilitates illegal file-sharing.'
Bzzt! Depends on context."
"If he assisted, he's complicitous. The pawn broker who assists the thief in selling stolen merchandise is an accomplice. "
Bzzt! Irrelevant to the case and the current interpretation of the law ex parte Grokster. Providing the means for illegal P2P filesharing (which is what we mean by facilitating, in this context) is not illegal. Promoting the use of your P2P system to illegally fileshare, however, is illegal.
Please pay attention to the context if you are going to refute my argument based on the fact that it depends on context.
"The pawn broker who assists the thief in selling stolen merchandise is an accomplice. "
According to this example, and your interpretation of the law (as I can see it), then the pawn shop is violating the law simply by being in existence -- since, after all, any item in the shop could be a stolen good.
The difference here is in affirmative action -- does the pawn broker affirmatively take action to assist the thief in illegal activity? If so, he is culpable. Complicity requires willful, knowing action.
In the eDonkey case, there is no affirmative action on the part of eDonkey to promote illegal activity.
"The trouble began with the first wave of TV ads for video games. They'd inevitably portray the player as a spastic in mid-seizure, flailing away on a joystick while jumping and twitching.""
I think there are two reasons for the change.
First, the game grpahics are much better now -- they can focus on portraying the game itself. Back in the day, they had to convey exciting gameplay by depicting excited gamers.
Second, the market has changed. The industry has changed its primary market from kids and teenagers, to young adults and just plain adults. In terms of movies, I think the entertainment industry is just a little behind the curve -- it wasn't so long ago that Twitchy McJump was the typical gamer.
"The acting was so bad in the third I was embarrassed to even be watching it"
I don't think the acting was any better in Episodes 4-6.
The difference was that we were not yet jaded by the setting and story.
What Lucas seemingly failed to realize is that since Return of the Jedi, others have done similar sci-fi movies and stories better. Lucas failed to leap past these other movies, and instead made movies only marginally better than Ep 4-6. Since we expect better movies, in general, we were majorly disappointed.
Absolutely correct. But, the OP was saying that he was culpable because it is reasonable to believe that his intent was to gain popularity by allowing illegal filesharing, which is not how the law is interpreted.
I'm not sure I'd take it so far -- but the concept is the same. Does the hospital promote violence to increase its bottom line? Does the pawn shop promote theft to increase profits? If so, the hospital or pawn shop would be guilty of a crime.
Whether or not the businesses profit from illegal activity is irrelevant to this case. What matters is if they promote illegal activity.
"Ah, but can you prove that in court? OJ got off with more evidence against him than you have on eDonkey. "
If the file don't transmit,
You must acquit.
"No reasonable person can claim anything except that his plan to achieve popularity with eDonkey was through facilitating illegal file-sharing. "
/.ers) may not seem obvious to other reasonable people.
First, I disagree. Plenty of reasonable people could claim otherwise. What may seem obvious to you (and a lot of us other
Second, it doesn't matter if he facilitates illegal file-sharing. What matters is if he expressly promotes illegal filesharing, or takes other affirmative steps to foster infringement.
Justice Souter, from the Grokster decision:"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.""
Whether or not his business plans hinged on ease of infringement to gain popularity -- if he didn't promote it, and if he didn't distribute eDonkey with the expressed intent of promoting illegal filesharing, then he would not lose the case.
"What is the ethical problem with executing all the people in jail for life terms? They are otherwise going to die in jail anyways."
How long do you think a life sentence is? I'll give you a hint, it's not until the prisoner dies.
The average prisoner sentenced to "life in prison" is released after about 15 years.
The ethical problem is that though they may be prisoners, and have limited civil rights, they are still humans. They are not property to do with as we wish.
"if you HOLD your breath, you will suffer from what those of us in the biz refer to as 'Lung Pop'"
Yikes. Is that anything like a Pudding Pop?
"But the far more common accident AFAIK is actually the converse: you resurface while your lungs still hold air pressurized for 5, 10, 20 metres. Your lungs get stretched (ie they "explode"), and you're in a world of pain."
The lungs, since they are open to the outside, can easily disperse of increased volumes of gas -- this is why divers exhale so much when rising to the surface. I think you are referring to the bends, which is different. The bends are due to the fact that nitrogen is more soluble in blood at higher pressures. As the pressure decreases, nitrogen will precipitate from the blood, forming bubbles that can block blood vessels (particularly capillaries) and damage soft tissue (like nerve tissue -- ouch!). The bends, if serious, can lead to permanent paralysis or death.
By rising to the surface slowly, with lengthy pauses, the nitrogen can be passed from the body as very small, not dangerous bubbles, or by respiration. It's when the drop in pressure is fast that large, dangerous bubbles form.
Yes, yes, yes, and more yes... except:
"3. Don't let your local community decide what should be taught in schools. Curriculum should be decided by a national panel made up of leaders in each field of study. Education should be a national issue, not one decided based on local beliefs no matter how "intelligent" those beliefs are."
It is vital that local systems can determine their own curriculum, within reason. If the national government controls all curriculum, then that curriculum will quickly stagnate. In addition, national curriculum lends itself very easily to mass indoctrination (since everyone will read the same books, etc). As in anything else, we need variation and experimentation with new curriculums that might offer better instruction.
One example of this would be Gifted & Talented programs. Uniform curriculum will quickly erode the opportunities that these programs offer the best and brightest of our students -- this has already happened in many, many school districts.
That said, there need to be national standards to set a minimum level of education.
"Look dude, YOU are the one saying that porn causes harm"
No. Read the thread -- in your original post you claim that porn is harmless. I never claimed it causes harm, I am saying that you cannot assert that it is harmless without better proof that it is so.
"Now, you may want to continue arguing with me over that, but you have a serious burden of proof given the MULTIPLE MILLENNIA that porn has existed side-by-side with civilization without causing any damage"
Just because something has been around for millenia (and that is not even applicable here, since the form has advanced so much over the past century), does not mean that it is harmless. No one would claim that alcohol is harmless -- yet it has been used by humans for millenia.
"Oh no, you would say that there's a POSSIBILITY that saccharin causes harm, at which point I would give you a tinfoil hat. "
No, because scientifically valid studies have conclusively shown saccharin to be harmless. The difference with porn is that there is not conclusive evidence on either side. Saccharin's effects are easily quantifiable and studiable -- not so with porn. Definitions of 'harm' may vary, since the effects are not purely biological, which also makes it difficult to make conclusive studies.
"If they go overboard and start trampling on peoples' rights, then you can damn sure bet this will go to the Supreme Court."
I believe they have already gone overboard and are trampling people's rights, yet the Supreme Court has not stopped the actions. Guantanamo, "Free Speech Zones," etc.
My problem is not with your viewpoint, since I agree. My problem is that by refusing to acknowledge that the other side DOES have potentially valid points, you are encouraging the other side to do the same.
Also, I just wanted to point out from your previous post, when you pointed out that the restrictions on porn have nothing to do with what's in the bible -- that's exactly why I say we should not allow the "family values" movement to use the Christian label.
"No, you were the first to bring up any idea of fascism and ascribe that to Islamic states. "
Read your original post. In your post that deals with the issue of repression of personal rights (free speech or what-have-you, as it relates to porn), which is one of the principle aspects of a fascist government, you quite clearly implied that Islamic Republics have this characteristic.
"NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE has been shown that porn harms people"
Not conclusive does not mean no evidence. There is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that porn does not cause harm. Show me a double-blind study of a sufficiently large group that demonstrates that porn does not have the potential to cause harm to the viewers, or those that they have relationships with. I will say it once again, because apparently you keep dismissing it as not true -- LACK OF EVIDENCE AGAINST IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR. Were the research to overwhelmingly find that there is no harm, I could agree with you -- but the research is mixed, and is not conclusive on either side.
"Well, the burden of proof is on YOU to say that it does cause harm, because EVERYTHING ELSE says it doesn't."
I do not want to say that porn causes harm -- I want to say that the jury is still out, and that you cannot claim that it is harmless just because conclusive proof hasn't been offered. Is is absolutely untrue that EVERYTHING ELSE says it is harmless. Why don't you bother actually reviewing some of the research out there? Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true.
"The LACK of evidence saying that it causes harm COMPLETELY justifies my claim that porn is harmless. "
Dude, did you miss out on the fundamentals of logic? Here's an example of your logic: There is no evidence out there that Compound-x is toxic; we've been studying it for years. Therefore, Compound-x is harmless. Yet how many drugs that have been studied for decades end up being harmful in a way that we didn't understand, or in a way that we didn't think to look for, or that we chose only to look at studies that backed our claim?
Once again, because you can't get it through your thick head:
LACK OF EVIDENCE AGAINST IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR
You cannot claim that porn is harmless. Period. You might be able to say that "All the evidence I've read says it's harmless," but that's nowhere near the same, is it?
RE: government, do you really think that there is any burden of proof anywhere in re: legislation? That's what you keep saying, but it is blatantly not so. I am fully aware of what kinds of things drive legislator's votes, while you seem to ascribe to some ideal that no law like this would be passed without proof. Re: the Supreme Court, do you think what the FBI is doing now will go all the way to the SCOTUS? Obviously, there must be laws on the books that allow them to do this -- why haven't those laws gone to SCOTUS, and if they have, why did SCOTUS uphold them?
"Interesting that people only think posts are trolls if they disagree with them. It's even more interesting in that you can't come up with one good argument against ANYTHING that I've written.
No, I happen to agree with your views, except for your unsubstantiated claim that porn is harmless. I see it as a troll because of all the reasons listed in my first response -- mostly because of the Islamic state implication.
All of my arguments against are good; you just choose not to accept the FACT that you are talking out your bum when you claim that EVERY STUDY shows porn to be harmless. You ignore all the literature out there that contradicts your view, and expect people to think you informed about a subject?
Thanks, missed that :)
"So you're suggesting that, in a country where you can be DNA-catalogued, arrested, detained and imprisoned without trial without evidence or judicial review of your situation, you should vocally dissent and make yourself a mark? Screw that. That didn't work so well for people in Germany, Russia or China and since we're following suit in practice, it won't work here. "
It didn't work in in China, at Tiananmen Square? Did not the actions of the protestors bring massive world attention to a problem, and push the Chinese government to institute some reform?
Or how about all the other places where such loud dissent prevented government from going that far?
"As much as I appreciate the advanced concepts of true freedom and autonomy, I prefer the reality of not being disappeared more.
Ignore tyranny to save your own skin? This is the exact attitude that allows fascist governments to take complete control. "Hey, as long as I'm personally doing OK, what does it matter?"
I'm sorry if you feel insulted by this, but you should have posted as an anonymous coward.
"Exactly...what do we do? We vote, but as I voted in the last election, the guy I was voting against still won. OK...now what? I've written to both my congressmen and senators about topics like the National ID and things like this...they write back to me with a form letter stating that they too are concerned, yet they never say one way or another if they're for or against anything. Which leads us back to the voting booth which has lead no where in the past. "
Legislators have teams of people tracking correspondence like this... and it definitely makes a difference. They rank correspondence according to medium, from emails on the low end to hand-written letters on the highest end.
Contact info for US Congress people available here:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
What else can you do?
Organize friends and acquaintances to write letters and make phone calls. Support organizations that lobby for your position(s).
Get the main-stream media involved. Write a letter to the editor, follow up to get it published. Create a group consisting of like-minded people and hold a press conference, send out press releases. It helps if you build a coalition of acitivst groups. Organize protests. Catch your legislators coming out of lunch, and videotape yourself asking them their stances, and their responses.
Voting is not participating in government. Voting is one way of deciding who participates in government. If you want to participate in government, you can... but it takes more than voting, and to be really effective, it takes more than writing a letter.
Remeber, one vote doesn't mean anything to a US legislator. 10,000 votes do. 1,000 votes do.
"Have you ever heard of failure of proof of the negative is not proof of the positive?"
/. at all.
But, you see, that is how most slashdotters justify their arguments. If you take that away, how can we have flamewars about semi-political topics?
Also, I'd like to point out the the Guardian is kinda like the British version of the Weekly World News. Other than the dolphins-with-frickin-poison-darts to sharks-with-frickin-laser-beams comparison, there is really no reson for this article to be
"But this is something aimed at women. Why is it on Slashdot, unless someone needs a gift for their mother or sister. "
Because the technology itself is pretty cool.
Luminescent fabric -- tons of apps that I'm sure are in the pipeline.
" Look if you want light on the freaking bag, why not just make it transparent on one side, or maybe add a stupid PLASTIC WINDOW instead of the solar cell? "
Becaause most women don't want to be showing off their feminine hygiene products / contraceptive devices / general mess that exists in their handbags.
"Sounds useful."
a /lighted_handbag.htm
;)
From http://inventors.about.com/cs/inventionsalphabet/
:
"BREE even sees a realistic chance of getting these innovative bags into stores by the coming year - and thus staying one step ahead of the competition as well. Because Axel and Philipp Bree are convinced of one thing: 'In less than five years, interior light will be just as common in handbags as mobile telephones are today.'"
Umm... no. Not unless they can convince all the people who don't carry handbags at all (most men, for example) to start carrying them.
"Eckard Foltin, head of the Creative Center at Bayer Polymers, says the main field of application for this quantum leap in technology is in the automotive industry: "Incandescent lamps in cars will soon be a thing of the past. Instrument panels will be designed to take up less room. The headliner on the interior of a car will glow in a soft, glare-free light and provide a pleasant atmosphere in the passenger compartment." "
Now this sounds like an application more likely to penetrate deep into the market.
"This is an example of why it's good to have women in engineering/CS programs. Would a guy ever have thought of this? "
Well, yes, they would. Not to say that more women in engineering/CS programs is not a good thing, but for the purpose of imporving handbags? That's a very sexist stance that misses the whole point of having women in engineering*.
That purpose, of course, is to provide targets for slashdotters' awkward advances
"This is just further proof that highly complex forms suited to particular functionality don't just happen randomly."
(emhpasis mine) Yes, a rectangle to fit in a rectangular pocket and a circle because it is symmetrical on all axes and can therefore revolve... highly complex forms.
C'mon now, we all know that such forms could have evolved all on their own.
Any day now, atechogenesis will be demonstrated in vitro.
You are right, but this is exactly why, as members of society, need to act to mitigate the "profit only" actions that corporations take. We need to make it unprofitable for them to take actions we don't agree with.
"I thought it was fairly obvious that I was using the fact that looking at porn and/or wanking is harmless to the consenting adult individual "
But, you are assuming it is harmless to the individual. Not only that, but you cannot infer that harmless to the individual = harmless to society.
"No, we do not prohibit expression "all the time", only when it presents imminent danger to others. Porn does nothing of the sort."
No, we prohibit expression that presents an imminent danger all the time -- that is what I'm saying. Also, you are again assuming porn causes no harm. Lack of evidence against != evidence of.
"SOME people do, therefore 'people do'."
But your argument is predicated on all people using porn that way, or at least a majority. ~Some pork is not infected with trichinosis or salmonella -- therefore we shouldn't have any regulations concerning food cleanliness? You have to consider all people, not just some people.
"The idea is for someone to have to seek it out rather than be bombarded with messages about it that may reach people who a) are offended by the message enough to seek to curtail freedoms because of that offense, or b) are not adults"
If porn is harmless, then neither a nor b are valid. Regarding a, that you are saying that we should curtail freedom so that other people don't act to curtail freedom? This argument is used to justify tons of government restrictions, and I don't think it's valid there either.
"Children are going to be exposed to adult things now and again, but parents should be able to keep that exposure minimized until they have developed the rationality to moderate themselves."
The assumption here is Children are going to be exposed to adult things now and again, but parents should be able to keep that exposure minimized until they have developed the rationality to moderate themselves.
So you are advocating restrictions on it -- why, if it is harmless and presents no iminent danger?
"Legalization of drugs should adopt the same approach I think. And that includes banning alcohol, cigarette and other direct-to-consumer drug advertising except in venues where it is clear that only adults will be present."
Except, of course, that these are things that have been proven to be harmful. Why should porn be treated the same as these things, if it is not harmful?
"There are no "fascist" values ascribed here towards Islamic states, unless YOU put them here yourself."
No, you ascribe and imply the repression of free speech to an Islamic state.
"This is totally off-topic. Stick to the topic. "
Off-topic? You brought it into play... deal with it.
"While people can use the Bible to justify just about anything, the fact that they ARE using the Bible DOES make this an argument based on Christian values. "
Ar ethey using the bible? Did the FBI say that they are using the bible as guidance? By allowing the discussion with them to continue under the assumptian that it's based on the Bible, you allow them the argument that their position is irrefutable, since it's a matter of faith.
"The burden of proof is on the people making the claim that porn causes harm. And despite DECADES of research, they have been completely UNABLE to substantiate said claim. "
My point is not that porn causes harm -- my point is that you offered an unsubstantiated claim as evidence for your argument -- don't do that, since it's exactly what they are doing that you have such a problem with. And there is no burden of proof required, all that is required is for a majority of lawmakers to think it causes harm. You don't really understand the US governmental system, do you?
"not thought out"... an assumption on your part. I've thought about, studied this topic, and argued over this for many years. I've argued about this starting on Usenet back in 1993. If anything, I am impatient in my arguments, citing my conclusions before making my case. "not thought out"... an assumption on your part. I've thought about, studied this topic, and argued over this for many years. I've argued about this starting on Usenet back in 1993. If anything, I am impatient in my arguments, citing my conclusions before making my case. "
I didn't say that your stances were not well thought out, I said your post was.
And I could really care less that you've been arguing about this topic since 1993 on Usenet -- what does that make you, some kind of UBER1337 arguer?
You posted a troll, and even if it happens to agree with the views of most slashdotters, it was a troll.
"If porn depicting these acts is made illegal, do you think it will still be legal to publicly (even on a membership-based website) seek out another adult for such purposes?"
Yes, but it's a slippery slope, and it wouldn't be too hard for government to take the nextstep if we allow it. But, I do think that both the porn and the seeking out of partners should be legal.
"I think it was understood that he meant not harmful to adults. Therefore regulations against offering porn magazines in the book pile at daycare centers would seem appropriate. "
Point taken. But if porn were truly harmless, then we would allow children to see it... or leave it up to the parents, not the state, to decide.
"I think the plan should be to point out the same sorts of flaws in their reasoning. Unfortunately, most christian evangelicals and other fundamentalists that I've had the misfortune of interacting with are largely immune to logic and reason.
Well said.