There's been talk about that in Sweden recently after someone found out that some people had role played as minors on Second Life. They wanted to criminalize it but i don't know what happened with the whole thing.
It is not entirely about population or population density. There's almost as much people in London as there are people in the whole of Sweden. UK people should on average have better internet access than us swedes.
Population: Sweden: 9,2 million UK: 60 million (7 million in London)
Land area: Sweden: 450 000 square kilometer UK: 245 000 square kilometer
Population density: Sweden: 20 individuals / square kilometer UK: 250 individuals / square kilometer US: 30 individuals / square kilometers (still there should be enough people in the big cities to support some insane broadband)
Obviously my point is that just because something is said on the internet doesn't mean it isn't said in the real world, because internet and the real world are connected.
Retarded argument. If a man were to sexually harass a woman by, for example, saying very dirty things to her IN PRIVATE. Then what has just been said was IN PRIVATE just as someone said on the INTERNET was said... Pretty much on the INTERNET. The fact that it was said in private, or on the internet, does not make the statement, for any reason, just disappear. The internet is not a separate world from reality, just like someone telling you something in private is not a separate world from reality.
... I was getting curious about how many times i had actually loaned a particular book so i asked the librarian if she could look it up. What did she do? She said "no go, mr!" (well not exactly, but you get the drift). Why? Because once a book is returned they're not legally allowed to store who loaned it. Basically they can't make lists of who loaned specific books because the names connected are removed once the book is returned.
>> So what's the difference between a government taking all your money and telling you what to do, and a handful of corporations taking all your money and telling you what to do?
Well one system lets you vote, the other doesn't...
>> The fact is that for a monkey to mutate into a human, the number of individual genetic mutations would be large, >> and the probability that it would have more than one 'beneficial' mutation is low. Also, don't two such species >> need to have the same mutation in order to reproduce with eachother (as per my understanding, part of the definition >> of a new species is that it can only procreate with a species of it's own kind).
You're a bit wrong here.
First of all, a single mutation does NOT make a new species. For a new species to happen, one group of the original species must be divided in two and then prevented from mating with eachother. That way a mutation can appear in one group but not in the other, and if enough mutations amass, we could call it a new species as they would no longer be able to produce fertile offspring.
Imagine that you somehow isolated the entire american continent from the rest of the world. No humans from outside would move in, nor would anyone from the inside be able to move out. That's essentially what you need to create a new species out of us humans. You'd need to keep one group isolated so that they would not mix their mutations with ours. If that is allowed to go on long enough, the differences between the two groups would be big enough to prevent the groups from mixing.
Secondly, mutations can be propagated even if only one individual has it. It depends on if the gene the mutation is stored in is recessive or dominant.
The slippery slope argument doesn't really work here. Censorship of child pornography doesn't necessarily lead to a totalitarian state, and in fact the push towards censoring child pornography has coincided with a greater tolerance of other types of pornography in established democracies.
That is actually wrong. Japan has the most lax laws against child pornography of any of the "civilized" countries. Possession, for example, isn't illegal though distribution is. Distribution of child pornographic drawings, on the other hand, is legal, and there is a considerable market. Incidentally, japan also produces a crap load of porn in general, and the nation has a history of porn (look at some of the old japanese woodcuts). In fact, the country was also target of a scientific study that showed that the availability of porn might actually be the reason why Japan's rape frequency is so low.
I'm not going to comment on the other part of your post as i mostly agree with it.
As for your statement on the slippery slope, i feel that the GP does have a point even if his way of going about to present it is wrong. It's not about a police state, it's about a bad precedent. For example, the UK has banned child porn, and has now banned violent porn in general (actual possession of it). I wouldn't be surprised if they actually went on and banned vanilla porn in five or ten years or so. It can't be done outright, though. They need to sneak in that kind of legislation in other ways... Like this:
Sweden is in the same position as many of the supporters of a recent change in the child porn law actively wants to affect the "porn consumers" to stay away from porn with women younger than 20-25. This was nearly stated outright when concern was raised about the fact that the law bans pornographic images that LOOK like the models could be underage (that is below 18). Their reply was basically: "We would prefer if consumers moved to older models" (paraphrased). It's not about protecting children any longer or if it is, it's very misguided.
>>I keep on seeing regulations on "hate speech" and "racial hatred" referenced in Europe, an dwas just struck by the similarity to gun control efforts in the US. Specifically, there is a problem (violent crime/racial tension) with a root cause (poverty and historical discrimination/current discrimination and a history of sectarianism and ethnic pogroms), and the leaders are chasing after the tools (guns/speech) instead of the actors or the causes.
I don't know. From the way i get it, US is vastly different in terms of immigrants compared to europe. African americans are mostly christians and have lived in the country for a long time. Hispanics are also christian and the chinese and italians who migrated there are NOT muslim. Europe is suffering from having immigrants who are mostly:
1: Recent immigrants 2: Muslim
Basically, they have not yet managed to socially adapt and there is a history of cultural violence among them. It is not uncommon with women getting murdered for having done something abhorrent to their "family values" or whatever bullshit excuses they use. Either way, i'd say that christians would adapt better to moving into a country with other christians than muslims would.
This is why racism is growing, atleast in sweden. It does not help that the government keeps allowing these people in and then having totally ass backwards policies of kicking people out again who have gone through the public school system (but letting many who haven't stay here and live on welfare).
Either way, we've seen what hate speech can do. Germany. We've seen what history falsification can do (neonazis). This is why there are laws against hate speech. I admit it some of it is excessive and really, misinformation should be fought with CORRECT information, but it's a very hard thing to do and would probably cost more money than fighting the lies in their cradle.
The potential good of the filter is outweighted by the harm it will cause. I say "potential" good because the filter isn't going to stop child porn at all. Imagine a room with a dozen windows and atleast one door. Imagine the child porn as a pile of gold or some such in the center of this room. Now picture someone closing this door, nailing it shut and building a brick wall infront of it. That's the child porn filter. They didn't bother doing anything about the windows, though.
No the list will be secret so that it will be impossible to discern which sites are on the list. If someone DOES get their hands on the list and dares to post it somewhere, that site will likely be added to the child porn filter as well. Don't believe me? Read up on the finnish version of this kind of filter.
This is the same as the swedish situation. One of the most vocal people in support of extended child pornography laws and filtering is also one of the people behind The Piratebay fiasco a few years ago. He's strongly against filesharing. And yes, the swedish child porn filter has been used to block The Piratebay until someone noticed and it got a little messy for a while.
They are already attacking fetish porn in the UK. Possession of "violent porn" is now illegal and could land you in jail. Of course the definition is so vague that it could pretty much include bondage porn. Child pornographic drawings are soon banned according to the next law in line and i'm sure it's just going to get worse.
You got that wrong. By that time's standard, witch burning itself wasn't a crime and thus not a result of "corrupt media". It was the witches who were "corrupt" and had to be "dealt" with. It's not a valid comparison. If anything, the game haters are probably the descendants of the people who used to spend their time roasting witches over open fire.
>>The truth is that Meghan talking to the person on the other end in that way was just wrong
Why? Why is it "just wrong"? It is "just wrong" the same way wearing too "western" clothes is "just wrong" for girls to do in many middle eastern families in europe?
It was stupid, yes. Wrong? Well who are we to judge.
Now that the government has already increased the amount of child pornography in circulation (by widening the definition of child porn to encompass drawings) they can use that to claim that increased surveillance is needed. They have another expansion for the law in plans as well, that makes porn with adults illegal if one of the participants looks like she's underage (even if she is over 18). A law that will create even more "pedophiles" and "sex criminals". A perfect excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
There's been talk about that in Sweden recently after someone found out that some people had role played as minors on Second Life. They wanted to criminalize it but i don't know what happened with the whole thing.
... They had in the stone age, right?
It is not entirely about population or population density. There's almost as much people in London as there are people in the whole of Sweden. UK people should on average have better internet access than us swedes.
Population:
Sweden: 9,2 million
UK: 60 million (7 million in London)
Land area:
Sweden: 450 000 square kilometer
UK: 245 000 square kilometer
Population density:
Sweden: 20 individuals / square kilometer
UK: 250 individuals / square kilometer
US: 30 individuals / square kilometers (still there should be enough people in the big cities to support some insane broadband)
(numbers from wikipedia)
I meant that Hexen II needs a sequel. I just avoided using the title Hexen II as i think that game is inferior to the first one. But thanks anyway.
I agree. Hexen needs a sequel badly. I still play the first game now and then.
Obviously my point is that just because something is said on the internet doesn't mean it isn't said in the real world, because internet and the real world are connected.
Retarded argument. If a man were to sexually harass a woman by, for example, saying very dirty things to her IN PRIVATE. Then what has just been said was IN PRIVATE just as someone said on the INTERNET was said... Pretty much on the INTERNET. The fact that it was said in private, or on the internet, does not make the statement, for any reason, just disappear. The internet is not a separate world from reality, just like someone telling you something in private is not a separate world from reality.
... I was getting curious about how many times i had actually loaned a particular book so i asked the librarian if she could look it up. What did she do? She said "no go, mr!" (well not exactly, but you get the drift). Why? Because once a book is returned they're not legally allowed to store who loaned it. Basically they can't make lists of who loaned specific books because the names connected are removed once the book is returned.
Synthesizers by swedish synth maker Clavia actually cost more to buy here in Sweden than they do in the US. And they're BUILT in sweden.
>> So what's the difference between a government taking all your money and telling you what to do, and a handful of corporations taking all your money and telling you what to do?
Well one system lets you vote, the other doesn't...
>> The fact is that for a monkey to mutate into a human, the number of individual genetic mutations would be large,
>> and the probability that it would have more than one 'beneficial' mutation is low. Also, don't two such species
>> need to have the same mutation in order to reproduce with eachother (as per my understanding, part of the definition
>> of a new species is that it can only procreate with a species of it's own kind).
You're a bit wrong here.
First of all, a single mutation does NOT make a new species. For a new species to happen, one group of the original species must be divided in two and then prevented from mating with eachother. That way a mutation can appear in one group but not in the other, and if enough mutations amass, we could call it a new species as they would no longer be able to produce fertile offspring.
Imagine that you somehow isolated the entire american continent from the rest of the world. No humans from outside would move in, nor would anyone from the inside be able to move out. That's essentially what you need to create a new species out of us humans. You'd need to keep one group isolated so that they would not mix their mutations with ours. If that is allowed to go on long enough, the differences between the two groups would be big enough to prevent the groups from mixing.
Secondly, mutations can be propagated even if only one individual has it. It depends on if the gene the mutation is stored in is recessive or dominant.
Your comparison is clever, but ultimately just a waste of time.
Evolution has evidence on its side.
Creationism doesn't.
Whose need? You say people need to die, but according to who?
The slippery slope argument doesn't really work here. Censorship of child pornography doesn't necessarily lead to a totalitarian state, and in fact the push towards censoring child pornography has coincided with a greater tolerance of other types of pornography in established democracies.
That is actually wrong. Japan has the most lax laws against child pornography of any of the "civilized" countries. Possession, for example, isn't illegal though distribution is. Distribution of child pornographic drawings, on the other hand, is legal, and there is a considerable market. Incidentally, japan also produces a crap load of porn in general, and the nation has a history of porn (look at some of the old japanese woodcuts). In fact, the country was also target of a scientific study that showed that the availability of porn might actually be the reason why Japan's rape frequency is so low.
I'm not going to comment on the other part of your post as i mostly agree with it.
As for your statement on the slippery slope, i feel that the GP does have a point even if his way of going about to present it is wrong. It's not about a police state, it's about a bad precedent. For example, the UK has banned child porn, and has now banned violent porn in general (actual possession of it). I wouldn't be surprised if they actually went on and banned vanilla porn in five or ten years or so. It can't be done outright, though. They need to sneak in that kind of legislation in other ways... Like this:
Sweden is in the same position as many of the supporters of a recent change in the child porn law actively wants to affect the "porn consumers" to stay away from porn with women younger than 20-25. This was nearly stated outright when concern was raised about the fact that the law bans pornographic images that LOOK like the models could be underage (that is below 18). Their reply was basically: "We would prefer if consumers moved to older models" (paraphrased). It's not about protecting children any longer or if it is, it's very misguided.
>>I keep on seeing regulations on "hate speech" and "racial hatred" referenced in Europe, an dwas just struck by the similarity to gun control efforts in the US. Specifically, there is a problem (violent crime/racial tension) with a root cause (poverty and historical discrimination/current discrimination and a history of sectarianism and ethnic pogroms), and the leaders are chasing after the tools (guns/speech) instead of the actors or the causes.
I don't know. From the way i get it, US is vastly different in terms of immigrants compared to europe. African americans are mostly christians and have lived in the country for a long time. Hispanics are also christian and the chinese and italians who migrated there are NOT muslim. Europe is suffering from having immigrants who are mostly:
1: Recent immigrants
2: Muslim
Basically, they have not yet managed to socially adapt and there is a history of cultural violence among them. It is not uncommon with women getting murdered for having done something abhorrent to their "family values" or whatever bullshit excuses they use. Either way, i'd say that christians would adapt better to moving into a country with other christians than muslims would.
This is why racism is growing, atleast in sweden. It does not help that the government keeps allowing these people in and then having totally ass backwards policies of kicking people out again who have gone through the public school system (but letting many who haven't stay here and live on welfare).
Either way, we've seen what hate speech can do. Germany. We've seen what history falsification can do (neonazis). This is why there are laws against hate speech. I admit it some of it is excessive and really, misinformation should be fought with CORRECT information, but it's a very hard thing to do and would probably cost more money than fighting the lies in their cradle.
The potential good of the filter is outweighted by the harm it will cause. I say "potential" good because the filter isn't going to stop child porn at all. Imagine a room with a dozen windows and atleast one door. Imagine the child porn as a pile of gold or some such in the center of this room. Now picture someone closing this door, nailing it shut and building a brick wall infront of it. That's the child porn filter. They didn't bother doing anything about the windows, though.
No the list will be secret so that it will be impossible to discern which sites are on the list. If someone DOES get their hands on the list and dares to post it somewhere, that site will likely be added to the child porn filter as well. Don't believe me? Read up on the finnish version of this kind of filter.
This is the same as the swedish situation. One of the most vocal people in support of extended child pornography laws and filtering is also one of the people behind The Piratebay fiasco a few years ago. He's strongly against filesharing. And yes, the swedish child porn filter has been used to block The Piratebay until someone noticed and it got a little messy for a while.
That is like saying that murder is good because it teaches people that death is bad.
What about japan? They have extremely strict gun laws, as far as i remember, and very low rates of violent crime compared to other countries.
They are already attacking fetish porn in the UK. Possession of "violent porn" is now illegal and could land you in jail. Of course the definition is so vague that it could pretty much include bondage porn. Child pornographic drawings are soon banned according to the next law in line and i'm sure it's just going to get worse.
Because censorship is control. Helping children isn't about control so it's not something they will care about.
You got that wrong. By that time's standard, witch burning itself wasn't a crime and thus not a result of "corrupt media". It was the witches who were "corrupt" and had to be "dealt" with. It's not a valid comparison. If anything, the game haters are probably the descendants of the people who used to spend their time roasting witches over open fire.
>>The truth is that Meghan talking to the person on the other end in that way was just wrong
Why? Why is it "just wrong"? It is "just wrong" the same way wearing too "western" clothes is "just wrong" for girls to do in many middle eastern families in europe?
It was stupid, yes. Wrong? Well who are we to judge.
Now that the government has already increased the amount of child pornography in circulation (by widening the definition of child porn to encompass drawings) they can use that to claim that increased surveillance is needed. They have another expansion for the law in plans as well, that makes porn with adults illegal if one of the participants looks like she's underage (even if she is over 18). A law that will create even more "pedophiles" and "sex criminals". A perfect excuse.