Parental controls on consoles

[Thorin]

While Thorin does take the "extreme" reverse on my position (as most people do) about killing people, i agree that i shouldnt trample on your rights, but to group ALL "crystal meth" users under a violent crime umbrella seems a little unfair.  Suppose i use it on a regular basis, in my home, without disturbing anyone, shouldnt i be allowed to? If my wife wants an abortion shouldnt she be allowed?  If i want to marry my boyfriend shouldnt i be allowed?  None of these effect you or society other then morally, but your morals should have nothing to do with mine.

I understand what you're saying - people are being brushed with a broad stroke, grouped together based on statistics and studies.  Indeed, in none of the above examples does another person get affected (there's some gray area on when a fetus is considered a person, but lets assume for this argument that the abortion is happening before that point).  However...

If a person gets high on crack and murders 36 people, well, we have rules for that, but for you and your society to dictate what i can and cannot do to myself, i just dont see how you have the right.

It is now too late to protect and guarantee these 36 people their right to life.  So how would you propose we alter our society to ensure these people *also* are guaranteed their rights?  After all, you say:

i agree that i shouldnt trample on your rights

[Thorin]

Congrats, Cova, you started a very interesting conversation here, with people stepping up to express their opinions.  And Shayne, although I don't agree with you, I'm glad that you speak up to express your opinion - it is only through reasoned discourse that answers can be found.



And Darren, was this another edit, or did I just miss it?

Mr. Analog wrote:

I'd also like to point out that there is a wide margin between freedom and anarchy.

The dictionary defines "freedom", at its core, as "absence of restraint or coercion". Technically, "anarchy" means "without rulers", not "without rules". Many people think of freedom as "minimal restraint", because of how many times folks like Bush et al promote "democracy" as the equivalent of "freedom". So perhaps this "wide margin" comes into play when that kind of political definition is considered rather than the definition of the word itself. Some seem to consider "freedom" is equivalent to "freedom to do whatever the government permits you to do" while "anarchy" is "do whatever you want even if it harms another". See below, my response to Thorin is related to this belief.

[Shayne]

When it comes down to it, i would rather that society be "reactive" rather then "proactive".

[Lazybones]

When it comes down to it, i would rather that society be "reactive" rather then "proactive".

Both are bad.. The way things work now they are reactive and the solution becomes overly proactive.



1. games can be sold to anyone

2. kids, who happen to play games do something bad that is simmilar to the game

3. reaction? games are evil lets put some laws in.

4. Proactive.. lets not stop at splecifics, lets outlaw or prevent the sale of some titles period so no one can be exposed to content.



Knee jurk reactions are bad.

[Shayne]

True, but how about the opposite?



OMG 50 Cent is coming to Canada, quick lets move to ban the tour because he promotes violence and other such non-civil things.



...i agree that a "knee-jerk" reaction is extremely negative, but being extremely proactive is just as evil.

[Lazybones]

True, but how about the opposite?



OMG 50 Cent is coming to Canada, quick lets move to ban the tour because he promotes violence and other such non-civil things.



...i agree that a "knee-jerk" reaction is extremely negative, but being extremely proactive is just as evil.

Banning 50 Cent what a good idea....  :wink:

[Thorin]

Hmm.  Well, I've been espousing measured and considered reactions, where the voice of reason is strong, not knee-jerk reactions.

1. Do users of the item have a propensity to get addicted and commit crimes to make money to feed their addiction? If yes, then legalizing the item will likely trample the rights of others to safety, well-being, and property.



2. Do users of the item have a propensity to commit crimes while under the influence of the item? If yes, then legalizing the item will likely trample the rights of others to safety, well-being, and property.

I can't think of any games that ought to be banned when considered by these two measures.  Video game users have not been shown thus far to be highly likely to commit crimes to pay for their addictive item, nor have they been shown to be highly likely to commit crimes while playing said games.  The same can be said about Curtis Jackson coming to Canada.  err, I mean, 50 Cent.  Boy, sounds a lot less stupid when you use his real name.



Now I have a pretty clear understanding of how I would protect the right to life of the 36 people killed by the crack addict on a killing spree under the model I prefer.  But how are they protected in a completely reactive society?

[Thorin]

Cova, you better get into this discussion, as you're the one who started the whole "Should governments legalize item X" discussion with your original post...

[Cova]

You wouldn't believe how busy I've been today.  I've started to type a post 3 times in this thread today so far (back near the beginning of page 2 for reference), and every time I've been interrupted and not been able to get back to my desk for a few hours (at which time the content of the post is responding to posts a page back, I've lost my train of thought as to what the rest of the post was going to say, and I need to catch up on a bunch more reading).  Believe me - I'm trying to participate here, but I think you're all going to have to wait till sometime later tonight when I'm at home, and I'll have a good post that will make even Thorin's posts seem short



For now, I'll summarize that people should be free to do whatever they like, as long as they don't infringe on other peoples rights to do so.  Pot should be legal (with restrictions eg. no driving), while meth should remain illegal.  People should NOT be protected from themselves - I believe people have the right to take risks (whether risking your health smoking, risking you life j-walking, etc).   Things/Content should only be outright banned if it DOES cause a problem, not if it CAN cause a problem.  And sometime (hopefully later today) I'll even back all this stuff up with arguements and supporing data and such.



Edit: Here's a link to start with, but its a long read and written in legaleze instead of english.  http://www.bccla.org/othercontent/02marijuanafactum.html  Lots of very good information about why pot should be legalized, here's a choice quote "marijuana is not addictive"

[Thorin]

I'll have a good post that will make even Thorin's posts seem short

Oh, I see, they're that long, are they?  It'll be an interesting read...

meth should remain illegal

Things/Content should only be outright banned if it DOES cause a problem, not if it CAN cause a problem.

Those two points seem to contradict each other.  Perhaps some further explanation on how you determine if an item is rather than could be causing a problem would help to clarify things.  I think that several of us have different ideas on how this is determined.

[Cova]

meth should remain illegal

Things/Content should only be outright banned if it DOES cause a problem, not if it CAN cause a problem.

Those two points seem to contradict each other.  Perhaps some further explanation on how you determine if an item is rather than could be causing a problem would help to clarify things.  I think that several of us have different ideas on how this is determined.

To summarize real quick - meth will cause brain damage, is highly addictive, and basically will ruin the life of anyone who uses it.  And so I consider that to be causing a problem, not just a potential source of problems with also potential good.



And now I'm headed out - need to eat hotwings and drink beer and such.

[Darren Dirt]

"...there's little evidence of a link between video games and aggressive youth. While the video game industry was exploding between 1994 and 2000, juvenile (ages 15-17) violent crime arrests dropped by 44 percent and young adult (ages 18-24) violent crime arrests dropped by 24 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. While that does not necessarily rule out any relationship between video games and youth violence, it should make policymakers pause before rushing to legislate."



^ from a blog linking to this article: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3167

[Thorin]

meth should remain illegal

Things/Content should only be outright banned if it DOES cause a problem, not if it CAN cause a problem.

Those two points seem to contradict each other.  Perhaps some further explanation on how you determine if an item is rather than could be causing a problem would help to clarify things.  I think that several of us have different ideas on how this is determined.

To summarize real quick - meth will cause brain damage, is highly addictive, and basically will ruin the life of anyone who uses it.  And so I consider that to be causing a problem, not just a potential source of problems with also potential good.

That still contradicts another point you made originally:

People should NOT be protected from themselves - I believe people have the right to take risks (whether risking your health smoking, risking you life j-walking, etc).

That is, if meth is ruining the life of the person using it, that's fine according to your earlier comments.  If it were to ruin the life of someone involved with the person using it (for instance, the meth addict steals all valuables and money of the other person), then it would be a problem affecting someone other than the user...



On a side note, I would consider jaywalking to actually be endangering others as well.  If a driver attempts to miss the pedestrian who should not be on that stretch of road, he may well get in an accident that hurts or kills him.

[Cova]

Yer makin me argue the side of legalization that I rarely ever take with this meth thing - and due to that I'm having a hard time of not contradicting myself.  But it's making me think a lot, so I'll call it a good thing.  Normally I'm the pro-drug guy and everyone else is against me.



Anyways, if you were to assume that I don't want to contradict myself, then you should be reading my above posts as "meth is bad for you and everyone around you", and should be calling for proof of that (which I admit I haven't yet provided) instead of reading different meanings into the text.  But english being a rather ambiguous language at times, especially when expressed as text on a monitor instead of in-person with expressions and emotions and such, is way farther off-topic than I want to go here.  I'm sorry it wasn't clearer above, but thats what pages of discussion and lots of posts are for (well - that, and increasing ones post-count).



So back on topic - proof that meth is bad not just for you, but everyone/anyone around you.  Actually, it would only have to be bad for one other person as long as its in the vast majority of cases that I would feel it should be banned, as that would mean any new user would be harming another person by starting the addiction.  I'm afraid that I don't have numbers though to prove one way or another that meth hurts those near the user.  But considering all together the amount of crime caused by its addictive properties, the cost to the health-care system dealing with people who've taken it, etc. I personally feel there is enough evidence against it to ban it.

While Thorin does take the "extreme" reverse on my position (as most people do) about killing people, i agree that i shouldnt trample on your rights, but to group ALL "crystal meth" users under a violent crime umbrella seems a little unfair.  Suppose i use it on a regular basis, in my home, without disturbing anyone, shouldnt i be allowed to? If my wife wants an abortion shouldnt she be allowed?  If i want to marry my boyfriend shouldnt i be allowed?  None of these effect you or society other then morally, but your morals should have nothing to do with mine.

And while on the topic of meth, let me respond to this quote...  Of all your various "shouldn't I be allowed" questions in there, I would answer all of them that yes, you should be allowed to do whatever you want.  However, I would also argue that you are unable to use meth on a regular basis without disturbing anyone else.  And that is what separates a dangerous substance that should be banned, from your other two scenarios which I don't have a problem with.



As for jaywalking - I'd give cars the right of way except in rare circumstances when people should be on the road (crosswalks when lights are flashing, etc), and if people want to take the risk of crossing somewhere instead of walking to the nearest crosswalk/intersection, well look both ways carefully and get the hell outta the way before traffic gets to you.  As for the swerving driver - said driver was in the wrong the moment he swerved without looking where he was going, he should have just hit the jaywalker.  Yes, initially there might be a bunch of accidents as people get used to it, but in many other parts of the world it is the cars, not pedestrians, that have the right-of-way, and that just makes more sense to me.  Virtually all accidents involving pedestrains would then evolve down into "the dumb-ass shouldn't have been standing in the middle of the road", with the odd "driver not paying attention ran through an intersection/crosswalk" still occuring as it happens now.



You could also apply the arguement of DOES cause a problem or CAN cause a problem to the jaywalking thing.  If I look both ways, its clear (not another human in 20 miles, except the cop hiding in wait to give out jaywalking tickets), and I run across, it will not cause anyone to swerve into anyone else - I don't see any reason for me to waste my time walking 1/2 a block and back to the nearest intersection.  Even if traffic is very heavy and fast-moving, if I decide to walk out into the street there's no guarantee that I'll cause an accident (not including me getting creamed - but between other people on the street).  And in such a case, obviously it was my fault for both me getting hit and any damage to the car, the driver would be well within his rights to sue me for the damage to his property.  Obviously walking out onto roads is still not recommended, but it doesn't need to be illegal.





And back on to older content in this thread that I haven't been able to respond to properly yet...  Lets start with the word "addiction" that keeps coming up over and over.  Just within this thread I could quote people as saying that video games are addictive while pot is not - and if I go out onto the internet all I have to do is find a group of people (or their website) that doesn't like something, and they're probably calling it addictive.  We need to differentiate the various types of addictions.  There's your physical addictions - these are bad - your body actually develops a chemical requirement for the subject of the addiction, and people will go to great lengths to aquire whatever they are addicted to.  Crystal meth would fall into that category.  Then theres your psycological addictions, just in your head.  You don't actually NEED to get more of these, you just want to, and hence people are far less likely to do extreme things to satisfy the addiction.  Watching TV, playing games, smoking pot, all fall into this category.  I also don't consider that category of addictions to be harmful.  Only a very small percentage of people with these types of addictions are ever harmed by them, and I would bet that that small percentage of people happen to be ones that have various issues anyways, something like the opposite of ADD (sorry, not an expert on mental illnesses).





Hmm..., thats prolly enough text for one post, but its hard to judge in this little text-box.

[Thorin]

Yer makin me argue the side of legalization that I rarely ever take with this meth thing - and due to that I'm having a hard time of not contradicting myself.  But it's making me think a lot, so I'll call it a good thing.  Normally I'm the pro-drug guy and everyone else is against me.

What, you thought I was going to be against legalizing cannabis?  Did you stereotype me?

you should be reading my above posts as "meth is bad for you and everyone around you"

Well, it's not what was written, so I was going by the written word rather than the implied intent.  Sorry, my telepathy wasn't working on you; perhaps you were wearing your tin-foil hat?

thats what pages of discussion and lots of posts are for (well - that, and increasing ones post-count).

Off-topic, but funny as hell in this context You Are Not Your Postcount (if the picture moves again, the link will be invalid again )

As for jaywalking ... As for the swerving driver - said driver was in the wrong the moment he swerved without looking where he was going, he should have just hit the jaywalker

Not swerving to avoid the person when you have the opportunity to do so can be interpreted as dangerous driving as designated in section 249, subsection 1 of the Criminal Code of Canada.  Section 249 subsection 3 then states that you may be imprisoned for up to ten years if you cause them bodily harm (which I'm sure you would if you hit them).  This would have to be argued in court, but the crux of the case would be whether you could have avoided inflicting bodily harm by swerving.  Essentially, we are required to try our best not to hurt others; if it is found we did not try our best to do so, we may be imprisoned.  Keep in mind that crashing two cars together is generally considered more desirable than crashing into a person who is crossing the street, because there is usually less chance for extensive bodily harm.  Of course, it's dependent on the conditions and the judge and jury will have to take the conditions into consideration if such a case were ever to go to trial.

You could also apply the arguement of DOES cause a problem or CAN cause a problem to the jaywalking thing.  If I look both ways, its clear (not another human in 20 miles, except the cop hiding in wait to give out jaywalking tickets), and I run across, it will not cause anyone to swerve into anyone else - I don't see any reason for me to waste my time walking 1/2 a block and back to the nearest intersection.  Even if traffic is very heavy and fast-moving, if I decide to walk out into the street there's no guarantee that I'll cause an accident (not including me getting creamed - but between other people on the street).  And in such a case, obviously it was my fault for both me getting hit and any damage to the car, the driver would be well within his rights to sue me for the damage to his property.  Obviously walking out onto roads is still not recommended, but it doesn't need to be illegal.

In fact, if the driver does not try to avoid you even though they have the ability to avoid you, *they* are in the wrong and may be imprisoned.  See response to previous quote.



Now, I forget why we're talking about jaywalking...  Oh yeah:

On a side note, I would consider jaywalking to actually be endangering others as well. If a driver attempts to miss the pedestrian who should not be on that stretch of road, he may well get in an accident that hurts or kills him.

Perhaps I should rename this from "jaywalking" to "crossing the street other than at an intersection when there is a reasonable concern that doing so will interfere with regular traffic", because that's what I really meant.  Hopefully that will keep us from discussing "jaywalking" and whether or not it should be illegal to cross the street in the middle, and allow us to focus on the more difficult and less banal issues, like whether cannabis should be legal while cocaine or meth should not.

There's your physical addictions - these are bad - your body actually develops a chemical requirement for the subject of the addiction, and people will go to great lengths to aquire whatever they are addicted to.  Crystal meth would fall into that category.  Then theres your psycological addictions, just in your head.  You don't actually NEED to get more of these, you just want to, and hence people are far less likely to do extreme things to satisfy the addiction.  Watching TV, playing games, smoking pot, all fall into this category.

If I were to apply my principles to these two types of addiction, I would probobly find that a higher percentage of the physically-addictive items went on my ban-list than the psychologically-addictive ones.  However, I would still want to consider each and every items on its own merit, rather than grouping them.



I wonder where alcohol falls on the scale?  That's usually a taboo subject because so many people partake in it and there's such a huge industry around it...  But isn't alcohol a physically-addictive drug?  And does it have a high likelihood of causing crimes either to feed the addiction or while using the drug?  I wouldn't mind if those who like alcoholic beverages *cough*Analog!*cough* care to weigh in with an opinion on that...  I haven't seen any studies that question whether alcohol actually causes crimes to feed the addiction, although we all know that there are uneducated fools who drive while drunk, thus committing crimes while using.