As discussed here (http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business/&articleid=257887), there are apparently parental controls coming on all three new major consoles. Now, will that really help, given that games like GTA got rated wrong due to hidden content?
I sincerely believe that we should not use technology to arbitrarily limit what our kids can see or do; rather we should talk with them about why they should wait viewing or playing some things. My kids understand that if they were to watch an 18+ rated horror movie right now, they'd be scared out of their minds, and don't mind waiting until they're older to see those movies.
At the same time, I check games and movies myself to see what they're like, if I haven't seen them before or don't know anything about them (yeah, that's the reason. Honest! I'm not using it as an excuse to play games!).
What do you tell your kids about porn? They'd be scared out of their minds? Depending on the age group, that could prove an interesting topic.
I'm against censorship in any form. I do not believe that anybody should limit what i want i can and cant have access too.
My father let me watch "The Blob" (remade 80s version) when i was young, like 12 or something, scared the crap out of me (when the guys arm comes off), i cant say it affected my growth or emotional stability.
HOWEVER, i like the idea of parental controls on consoles, dvd players, cellphones, whatever because it ensures that the content i have always had access to will remain accessable because it can be locked by the over protective parents rather then banning it outright.
No excuse to not have a more violent CoD2 or GTA
I don't see whats wrong with allowing parents to control what their kids watch. Before all these fancy electronic things existed, kids just didn't have access to content like that - what content existed on the media at the time (magazines, etc.) was controlled at the retail store and not sold to minors, as is still done today for physical objects that minors shouldn't have (drugs, porn, etc) Now we've got these fancy electronic things that deliver all that right to your living room, but the machines aren't smart enough to say "Hey - you're too young for this", so they've implemented parental controls so that worried mom's don't suddenly have to start watching their kids even when they haven't left the house yet.
As long as all the questionable content is delivered and its left to the end-user to configure (or not), people like me can have all the porn and violence, and people who don't want it can turn it off.
My concern is that parental controls will make parents *think* that they're doing right by their children, rather than teaching them how to make the decision on their own. Case in point - I'm okay with a sixteen-year-old playing Mature rated games (supposed to be 17+). However, I'm not sure I'd want them running around with a big purple double-ended dildo while wearing a gimp suit, as is the case with the ending to Grand Theft Auto. Now, if I blithely and blindly turn on parental controls, this game would have been playable because the rating of it was given wrong.
Also, we aren't able to control the set-up of parental controls on such devices in other homes. If we place all our trust in parental controls, then we have to place our trust in our childrens' friends' parents. Given that people around the country and the world have wildly varying ideas of what is alright and what isn't, we would be blithely and blindly trusting the parents. Rather than do that, I try to educate my children about what is age appropriate and what isn't. I can only hope that they self-censor when not in my supervision.
My basic problem is that I see many parents who assume that turning on the parental controls is all they have to do, rather than spending the time to teach their kids about why some things aren't age appropriate. It irritates me that they have no clue about what their kids are really doing. These types of parents typically have two nice cars and a big house, too (see, I live in St. Albert - there's a lot of I-wanna-look-rich people here).
Now, as far as porn goes, keep in mind I immigrated from Holland and I'm pretty liberal-minded on the topic (although puritannical Canada certainly has left its mark). I have no problem talking about how babies are made, why some people make movies of it, etc. At the same time, I know that they'll be inquisitive and possibly experiment and possibly get pregnant. I'll certainly tell them about the hardships they may encounter if they have babies young, but I'll also tell them about all the joys babies bring to your life. In short, they'll know lots about it, including the mechanics.
Quote from: "Cova"was controlled at the retail store and not sold to minors, as is still done today for physical objects that minors shouldn't have (drugs, porn, etc)
What kind of drugs are the kids not allowed to buy at the store? ;)
I'm not making an argument for censorship - on the contrary, I think everything should be available. Rather, I think parents should teach their kids to navigate and to self-censor. If we don't teach them now, they may never learn.
I do think that kids should also be taught about how not to trample the rights of others. If my kids decide to use drugs (including alcohol or tobacco), I expect they will understand that to drive under the influence is to endanger other people, and thus trample their rights to a safe life. If my kids decide to watch porn, I expect they will understand that there are porn directors that actually *force* their women to do all kinds of unthinkable things, and that buying and watching movies made by said directors tramples the rights to a safe life of the women who are abused to make the movie. If my kids decide to play a game such as Grand Theft Auto, I expect they will understand that to carry out in real life what they see in the game, shooting people and stealing cars and more, will trample the rights of the people whom they shoot or steal cars from.
I know that there's no way a child can learn how not to trample the rights of others by me simply turning on parental controls. I *have* to talk to them about all the tough topics, and make sure they understand that they must censor their own activities at least enough to not infringe on the rights of others. Beyond that, of course, I can only hope they don't turn socio- or psychopathic. Experts are still unsure whether socio- and psychopathy are inherited, abnormalities, or learned behaviours.
But, and this is my point after all this rambling in three posts, parental controls teach the kids nothing and lull parents into thinking that everything's okay when it may not be. Thus I see them as zero net gain for society.
Now I have to admit, I've turned on parental controls on our cable box. So far, all it really does is annoy the parents, though, as we have to keep entering the code (or turn it off and then remembering to turn it back on). There have been shows on that are not rated and that the kids manage to flip to anyway, including ones containing real footage from the world wars, where men are shot. I have seen my kids change channels away from these shows, as they realize it's not age-appropriate.
I think sometime soon, when its finally bugged me enough, I'll be turning off parental control on the cable box. :?
Quote from: "Thorin"What kind of drugs are the kids not allowed to buy at the store? ;)
I tend to categorize all drugs under the word 'drug' - not just legal and/or illegal ones. So tobacco, alcohol, and various prescription drugs are all drugs that kids can't buy in stores.
As for your 3 pages of commentary on how kids should be raised and how the average modern parent sucks at it - I don't disagree with any of it. Raising a kid is a lot of work, and parents need to be involed and train them right and wrong and all that stuff. Parental controls on TV/Consoles are not a solution to the problem of parenting in general - they are a solution to the problem of leaving the kids alone in the basement in front of the TV for an hour. Parental controls have a good use within certain constraints - they are not the solution to all life's problems.
Thanks Thorin especially for sharing -- I as a fellow parent am going through challenges right now, and believe as well that censorship in general is a bad idea, since what is happening is JOE is not able to enjoy artistic creations that JACK disapproves of, just because JACK has a louder voice, bigger wallet, and/or more legsislators that are controlled by either of those.
A recent example: I was playing "Army Men: Sarge's War" with my 9-year-old son the other day. It was a great fun time, and we almost immediately got past the violent aspect of it, and focused quickly on the tactics and strategies (hint: if you flamethrower your opponent, do not stand near him and chortle happily in victory -- he might have dropped a grenade; after 5 times you might learn ;) )
But when he was playing Halo at Lazy's house a few months ago, I see now that it was a bit too realistic, because he was not at that time really able to separate well the gameplay from reality (he had bad dreams and/or flashbacks a few weeks onward). So I know personally my son's own limits, and hope to keep open communication with him about what is appropriate, etc. *But* I do not wish to impose my personal beliefs on another parent, especially knowing that a 6 year old can be more mature than another's 10 year old, etc.
I like your frequent use of the word "trample" when discussing rights -- that's a good visual metaphor, the imagery connotes, correctly, the idea that something is crushed by the force of another, to the detriment of the rightful "owner" of that right. I may appreciate a society more that has less drug-induced murders happening all the time (including alcohol, remember) but I don't think those exceptions justify preventing countless others from taking in food or drink etc. for their own personal reasons when they are not (in that act itself) harming another individuals life, liberty, or property. Self-ownership=self-control=self-responsbility.
Unfortunately, too many people claim "pre-emptive protection" of genuine rights, and use that to justify using force to control or restrain other free individuals "just in case" or even because of the "indirect results" of certain things happening or being allowed to continue *cough*Bush*Ashcroft*Rummie*cough* <-- The irony is, I love as pure escapism the TV series "24" :? :P
Anyway, a reminder I guess that technology -- any technology - is simply a TOOL, that man uses to extend his inidividual power. That goes for pencil and pistols and even ideas. No switch on a cable box or sticker on a music CD can ever replace the (parent-guided) exercise of REASON -- you know, that thing that we used to willfully apply to our own individual situations before Fox News told us what to think about everything? ;)
Sounds like you and I are of one mind on this, Darren.
As for HALO, I could see my son's physical reaction to it. He got excited, had a more rapid pulse, the eyes dilated a bit, and he focused on the screen and nothing else. Around that same time, he started asking that the hallway light be left on at night. I don't know if the two are connected.
That does raise an interesting question, though. The game was clearly on because adults were playing it - certainly nothing wrong there. But when the little ones arrived (keeping in mind some were two or three or four), should it have been turned off? That is, should the adults be censored to the level of the kids, or should the kids be kept out of the room so the adults can play the game? This lends credence to the idea previously held that children should be off to play in a different part of the house while the parents chat. I'm not sure where I stand on that issue, though.
As you can tell, I spend a lot of time thinking about the "right" way to parent my kids :P And yet, for all my good intentions they still decide to go good or bad all on their own...
Letting kids grown on their own is a fundamental need. Way back in the cave man days im sure as @%&# that their wasnt a FCC, up till probably less then 50 years ago the whole idea of censorship was probably not high on ones priority list (wars, poverty, etc).
I grew up in a house hold with little to no rules. I never had a curfew, my parents never limited my choices, and i think im a better person for it. While that may sound like anarchy the rules around my lack of rules were strict. I could be up and out as long as i want, as long as im in the classroom when school starts.
We cant honestly say that things are worse then they were.
The generation after the upcoming generation is gonna be real interesting to watch, im sorta glad i'll be on the way out at that time.
Quote from: "Shayne"up till probably less then 50 years ago the whole idea of censorship was probably not high on ones priority list (wars, poverty, etc).
Hmm. Well, Victorian times in England were pretty strict and censored. You certainly couldn't do whatever you wanted to. Feudal Japan didn't allow for a lot of free will either, unless you were at the top. At the end of the 19th century, publishing books about gay sex was strictly forbidden in most puritannical English-speaking nations around the globe. In 1937 (68 years ago), the Nazis burned and banned hundreds of Jew books. That's all censorship, and it in fact went hand-in-hand with war and/or poverty and/or power struggles. Censorship *has* been around for a couple thousand years in the Christian churches, although they used to call it "taking care of the heretics".
Quote from: "Shayne"I grew up in a house hold with little to no rules. I never had a curfew, my parents never limited my choices, and i think im a better person for it. While that may sound like anarchy the rules around my lack of rules were strict. I could be up and out as long as i want, as long as im in the classroom when school starts.
I would guess here that you are talking about your later childhood, rather than your earlier childhood. I doubt very much that at six years old when you were in grade one your parents let you roam around the neighbourhood until whenever you decided to come home. However, if in your later years your parents told you to determine on your own when you should go to bed so that you can make it to school, they were actually teaching you to be self-sufficient and self-censoring. I'm sure they also provided suggestions and guidance on how to make your own decisions. At that point, there probably were a few basic rules; for instance, having to be in class every day was a rule.
Quote from: "Shayne"We cant honestly say that things are worse then they were.
Not sure what you mean here... Are you saying that parents are taking better care of their children than they were x number of years ago? Or are you saying that life is safer than it was x number of years ago?
Quote from: "Thorin"That does raise an interesting question, though. The game was clearly on because adults were playing it - certainly nothing wrong there. But when the little ones arrived (keeping in mind some were two or three or four), should it have been turned off? That is, should the adults be censored to the level of the kids, or should the kids be kept out of the room so the adults can play the game? This lends credence to the idea previously held that children should be off to play in a different part of the house while the parents chat. I'm not sure where I stand on that issue, though.
Yes, it does raise that, but in general too -- sometimes (as my brother says) we adults use a lot of "salt and pepper" in our verbiage. I try to keep my kids out of environments with that, or with negative and destructive attitudes that are behind that kinda language.
Just my preference, no need to make all the adults stop having fun ;)
Although some days I figure
this would be a much handier solution ;)
Right, but in this case we were invited kids'n'all to the party. However, I've been to parties that included kids and adults where an area was set aside for kid things and another area was set aside for adult things, and generally the kids played on their own. But is that the right solution? Should kids and adults interact more, or should they be sheltered from adults and adult behaviours? Or should kids be left to play and explore in their imaginary, dreamed-up worlds while the adults tell strange and mysterious jokes that kids won't understand until their adults (and specifically not explaining the jokes to the kids), while drinking beer or wine? I've been bashing this around in my head since reading an article in Today's Parent that espoused the idea of keeping Adulthood a Mystery for children, something they didn't understand and didn't need to understand until they were at last Adults themselves.
As for the salt-n-pepper verbiage, my kids know there are words that bother people and that if they say them the kids will be considered rude. They know what the middle-finger-salute is, and have had junior high kids salute their bus as they drive by. They know that saying these words can lead to hurt feelings or people taking them less seriously rather than more (dismissing them as rude little kids rather than taking their opinion seriously). With all this explanation of these words and their meaning and strength, they don't say them, as far as I've heard.
So what words do I consider to be rude or hurtful or may cause dismissive attitudes towards them?
- Ass(hole)
- Bitch
- @%&#
- Idiot
- @%&#
- Stupid
Which is an interesting list, because swear words are not given any special preference over other words that can also really hurt someone's feelings when you say them. Really, words only have power if you give them power. They do hear these words around them, both from adults and other kids. They even sometimes tell others not to say them.
Hmm, I think I might be turning my kids into policemen :? Should be interesting to see what they're all like in five years. But that's the joy of parenting - you get one long chance to do it right, you fret about it the whole time, you can never go back and fix mistakes, and in the end it's the child not you who gets to decide what they do with their life.
Boy has this thread ever drifted from the original topic of parental controls on consoles. And I'm gonna take it off-topic a little more with this post - but all this discussion of censorship and stuff is putting idea's in my head.
First idea - relating to what you do or don't allow your kids to do (and how it effects them later) - as Shayne said earlier, my parents placed very few rules on what I did and such. I was kept fairly well-shielded from porn and stuff like that, but virtually no censorship on violence/language since elementary school. And what I'd really like to hear opinions on - I was often allowed alcohol from a very young age. My family is of German descent, and at the time there was no drinking age in Germany (now it's 14 years). Dad kept me from getting drunk, but I'd usually share his beer's, until I got enough body-mass; I was having beers to myself in my early teens. And the effect this had on my life - it took the danger and mystery out of alcohol. When I turned 18 going out and drinking as much as I could hold was the last thing on my mind - I'd been drinking for 10 years already, what makes that day any more important.
Second idea - this one goes way off-topic, but it popped into my head thanks to this quote from above... "Thanks Thorin especially for sharing -- I as a fellow parent am going through challenges right now, and believe as well that censorship in general is a bad idea, since what is happening is JOE is not able to enjoy artistic creations that JACK disapproves of, just because JACK has a louder voice, bigger wallet, and/or more legsislators that are controlled by either of those.", except I'm thinking more prohibition than censorship - imho prohibition is just censorship of a physical object/material/thing. Specifically, I'd like your thoughts on cannabis legalization. If you haven't guessed yet, yes I'm pro-legalization. But don't read into that that I think kids should be allowed to have it, or that people should be driving around smoking, or anything like that. Like alcohol and tobacco it needs to remain a controlled substance. But as in the quote above, just because the anti-legalization crowd has a louder voice, bigger wallet, etc. it is banned altogether.
Anyways - those two paragraphs should stir things up a bit in here :)
Quote from: "Cova"Boy has this thread ever drifted from the original topic
Heh, no kidding 8)
Quote from: "Cova"First idea - relating to what you do or don't allow your kids to do (and how it effects them later) - as Shayne said earlier, my parents placed very few rules on what I did and such. I was kept fairly well-shielded from porn and stuff like that, but virtually no censorship on violence/language since elementary school. And what I'd really like to hear opinions on - I was often allowed alcohol from a very young age. My family is of German descent, and at the time there was no drinking age in Germany (now it's 14 years). Dad kept me from getting drunk, but I'd usually share his beer's, until I got enough body-mass; I was having beers to myself in my early teens. And the effect this had on my life - it took the danger and mystery out of alcohol. When I turned 18 going out and drinking as much as I could hold was the last thing on my mind - I'd been drinking for 10 years already, what makes that day any more important.
Well, if you were living in Canada at the time then your dad was committing child abuse according to the letter of the law. However, I certainly understand the reason behind it, and many European countries have laws that are more lax when it comes to alcohol consumption than puritannical Canada.
As a parent, I can say that I won't be taking this tack because alcohol affects the brain and its development, and the brain is going through several developmental stages before reaching adulthood. At the same time, though, I'm already talking to my kids about what alcoholic drinks are, why people drink them, what it does to people, and what kinds of responsibilities are tied to consuming alcohol. Specifically, I stress that alcohol makes you unable to react properly and therefore you should not operate anything with wheels, and that alcohol can kill you if consumed in large quantities and therefore when you're old enough to consume you should still watch your intake. When they're older, I'll be talking about what kind of "intake" is still safe.
As a child, my dad did let me try wine and beer; I found the wine was okay but the beer was too bitter. From the stories I hear now from my mother, the idea of children tasting alcohol when they're young was a common value twenty to twenty-five years ago.
Quote from: "Cova"Second idea - this one goes way off-topic, but it popped into my head thanks to this quote from above... "Thanks Thorin especially for sharing -- I as a fellow parent am going through challenges right now, and believe as well that censorship in general is a bad idea, since what is happening is JOE is not able to enjoy artistic creations that JACK disapproves of, just because JACK has a louder voice, bigger wallet, and/or more legsislators that are controlled by either of those.", except I'm thinking more prohibition than censorship - imho prohibition is just censorship of a physical object/material/thing. Specifically, I'd like your thoughts on cannabis legalization. If you haven't guessed yet, yes I'm pro-legalization. But don't read into that that I think kids should be allowed to have it, or that people should be driving around smoking, or anything like that. Like alcohol and tobacco it needs to remain a controlled substance. But as in the quote above, just because the anti-legalization crowd has a louder voice, bigger wallet, etc. it is banned altogether.
When talking about legalizing any item that is currently illegal to possess/distribute/use, there are two things that lawmakers must consider:
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.
Unfortunately this may mean that some people want to use items that are illegal because most users of said items will commit crimes either under the influence or to feed an addiction.
I specifically say "item" rather than "substance", because things like VLTs can be just as addictive and can cause just as much crime as crystal meth.
Now, I think that cannabis passes muster for the above two considerations. However, there are still plenty of people who are not responsible during and immediately after smoking pot; my neighbour's youngest son is a prime example, smoking up while backing his truck out of the driveway. That being said, I think cannabis should be legalized to the point that alcohol is, and that there should be some serious education campaigns teaching people not to smoke up and drive/use heavy machinery/go cliff-diving. Now compare that to crystal meth, where users tend to commit crimes while on the drug, and commit even more crimes to feed the addiction to the drug. I think crystal meth should continue to be a banned substance, for the greater good of our society.
However by you restricting access to items/substances are you not trampling on the rights of those wanting to access them? Its a catch 22.
Taking it one step further though wouldnt it be better to provide access then restrict it and use education and insentives not to participate in the more tabu items/substances.
While i see that you are "all about the greater good", im of the opposite alignment in that it bugs the living @#$% out of me that you and others feel the need to make decisions for ME when your only looking out for YOU.
Besides, anything can be addicting be it porn, vlts, alcohol, cigs, FOOD, sex, etc. Would people commit crimes to ease the addictions withdrawl and continue on the high for say food and/or sex...i would thing so given a strong enough addiction.
IMHO we'd all be better off, and have more clear thinking on these issues -- and thus intelligent debate beyond subjective assertion and baseless speculation, not saying we're doing that btw ;) -- by buying a few books from this site (http://www.lfb.com/index.php?deptid=19268) (or this section (http://www.lfb.com/index.php?deptid=19264)), and frequently reading and pondering articles from this site (http://www.mises.org/articles.aspx). :D
- - -
PS: re. "2." Perhaps that is true in some cases, or for some items in "most" cases. However that is never the case for "all" users, and indeed there have been cases of people who commit crimes, even violent crimes, as a result of taking in too much MSG, too much sugar, or even experiencing too much stress-induced adreniline in rush hour traffic, yet others experiencing these same stimuli, including "hard drugs", do not commit crimes. So perhaps these "stimuli" are not the real problem.
But re. "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." I disagree, from what I understand the opposite is true. Please hear me out...
Crime by "addicts" of substances goes down when the free market provides those substances, if you are talking about crimes that are committed by those addicts in order to acquire the substance.
- - - A word about "capitalism" - - -
Actually, your position may indeed be true only if the government institutes "price controls" or other such regulation on the "controlled but now legalized substance".
Historically, keeping a product or service at an artificially inflated price results in one of 2 actions by consumers: either (a) they will replace consumption of that item with another (consider what happened when silver prices went way up decades ago, Kodak and others modified their formula so they used less silver in their film), or (b) they will, indeed, commit crimes (either violent, or through "black market" methods) to get that item. Can you imagine if bread factories were ordered by law to charge $5.00 per loaf, and $2.00 of that went to the government as a "sin tax"? Wouldn't some factories be willing to distribute the same product for $1.50 per loaf, "under the table"? Wouldn't some criminally-minded individuals feel it justified to steal the bread and sell it on the "black market", or others to steal just in order to pay for the bread? What's happening with cigarettes nowadays?
Remember most of what we have been told is "free market capitalism" is really "state capitalism", i.e. "corporate welfare" in some form, including price controls among other methods. Something to consider. :)
I dont believe price and or availability has anything to do with addictions.
Quote from: "Shayne"I dont believe price and or availability has anything to do with addictions.
It's difficult to get addicted to Faberge egg collecting if you make minimum wage.
I'd also like to point out that there is a wide margin between freedom and anarchy. If you let a child run free with no concepts of right or wrong you are relying on some kind of magical built in ability of that child to figure it out for themselves and come to the right decision (not impossible, but not garaunteed either). Parental guidance does not benefit the parent all that much, in fact it costs the parent a lot of time and frustration, it is for the benefit of the child. Now I agree that a child shouldn't be coddled and "protected" from the real world, but by the same token I don't have to let a child get burned to teach them that fire burns.
Parenting is a constant balancing act between dispencing justice, wisdom and love.
Quote from: "Shayne"However by you restricting access to items/substances are you not trampling on the rights of those wanting to access them? Its a catch 22.
With that argument, are you not trampling my rights to do whatever the hell I want by not allowing me to murder you? I do not consider it a catch-22, because I consider the responsibility of ensuring I don't trample others' rights to override my right to do anything I want. To pass beyond that boundary is to pass from a civil society in which everyone gets as much freedom as possible, to a predatory society in which everyone fends for themself, same as the animals. Keeping in mind that Man defeats the Animals because we band together and protect our young, our old, and our infirm, to fall back to a predatory society may lose us the ability to defeat the Animals (and I mean all non-human life on the planet, including insects and plants).
Imagine, though: in the type of society you seem to promote, where everyone can do anything they want, this message board to share ideas may not exist because someone may not have liked something said here and decided to blow up the building the server(s) is(are) housed in. And nothing could be said or done about it, by the rules of the society.
Quote from: "Darren Dirt"Crime by "addicts" of substances goes down when the free market provides those substances, if you are talking about crimes that are committed by those addicts in order to acquire the substance.
I'm talking about crimes committed to get money to buy the item. From what statistics I've seen, cannabis users typically earn money to pay for the cannabis and are typically capable of working when not high, as opposed to crystal meth users who typically steal items and sell them for money to pay for the meth and are typically too twitchy/sketchy/paranoid/unreliable to work when not high. If cannabis were legalized, crime related to it would virtually disappear, as almost all criminal charges related to cannabis are for the possession or sale of it. If crystal meth were legalized, crime related to it would still occur, as a lot of theft charges are laid against users of it.
I suppose another example would be the use of lottery tickets versus the use of VLTs. There are numerous people addicted to VLTs who doctor books and steal from their place of employment or parents or friends or children just to continue dropping loonies in the machine. I'm not aware of any evidence that lottery tickets causes the same amount of crime just to feed the addiction; possibly because it takes longer to buy the ticket?
I do not think that I should be the one to decide what should and shouldn't be available, though. I'm by no means an expert on the subjects, although I try to stay informed. I do not consider deferring to a panel of experts to be detrimental to society as a whole, so long as their findings are publicized and their decisions can be scrutinized, explained, and challenged. In that sense, if I were living in the States at this time I would be squarely against the Patriot Act, and living here in Canada I have a problem with all decisions having to be ordained by Her Majesty the Queen.
Quote from: "Shayne"Besides, anything can be addicting be it porn, vlts, alcohol, cigs, FOOD, sex, etc. Would people commit crimes to ease the addictions withdrawl and continue on the high for say food and/or sex...i would thing so given a strong enough addiction.
Right. I have no problem with a decent discussion where all sides get to make their case; if eventually a group representing society as a whole becomes well-informed and makes a decision on whether the item causes or is very likely to cause violations of the rights of members of the society, I will abide by the decision, but I will expect that their reasons are spelled out and the decision can be reversed if it turns out they were ill-informed or pushing their own agenda. Keep in mind here that I'm perfectly happy letting you have your addictions, as many as you want, right up to the point just before it violates my rights, my kids rights, your parents rights, or Cova's dad's sister's son's nephew's grandfather (clearly, a made up relation that I have no idea if he exists :P).
Quote from: "Shayne"While i see that you are "all about the greater good", im of the opposite alignment in that it bugs the living @#$% out of me that you and others feel the need to make decisions for ME when your only looking out for YOU.
I'm not sure that I'm only looking out for me. In trying to make society safer for all its members, you also benefit. If you really want a society where you can do whatever you want as long as you're strong enough to do it, try the slums of Baghdad. Be prepared to not be the strongest one around, and be forced to do things you don't want to.
Now, what was this all about? Oh yeah, legalization of cannabis. I'm for legalization, because from what I've seen and heard users of cannabis are not likely to violate my rights of safety and well-being while using it.
Lets turn this on its head: would you be for or against the legalization of driving a car while under the influence of a large amount of alcohol? My answer would be no, because drunk drivers have a very high tendency to get into accidents and hurt or kill people, thereby violating their right of well-being.
Quote from: "Darren Dirt"PS: re. "2." Perhaps that is true in some cases, or for some items in "most" cases. However that is never the case for "all" users, and indeed there have been cases of people who commit crimes, even violent crimes, as a result of taking in too much MSG, too much sugar, or even experiencing too much stress-induced adreniline in rush hour traffic, yet others experiencing these same stimuli, including "hard drugs", do not commit crimes. So perhaps these "stimuli" are not the real problem.
Did you edit your post? I don't remember reading this before putting my way-too-long reply together :P
I haven't heard of cases where a person committed violent crimes simply because of too much sugar or MSG. Also, a couple of scientific studies (reproducible, with proper double-blind testing) have come out that debunk the myth of sugar causing a spike in hyperactivity. Basically, both studies showed that parents perceived their children as more hyperactive if the parents had been told their children had been given sugar, even if the children had gotten the placebo, while parents told their children received a placebo labelled them overwhelmingly as unchanged (even though half of those kids were given sugar). I wish I could find the links to show this to you. I think it's an interesting concept that sugar-induced hyperactivity is really just a mental psyche-out by parents...
And scientific studies have been run for several banned substances that measure the propensity of users to commit crimes to get money to feed their addiction, including cocaine and crack cocaine, crystal meth, and cannabis. From the ones I've read, cannabis is shown as not having a propensity to commit crimes in pursuit of money for drugs, while the other two have shown a propensity. I'm sure if we dig far enough we can find studies about alcohol, tobacco, VLTs, lotteries, etc, but I don't know enough about these items to make even a partially-informed statement.
By the way, did your links to the libertarian books indicate that you think we are discussing libertarianism? Or that some of us could consider ourselves libertarians while others could not? I don't know enough on the subjet to know where on the spectrum I sit, so if you want to provide some background info, that'd be cool.
All this talk about our rights made me look up the official wording of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/). Now I'm looking for the wording of the Constitution of Canada.
Here's the Constitution Acts (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/), although I warn you that it's a lot of reading.
Quote from: "Mr. Analog"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.
Quote from: "Thorin"Quote from: "Shayne"However by you restricting access to items/substances are you not trampling on the rights of those wanting to access them? Its a catch 22.
With that argument, are you not trampling my rights to do whatever the hell I want by not allowing me to murder you? I do not consider it a catch-22, because I consider the responsibility of ensuring I don't trample others' rights to override my right to do anything I want. To pass beyond that boundary is to pass from a civil society in which everyone gets as much freedom as possible, to a predatory society in which everyone fends for themself, same as the animals. Keeping in mind that Man defeats the Animals because we band together and protect our young, our old, and our infirm, to fall back to a predatory society may lose us the ability to defeat the Animals (and I mean all non-human life on the planet, including insects and plants).
Wow, you meant it when you said lengthy post ;) And yes, I apparently added the reference to #2 after my initial submission. :P
"With that argument, are you not trampling my rights to do whatever the hell I want by not allowing me to murder you?"
^ "whatever the hell I want" is not what any of us are promoting (I presume). "
Whatever the hell I want so long as it does not directly cause another individual to experience loss, harm, or injury against their property, liberty, or life" is what I personally am promoting. I am reading a book right now "
Anything That's Peaceful", and that title succintly sums it up.
- - -
Oh, and re. "constitution" researching:
constitution (noun)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/constitution1. The act or process of composing, setting up, or establishing;
2a.The composition or structure of something; makeup.
2b. The physical makeup of a person: Having a strong constitution, she had no trouble climbing the mountain.
3a. The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
3b. The document in which such a system is recorded.
I am presuming you mean something along the lines of "3a", but the question is, did you find anything? AFAIK, "Canada" has no formal "constitution", but "The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution" is based on a mixture of historical customs, common law, legal maxims, and case law. I might be mistaken, though. Some claim that in 1982 there was finally a "constitution". Yet that just raises a new question, what was the "constitution of Canada" before then? What about before 1867's "confederacy" or whatever? Oh boy more questions ;)
PS: "Government can not make a thing 'legal', they can only stop making it 'illegal'." -- some guy I heard somewhere.
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'll accept the fact that morally im a tad closer to Anarchy then i am Democratic. I believe that people can make up their own minds, while sure their are some that obviously cannot, i do not think that others should make the rules for others.
Now I do know that we need an organized set of rules, an organized government, and a basic charter or rights and freedoms. Given that, i do not see why any substance needs to be illegal, or any device needs to be illegal. 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.
Perhaps the sci-fi zero tolerance for ANY crime might be the best way to handle it. Insta-death penalty.
By banning different drugs and or devices, its just a form of pre-crime-prevention. Just because it could be bad, it could kill people, we outta ban it...just doesnt seem like the right way to go about it.
Quote from: "Darren Dirt""With that argument, are you not trampling my rights to do whatever the hell I want by not allowing me to murder you?"
^ "whatever the hell I want" is not what any of us are promoting (I presume). "Whatever the hell I want so long as it does not directly cause another individual to experience loss, harm, or injury against their property, liberty, or life" is what I personally am promoting. I am reading a book right now "Anything That's Peaceful", and that title succintly sums it up.
Hmm, perhaps therein lies the difference. I see value in banning items that have a high likelihood of directly causing such experiences. As I've tried to point out before, though, such bans should not be knee-jerk reactions but carefully considered decisions based on scientific evidence gathered by responsible groups of people and mulled over by other groups of intelligent, responsible people. As an example of a knee-jerk reaction, Ecstasy used to be legal and then became illegal to possess/distribute/use when it was found that large groups of teens and young adults were taking it. There was no conclusive evidence that property crimes were being committed to buy Ecstasy, nor that users tended to do things that endangered those around them while they were high. Should it have become a banned substance? I don't think so, by the measures I proposed early to determine whether something should be banned or not.
Quote from: "Darren Dirt"Oh, and re. "constitution" researching:
constitution (noun) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/constitution
1. The act or process of composing, setting up, or establishing;
2a.The composition or structure of something; makeup.
2b. The physical makeup of a person: Having a strong constitution, she had no trouble climbing the mountain.
3a. The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
3b. The document in which such a system is recorded.
I am presuming you mean something along the lines of "3a", but the question is, did you find anything? AFAIK, "Canada" has no formal "constitution", but "The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution" is based on a mixture of historical customs, common law, legal maxims, and case law. I might be mistaken, though. Some claim that in 1982 there was finally a "constitution". Yet that just raises a new question, what was the "constitution of Canada" before then? What about before 1867's "confederacy" or whatever? Oh boy more questions ;)
I was referring to 3a as you list it. Canada does a have a specific formal Constitution, started off with the Constitution Act of 1867, enhanced by the Constitution Act of 1982, and amended and supported by other acts passed from time to time as listed in the Schedules attached to both the 1867 and 1982 Constitution Acts. Before Confederacy in 1867, Canada was governed in whole as a Dominion under the rule of Her Majesty, the Queen of England, ruler of the British Empire. And Alberta was called "Rupert's Land" :P
Quote from: "Darren Dirt"PS: "Government can not make a thing 'legal', they can only stop making it 'illegal'." -- some guy I heard somewhere.
Legal/Illegal is a boolean state. It is either one or the other, never both. Therefore, to stop making it illegal is to make it legal. In fact, the entire job of the legislative arm of our system of government is to declare things legal or illegal. The default state is to be legal, until a law can be passed to make it illegal. A future law can then be passed to make it legal again, if so desired.
I wanna say here, too, that it is not the job of the legislative arm to actually run the day-to-day operations of the government. For instance, even the creation of budgets is not actually done by the legislative arm; rather, civil servants make such documents and a law is then proposed to make that document in effect for the current year. After the law has been passed, it would be illegal to do something with the money that is specifically disallowed in the budget document.
While we are at it, lets clean up the grey area in our "rules".
Note: the follwing post is OT but I have to say my $0.02
Quote from: "Darren Dirt"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".
1. Offtopic
2. Vastly observational, if we consider some of the other available definitions for freedom, your comparison to anarchy falls apart. The definition I perscribe to is "the freedom to choose", that isn't to say that the consequnces of such a choice aren't administrated by the people who represent our will (the Gov'mint). I could choose to kill someone, however the consequence of that is that if found and convicted I go to jail. I can still choose to do it, I just get punished if I do. Some countries actually go out of their way to enforce rules like, what you can and can't say, what you can wear, what Gods you can pray to, etc. They do not give you a choice, they simply
impose.
I really don't think there is really any question about the differences between freedom and anarchy, no matter which way you bend words.
Incedentally, in my opinion Anarchy is the single most narcissistic political belief anyone can have. Anarchy elevates the self above all others with no restrictions. It declares that everyone is right, even in contradiction. No society has ever or will ever work this way.
It's a fine line between regulating society and allowing freedom of the individual to screw themselves over. I have not done any illicit drugs, but I'm not against the decriminalization of marijuana, as the side effects are for the most part no worse then smoking, which is already legal. I believe that it is right to make crystal meth illegal, because the side effects can really screw a person over and can cause severe societal problems, both from addiction related crimes and severe health consequences for the user. I've quote the side effects of meth from the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_meth) article on it.
QuoteAdverse effects
Compulsive fascination with useless repetitive tasks (see Punding)
Severe psychological addiction
Acne
Depression
Amphetamine psychosis
Erectile dysfunction (see "crystal dick")
Long-term cognitive impairment due to neurotoxicity
Tooth decay ("meth mouth")
Damage to immune system
Persistent anhedonia with chronic use
Death
Quote from: "Shayne"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...
Quote from: "Shayne"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:
Quote from: "Shayne"i agree that i shouldnt trample on your rights
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?
Quote from: "Darren Dirt"Quote from: "Mr. Analog"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.
When it comes down to it, i would rather that society be "reactive" rather then "proactive".
Quote from: "Shayne"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.
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.
Quote from: "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.
Banning 50 Cent what a good idea.... :wink:
Hmm. Well, I've been espousing measured and considered reactions, where the voice of reason is strong, not knee-jerk reactions.
Quote from: "Thorin"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?
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...
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"
Quote from: "Cova"I'll have a good post that will make even Thorin's posts seem short :)
Oh, I see, they're that long, are they? :P It'll be an interesting read...
Quote from: "Cova"meth should remain illegal
Quote from: "Cova"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.
Quote from: "Thorin"Quote from: "Cova"meth should remain illegal
Quote from: "Cova"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.
"...there's little evidence of a link between video games and aggressive youth (http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/12/01/self-regulation-and-video-games/). 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
Quote from: "Cova"Quote from: "Thorin"Quote from: "Cova"meth should remain illegal
Quote from: "Cova"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:
Quote from: "Cova"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.
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.
Quote from: "Shayne"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.
Quote from: "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.
What, you thought I was going to be against legalizing cannabis? Did you stereotype me? :P
Quote from: "Cova"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? :P
Quote from: "Cova"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 :( )
Quote from: "Cova"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.
Quote from: "Cova"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:
Quote from: "Thorin"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.
Quote from: "Cova"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.
By the way, the Criminal Code was *goddamn* hard to find, and then *goddamn* hard to find the right information in to quote :|
Quote from: "Thorin"What, you thought I was going to be against legalizing cannabis? Did you stereotype me? :P
Not so much that I'm stereotyping you specifically - just very odd to post anything about legalizing drugs on any forum and not have the majority of responses be against you. Usually I get about 75% against me, and just a few supporters.
Quote from: "Thorin"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? :P
I don't think the way I wrote it implied one way or the other, hence my statement about how english is an ambiguous language. And if you haven't heard yet - they've proven that tinfoil hats don't stop RF :)
Quote from: "Thorin"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.
We're talking about changing laws here - obviously all of the inter-related laws dealing with people being on roads need to be updated to be kept in sync. Now I have a little more experience than most people with having to react suddenly to things being in front of me while moving at high speeds (I do a fair bit of off-road motorbiking on unfamiliar trails), so I think the idea comes to me a little easier that there are always circumstances where you should aim for areas/things that seem wrong at first thought - on the motorbike sometimes it's better to aim for a tree or something. Back in normal traffic - say you were doing 110 down the highway in reasonably heavy traffic, and a person came running out onto the road from behind an overpass. You could hit him, probably killing him, and pull over onto the shoulder within 100 meters. Or you could swerve, which would likely put your car into a spin/slide (or roll your SUV), and could quite likely cause a 10+ car pileup and multiple fatalities if say a heavy semi was close-by behind and ran into the whole pileup. It may be against our laws, but I'd say you should have hit the dumb-ass that ran onto the highway. When I originally said I think jaywalking should be legal, I didn't mean to imply that people should be on roads at all, thats where cars belong and cars should have the right-of-way. Just that people, who when looking out for their own safety cross roads in an uncontrolled area and do so when there is no traffic/risk, should be allowed to do so.
Quote from: "Thorin"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.
I think we're argueing the same thing - people don't belong in traffic, but shouldn't be restricted from crossing empty streets.
Quote from: "Thorin"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.
I hit google quick, but didn't come across any good quotes to support alcohol one way or the other. There was a little information on forming a dependance on alcohol, but it didn't seem concrete enough for me to consider as proof - I take everything from the 'net with a grain of salt. One thing to take under consideration though is that alcohol does directly cause people to become violent. Not the addiction to it, but drunk people like to start / get in fights. If you put 100 drunk guys in a room, there'd be a fight soon after. If you put 100 pot-heads in a room, they'd complain about lack of munchies for a bit then probably all go to sleep. You could envision scenarios for various other drugs too. 100 people all trying to light cigarettes would probably burn up all the oxygen in the room and suffocate themselves in smoke :) 100 people on meth would pass-out, and wake up a day or so later and all be very pissed that there's no more for them to take. On extacy they'd all be touching and feeling each other and everything else they can find for the wierd sensations. On acid - I'm not even sure, being a very powerful hallucinogen most of them would almost be in a dream, and the few taking bad trips would be huddled up in the corners trying to hide probably.
Here's a funny take on censorship by "Mr. Lizard":
http://users.rcn.com/lizard.dnai/Sitter.html
Quote
The folks at Solid Oak (It's what their heads are made of, evidently) software have decided to start blocking anyone who tells people what sites they block! Sheesh. I mean, if you're selling censoring software, letting people know what you block seems to be free advertising....unless, of course, you're a bunch of lying, deceitful, lawsuit-happy ultra-conservative book-burning fascist funnydementedalist bastards who are selling something that most assuredly is not what you claim it is.
They claim that "CYBERsitter includes a bad sites list of 1000's of World Wide Web sites that are not suitable for children. Any site that focuses on topics such as adult or sexual issues, illegal activities, bigotry, racism, drugs, or pornography are included in the list. "
However....when a company claims their product does something, but it actually does something different, that's fraud -- a violation of the fundemental principle of non-initiation of force. And when you try to sic lawyers on someone -- a teenager, no less -- who has the balls (or, as us Red Sea Pedestrians say, the chutzpah) to point out in public that you're committing fraud, then you have gone way over the line.
Let's back up for a moment.
First off, I have no particular objections to selling censorship software to private citizens. Anyone has a right to put out their own eyes, and if the good (hah!) folks at Solid Oak can make money by selling Oedipus his needles, so be it. A fool and his money, etc.
A young man named Bennett Haselton, representing an anti-censorship youth group called Peacefire, downloaded their demo software and tested it out to see what it blocked. He found it did a lot more than just block the sites described above. It also blocked sites which dealt with radical politics, feminism, abortion, and gay rights -- none of which are mentioned in the advertising copy I quoted above. It's like buying a pesticide guaranteed to kill ants, and discovering it kills your kids as well!
I love somebody who will write at length about philosophy, politics, sociology... and make you LOL spit-take in the way they do it. 8)
--also to pique your interest lemme tell you there's a thoughtprovoking article that concludes with "don't let people tell you ratings are harmless" http://users.rcn.com/lizard.dnai/haley.html
From what I could find out, the CYBERsitter mess was from 1996 or 1997. Am I wrong on that?
Quote from: "Thorin"From what I could find out, the CYBERsitter mess was from 1996 or 1997. Am I wrong on that?
Yeah, but the way Mr. Lizard covers the issue is both thought-provoking and smile-inducing. Isn't that what most of the RW postings are about ;)
If you go to his main page and check out some of the other articles linked there, even the FAQ, it's a lot more laughs-per-minute than anything on network sitcoms :roll: :P