[clug] [OT] Broadband clangers

[Neill Cox]

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Sam Couter <sam at couter.id.au> wrote:

> Neill Cox <neill.cox at ingenious.com.au> wrote:
>
>

> > In your judgment, but there are others who will argue that watching such
> > material increases the possibility of harm coming to others.
>
> That's an argument with very little supporting evidence, and even that
> supports the view that it's a minority that are affected. There are far
> greater harms to society permitted, such as TV shows like Today Tonight
> and A Current Affair being allowed to continue.
>
>
Ummm, There have been a number of studies arguing for a link between
violence in the media (various forms) and behavioural effects.  I will
concede that they are hardly conclusive, but it's hard to find any sort of
conclusive research in sociology or psychiatry. Certainly Google's not
helping me find anything that I want to point to here.

Personally  I apply the "if you don't like it don't watch" it rule to such
shows.  I get more annoyed by the Cabot Health ads for liver shots which are
harder to avoid.  At least ACA/TNT are on at clearly defined times.

Excessive speed presents a risk to others, a potential harm, and the
> justification for speed limits is that society only accepts a certain
> level of risk of harm.
>

Which is pretty much the same argument that is used to justify the
classification board.


>
> I hate it when the speed limit analogy is brought up because I think
> they're another example of poor risk assessment and mitigation. And by
> poor I mean completely retarded.
>

I think completely retarded is a little unkind. I'll concede it's not a
particularly good analogy.  I guess I was looking for another field where we
look to correlation as a guide to setting public policy, because causation
is too hard to establish.


> > For the record - despite being a "nutcase cannibal blood drinking
> wannabe" I
> > am:
> >
> > - Opposed to the internet filter (for both technical, philosophical and
> > moral reasons)
>
> Both of those three?
>

Yes!


> You sound like a decent human being. I don't think you've been paying
> attention in church.
>

Or possibly you may not be as well informed about Christianity in general
and Catholic teachings in particular as you might think :)  I'm certainly on
the "liberal" end of the Roman Catholic tradition, but I'm not alone over
here.

My feeling about this remains that sometimes censorship can be justified.
To be justifiable though it needs to be based on more than moral outrage -
either mine or someone else's.  I'm comfortable with the current system for
physical media, but that's partly because the rules are reasonably clear and
there is no secret list.

I am not arguing for one second that the current system could not be
improved, but I think it does more good than harm.

I suspect at this stage we're probably boring most of the other people on
the list.  I'm happy to continue this if you want, but I think it's time to
take it off-list.


> --
> Sam Couter         |  mailto:sam at couter.id.au
> OpenPGP fingerprint:  A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05  5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkxnlJIACgkQhTADrt6Jx1ydTACcDLDs8v3NeJkBy0vtzwjU8MiK
> 8ZUAn1xH9MM0SBP80JiowwAxtdwI4tgp
> =ok+j
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> linux mailing list
> linux at lists.samba.org
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
>
>