My theory:

These missile interceptors aren't for North Korea. That is the excuse. They are actually a bargaining chip for China. If China reels in North Korea, then these missile interceptors near their borders will be removed. Until then, Obama can simply claim that he is trying to defend against an aggressive North Korean threat to nuke the US (even if North Korea doesn't actually have the capability to do so).

Kim Jong Un overstretched his threats and gave the US the perfect opening to do this. He is obviously much stupider than his father. At this point, he has given the US an excuse to build up its military power right on China's borders (including the deployment of more ships). And he has scared Japan and South Korea enough that they won't resist the continued US presence on their shores. China is NOT going to be happy about this. Not one bit. If I were Kim, I would be worried about the possibility that China might have him kidnapped or assassinated for this stupidity.

Yes, because after all.. alcohol, which is well regulated, hasn't caused any collateral damage.

Compared to prohibition? Be real.

The topic here isn't "ways to blow retirement savings", the topic is "the effects of so called victimless crimes". That you feel the need to change the topic tells me all I need to know.

You're the one who brought it up! Jesus H. Christ!

As far as the effect of victimless crimes, sure there may be an effect. But it is a second order or third order effect. Do people steal cigarettes or alcohol when they run out of money? Sure. Would people do the same if they ran out of heroin? Sure. But if heroin was as cheap as cigarettes or alcohol, would they be willing to kill for it? And would distributors be willing to kill to protect it?

What about prostitution? If it were regulated, like in Canada, would the women be so exploited? Would there not be substantial public health benefits?

I'm proposing a system where arbitrary morality doesn't determine whether the government can kick your door in and shoot your dog. I'm proposing a system where you don't use the heavy hand of government unless you can prove harm. You are nitpicking over second and third order effects. But why is this idea so crazy? What better solution do you have that addresses the rights of people and the rights of the harmed?

You don't understand this. This is to protect young girls from thinking they must starve themselves to meet our society's view of beauty:

* Eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness
* A study by the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders reported that 5 - 10% of anorexics die within 10 years after contracting the disease; 18-20% of anorexics will be dead after 20 years and only 30 - 40% ever fully recover
* The mortality rate associated with anorexia nervosa is 12 times higher than the death rate of ALL causes of death for females 15 - 24 years old.
* 20% of people suffering from anorexia will prematurely die from complications related to their eating disorder, including suicide and heart problems

Ref

Yes, but you are using today's drug math. If cocaine wasn't illegal, it wouldn't be so expensive. And if it was well regulated, the dosage could be monitored.

But what if he blew his money on the stock market or a crazy investment? There are a million stupid ways people lose their retirement savings. You can't put people in plastic balls to protect themselves from everything in the world and you don't need to burn down crops and indirectly fund insurgencies in Colombia because some asshole snorted cocaine. It is amazing that you talk about considering people other than the direct participants while supporting the War on Drugs.

Quick question: did you have a moment of cognitive dissonance when you wrote that sentence?

The Harm Principle doesn't negate a person's duties. If you don't pay income tax but still take advantage of the services the government provides, like police, roads, and schools, then you have failed in your duty. If you are the rare individual who was homeschooled (or raised by wolves) and lives out in the middle of Alaska and in no way takes advantage of government services, then sure, pay no income tax (which will be easy since you won't have any income). Failing in your duty does harm actually people, be it failing to provide food for your kids or failing to support a school system than once educated you.

That IS my idea! I assume women are complete human beings, capable of handling the responsibility of solving their own problems.

Wrong. Sexism isn't just a problem for women as racism isn't just a problem for African Americans. It is all of our problem and we all have a duty to act. You cite MLK, but you forget that he wasn't successful just because he mobilized African Americans. He mobilized just as many Caucasians as well. You cite the suffrage movement, and miss the same point. They mobilized just as many men as women. And the LGBT rights movement today--it is primarily driven by straights who despise bigotry.

Stop putting all of the duty to fix the problem on women. Men have just as much of a duty to fight for equal rights. It is insane to think that we should have separate game publishers for men and women. Sanity comes by the realization that by eliminating sexism, games can be inclusive to everybody.

It is actually a more general question. The question is whether the government has the right to use force (i.e. the police busting into your house with a SWAT team and shooting your dog) to prevent a person from doing an act that harms nobody but themselves or another fully consenting and knowledgeable adult. Drugs, polygamy, gambling, legal age prostitution, etc., could all be arguably classified under victim-less crimes. And not surprisingly, all of these are crimes against morality (except when there in a financial interest such as the lottery or alcohol sales).

Do you have no problem about golf courses, housing, employment, etc., discriminating against African Americans because they are adults? And do you have no problem about people discriminating against LGBT persons because they are adults?

At what point do you think adults should ignore discrimination and at what point do you think they should act?

It may be a harsh world, but it is a hell of a lot less harsh when you don't have to deal with bigotry.

Yeah, I know, complain about sexism on Slashdot and your will get modded into the floor. I've been here long enough that I should have known to post as AC. Oh well, bye, bye, karma.

As a Slashdot greybeard, I've had enough discussions to know why this occurs. There is a group of gamers who are highly introverted and who have been repeatedly rejected by women for much of their lives. They are similar to the hikikomari subculture in Japan. For them, games are an outlet to live out their fantasies. If you talk to people on 4chan, they refer to hyper-sexualized fantasy characters as being "2D" or "mai waifu". There are even discussions on 2D dating (in case you are confused, this means having an imaginary date with a fantasy character).

Recently, Anita Sarkeesian provoked their ire by doing nothing, but scaring them that she would attack their 2D fantasies. The coordinated response was massive, and the level of paranoia skyrocketed. Even today, on sites like Slashdot, anybody who is seen as a threat to their subculture and fantasies is ruthlessly attacked. While the attacks by the hikikimori-like subculture has just been rage, ordinary misogynists have grabbed onto their coattails to spread their hate as well (like benspurr with his beat up Anita Sarkeesian game).

As I said above, if women want more positive portrayals of women in video games, they can start their own game companies and make their own games (and some have done just that, I applaud them for their effort)

This post is a good example of blame shifting. By shifting the blame of sexism onto women who haven't made the non-sexist games, you think you can claim your hands are clean, right? So what do you say: "let the market decide! If sexism is bad then it will be uneconomical. We don't have to worry about that annoying subject called ethics." Heck, let's apply it in general. If LGBT people don't like negative portrayals in the media, they can just form their own media companies. If African Americans don't like racism, they can make their own media.

What a great idea...NOT!

Here's an alternate idea: assume that women are complete human beings and that sexism is wrong. And even if you are a man, realize that you probably have a sister, daughter, or niece who will see this sexist crap and see it as a red flag to stay in her assigned gender role...or else!

Sexism is a type of bigotry. I know our culture has made it seem less damaging than racism, but really it is just as damaging. Just because sexism is largely accepted does not make it right.

Here is a list of bigoted statements:
* If those n*****s want to play golf, they should just build their own golf club
* If those f**s want equal rights, they should move to San Francisco
* If those b*****s want to play our sexist games, they can start their own game companies

Yeah, I know, sexist video games aren't the greatest form of bigotry that exists. But it is a type of bigotry. And it should be resisted.

Just to be clear, since I was misinterpreted earlier in this post, when I wrote "questioning science" in the above post, I meant questioning science philosophically, or questioning the scientific method as a valid method.

You have constructed one hell of a strawman here. And I must say, you have masterfully taken down an imaginary argument. I can only imagine that you somehow interpreted my post to mean that anyone that questions climate change is a lunatic and that questioning climate change is questioning science. And if that was what I wrote, then your post would be insulting, but correct. But it wasn't what I wrote. There really isn't much of a way for me to respond to your argument since it is based on a false presupposition. I can only reiterate my argument and hope that your reading comprehension is stronger this time around: the evidence for climate change is overwhelming, but not popular with certain groups. For this reason, there are a lot of bullshit arguments and conspiracies thrown at it. These bullshit arguments and conspiracies are then labelled 'debate'. Now a new study comes along that partially contradicts several other studies. Should we have a 'debate' about this before the international scientific community can respond?

Debate? You see, that is the problem. Climate change is an event, like earthquakes, the sun rising, and cargo ships running into a pier. It is not like a gun control debate or an abortion debate where opinions matter. Climate change simply happens.

The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate. There is also a very noisy group of lunatics who deny all evidence and make up conspiracy theories. We can't prejudge this study, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept it prior to it being thoroughly reviewed by the international scientific community--not corporations or politicians. Science self-corrects, which means that there are occasionally flawed studies and occasionally revolutionary studies. I hate to break it to you, but flawed studies outnumber revolutionary studies by orders of magnitude. This is why the scientific process is so rigorous. Science is hard.