You conveniently glossed over the fact that the study was concerned with *violent* pornography and *depictions of rape*.
It was not about videos that simply show consenting adults naked and/or fucking. It was about videos that show (or re-enact) the commission of violent sex crimes.
Not the same thing at all. But, hey, thanks for playing.
Usually I'm with you. But this time you're (over)reacting to a phrase.
Congratulations and welcome to Slashdot.
Your eyeglasses with attached rubber nose & fake moustache are in the mail.
Mr. Sexually Inadequate wonders why the women he encounters don't react like those he sees on porn sites panting and groaning in response to the guy's every demand and whim. He concludes, not entirely surprisingly, that women are untrustworthy, phoney bitch whores who deliberately tease guys like him then withhold what they've given to every other guy and so need to be taught a lesson.
Whereas the simple truth of the matter is that they're carrying on that like in the video because they're getting *paid* to do so.
It's all a matter of the one drive we have, can't rid ourselves of, and that's not essential for day-to-day survival being used for control. It's basically the leader saying, "Sex is bad for the crops unless I'm the one having it."
But that is certainly not the conjecture on which such laws are based, is it?
Yeah, some of them managed to make a fair amount of money before they ended on the gallows.
The authorities tended to put down their attack dogs once they'd become no longer expedient to keep around.
So some business with the absolute bargain-basement IT staff, chock full of bargain-basement novices is going to decide if a compromised workstation the receiving department at another company is sufficient cause enough to shut that firm down? This would be like carpet-bombing an entire office building because a bank robber ducked into the building's lobby.
It's more like carpet-bombing a shoe store chosen more or less at random because you heard that, yesterday, a bank robber had run into one.
Even though, today, the same place he ran into yesterday might already be a café and not even be a shoe store any longer.
Thank you! I was coming here to post the same thing.
Wow, I'm really collecting the butt-hurt Troll mods today, eh...
Oy, I was NOT trolling, and I stand by what I said.
Got a *response*? Fine, bring it on.
Otherwise, KGFY.
I deal with non-native English speakers on a daily basis as part of my job--and I'm married to one as well. Perhaps I don't have the complete picture, but I do think he's got some valid points.
I have little trouble entering Hanzi with a standard keyboard, and your typical Chinese person has even less.
You might recall that Chinese consists of a large number of related but mutually unintelligible "dialects". A Beijinger visiting Hong Kong might pronounce it "Jiulong", but he can still read the sign that tells him he's arrived in "Nine Dragons"--or, as the locals pronounce it--Kowloon.
For that matter, handwriting recognition works quite well these days. Very handy when you're out and about and you see a character you don't know--just trace it on the screen of your smartphone with your finger, and up it pops in your dictionary, with the meaning and pronunciation. (NB: You *must* know the stroke order rules for writing Chinese characters for this to work. You don't have to write the character especially neatly, but the strokes need to have the correct order and placement.)
I'm not saying I *prefer* an ideographic writing system, just that what you're alluding to is already (AFAICT) a solved problem.
I'm glad someone else noticed that. Not that it applies to me, since I've already learnt how to say "I can't eat crustaceans--I'm allergic" in about 12 languages.
Interesting read. Thanks for the link.
Heisenberg may have been here.
