FA+
Shop
2242
Views
Views
29
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Story / Miscellaneous
Species Vulpine (Other)
Size 120 x 120
File Size 16.6 kB
Report this content
More from alexreynard
This was originally going to be a journal, but then I thought, 'Naaah. Everyone always complains (and rightfully so) about not being able to fav journals'. If you think my assumption that people will want to fav this is arrogant, you ain't seen nothin' yet!
This is pretty straight forward: a list of ways I would change America if I were the supreme overlord of the entire country. Tee hee.
[EDIT] Made changes regarding cannibalism, necrophilia and FurAffinity (funny how that works out...)
[EDIT] Added new decree regarding professional sports
[EDIT] Added new decree regarding movies
This is pretty straight forward: a list of ways I would change America if I were the supreme overlord of the entire country. Tee hee.
[EDIT] Made changes regarding cannibalism, necrophilia and FurAffinity (funny how that works out...)
[EDIT] Added new decree regarding professional sports
[EDIT] Added new decree regarding movies
Category Story / Miscellaneous
Species Vulpine (Other)
Size 120 x 120px
File Size 16.6 kB
>Many items listed here are great in theory, but many (most) would be bad to implement IRL. And while I agree with many of the items here, there are others I disagree with, some strongly so.
Let me know which ones you disagree with and why. I hoped the entries about advisers and revising bad ideas would convey that I welcome criticism on this.
Let me know which ones you disagree with and why. I hoped the entries about advisers and revising bad ideas would convey that I welcome criticism on this.
Your universe has an enemy coming for them! That enemy is me! And the hole Order of mata Nui! It's Culture Shock Time!!! I'm gonna stop you before you even legalize the same horrible thing that is legalized in the new movie (The Purge)!! It Ends Now!! *Launches a mass invasion of your world! Sends in a squad of his new Visorak Arachno-Troopers* A new kind of order is coming and you cannot even hope to stop this?!! My brothers,Makuta Zivrax and Makuta Zazrix and I are the new leaders of the Visorak Hoards now! So be afraid!! Be very afraid!!!
I read all this, but the one thing I read and though '"YES" to was "Teachers' salaries will become enormous."
this should be the truth already :I
But unfortunately, mindless sports participants are paid more than the people we trust with our childrens education.
"While owning a fur garment or pelt will not be illegal, American stores will not be allowed to sell fur. Fur stores will be shut down and owners will face steep fines for profiting off animal cruelty."
what about stores that sell non-violent fur? Users on here, such as anklebones, only sell and collect fur and bones and such that were obtained naturally, such as premature births, accidentally, such as roadkill, or are vintage, where theres no point in getting upset about it at all.
"Sport hunting will only be legal with a blood alcohol level above the current limit for driving. Orange vests and hats will not be allowed."
Hahah this is great :P
But youve gotta think about the people who hunt, but arent cowards and sit up high in a tree smelling like the animals urine and having a clear advantage. People do use non-modified bows and arrows, or even attack the animals themselves with knives. Also, falconry must be considered as well.
"Any movie theater that advertises a movie at a given time, and does not start that film at the stated time because of commercials shown before the movie (other than movie previews), will be fined an amount of money equal to double whatever revenue they gained from the commercials."
I actually like when they do this XD Because I often dont hear about movies unless i see them on the big screen. Also, if im late, it reassures me that theres 7 minutes of commercials beforehand XD
"The profits from Stephanie Meyer's Twilight books will be siezed to fund illiteracy prevention programs."
Bahahahah, great XD
this should be the truth already :I
But unfortunately, mindless sports participants are paid more than the people we trust with our childrens education.
"While owning a fur garment or pelt will not be illegal, American stores will not be allowed to sell fur. Fur stores will be shut down and owners will face steep fines for profiting off animal cruelty."
what about stores that sell non-violent fur? Users on here, such as anklebones, only sell and collect fur and bones and such that were obtained naturally, such as premature births, accidentally, such as roadkill, or are vintage, where theres no point in getting upset about it at all.
"Sport hunting will only be legal with a blood alcohol level above the current limit for driving. Orange vests and hats will not be allowed."
Hahah this is great :P
But youve gotta think about the people who hunt, but arent cowards and sit up high in a tree smelling like the animals urine and having a clear advantage. People do use non-modified bows and arrows, or even attack the animals themselves with knives. Also, falconry must be considered as well.
"Any movie theater that advertises a movie at a given time, and does not start that film at the stated time because of commercials shown before the movie (other than movie previews), will be fined an amount of money equal to double whatever revenue they gained from the commercials."
I actually like when they do this XD Because I often dont hear about movies unless i see them on the big screen. Also, if im late, it reassures me that theres 7 minutes of commercials beforehand XD
"The profits from Stephanie Meyer's Twilight books will be siezed to fund illiteracy prevention programs."
Bahahahah, great XD
As far as hunting goes, I'm reminded of something my mom used to say to me at dinner time. "Take all you want, but eat all you take." This applied both to home meals and restaurant buffets.
How 'bout this. Hunt as much as you want, but every animal you kill, you have to eat. All edible flesh must be harvested, cleaned, and consumed by you and your immediate family within one year (to allow for killing a big animal and freezing most of the meat for dinners later). An open discussion will be scheduled on the merits of also limiting hunting to the following: a) weapons that only multiply the force of your own muscles, eg. bows and arrows, knives, as opposed to guns, lasers, poisons, or anything else that uses a primary energy source other than the human body. b) falconry, hunting dog, or any other animal trained to be a hunting partner to a human, with the requirement that only one animal per human be allowed on the hunt (no chasing down prey with whole packs of hounds, for example).
This would bring hunting away from the blood sport it currently is, back to what it should be: natural predation, with humans or our falcon/dog/other partners as the predator. (It goes without saying, but probably still needs to be said for legal reasons, that for purposes of the "eat all you take" provision, your partner animal counts as a member of your immediate family.)
How 'bout this. Hunt as much as you want, but every animal you kill, you have to eat. All edible flesh must be harvested, cleaned, and consumed by you and your immediate family within one year (to allow for killing a big animal and freezing most of the meat for dinners later). An open discussion will be scheduled on the merits of also limiting hunting to the following: a) weapons that only multiply the force of your own muscles, eg. bows and arrows, knives, as opposed to guns, lasers, poisons, or anything else that uses a primary energy source other than the human body. b) falconry, hunting dog, or any other animal trained to be a hunting partner to a human, with the requirement that only one animal per human be allowed on the hunt (no chasing down prey with whole packs of hounds, for example).
This would bring hunting away from the blood sport it currently is, back to what it should be: natural predation, with humans or our falcon/dog/other partners as the predator. (It goes without saying, but probably still needs to be said for legal reasons, that for purposes of the "eat all you take" provision, your partner animal counts as a member of your immediate family.)
>As far as hunting goes, I'm reminded of something my mom used to say to me at dinner time. "Take all you want, but eat all you take." This applied both to home meals and restaurant buffets.
I didn't choose the hunting provisions I did for comedy's sake. Notice that both outlawing orange vests and making drunkenness a requirement are designed to decrease safety.
People who use the term 'sport hunting' ought to be slapped. Hunting is not a sport, especially not these days. You can't call something a sport if one side is given every advantage, and the other side isn't even aware the game is being played. Also, if one side loses, they go home; if the other side loses, they die. This is not fair.
Hunting is structured more like rape than sport. The hunter stalks his prey, keeping out of sight, until ambushing them and pumping them full of their projectiles. And afterwards, they talk about how beautiful their catch was.
If people are absolutely determined to hunt, I want there to be an equal risk of death for them. If they are willing to take a life, they MUST be willing to risk their own. If they aren't, they're cowards and have no business stomping around the woods pretending to be a predator.
If I can think of a better alternative to the drunkenness provision, I'll swap it out for something else. The goal here is to increase hunting accidents as much as possible. I can't stress it enough; people who are willing to take a life, but unwilling to risk their own, do not deserve to live.
I didn't choose the hunting provisions I did for comedy's sake. Notice that both outlawing orange vests and making drunkenness a requirement are designed to decrease safety.
People who use the term 'sport hunting' ought to be slapped. Hunting is not a sport, especially not these days. You can't call something a sport if one side is given every advantage, and the other side isn't even aware the game is being played. Also, if one side loses, they go home; if the other side loses, they die. This is not fair.
Hunting is structured more like rape than sport. The hunter stalks his prey, keeping out of sight, until ambushing them and pumping them full of their projectiles. And afterwards, they talk about how beautiful their catch was.
If people are absolutely determined to hunt, I want there to be an equal risk of death for them. If they are willing to take a life, they MUST be willing to risk their own. If they aren't, they're cowards and have no business stomping around the woods pretending to be a predator.
If I can think of a better alternative to the drunkenness provision, I'll swap it out for something else. The goal here is to increase hunting accidents as much as possible. I can't stress it enough; people who are willing to take a life, but unwilling to risk their own, do not deserve to live.
Not all hunting accidents necessarily happen to hunters. Sometimes some poor schlub gets nailed by a stray round from a mis-aimed but over-powered hunting rifle. And alcohol-hazed hunters can certainly be counted on to stray outside of designated areas.
And then there's this story: this one guy on a hunting trip steps out of his RV, pump-action shotgun in hand. He gets a short distance away, and then a deer goes bounding thru the clearing, between the nimrod and his RV. He spins around, pumping and firing as fast as he can, but completely misses the deer, which makes good its escape into the treeline. The RV on the other hand, got blasted at least six times. The only thing that kept it from being a tragedy was the fact that nobody was inside it.
And then there's this story: this one guy on a hunting trip steps out of his RV, pump-action shotgun in hand. He gets a short distance away, and then a deer goes bounding thru the clearing, between the nimrod and his RV. He spins around, pumping and firing as fast as he can, but completely misses the deer, which makes good its escape into the treeline. The RV on the other hand, got blasted at least six times. The only thing that kept it from being a tragedy was the fact that nobody was inside it.
With no recoil, clever people would simply hold the gun so it'd miss them on the backfire, or if the device had auto-tracking of facial features (not all that far-fetched with current technology) to swivel the output mirror to aim squarely at the center of the brain, they'd wear masks designed to obscure such recognition or mirrored helmets to avoid the danger entirely.
In such a case, though, you WOULD succeed entirely in weeding out the stupid. That's a plus.
In such a case, though, you WOULD succeed entirely in weeding out the stupid. That's a plus.
>what about stores that sell non-violent fur? Users on here, such as anklebones, only sell and collect fur and bones and such that were obtained naturally, such as premature births, accidentally, such as roadkill, or are vintage, where theres no point in getting upset about it at all.
Fair enough. I would want may laws to be flexible and open to exception. If these were to be written down in a legal document, each law would be accompanied by it's intent. In this case, the intent is to prevent animal cruelty. So, if someone selling fur could prove it was cruelty free, they wouldn't be breaking the spirit of the law and they'd be let off.
Among the things I hate most are 'zero tolerance' laws. There has never been one that hasn't led to unintended misery and suffering.
>But youve gotta think about the people who hunt, but arent cowards and sit up high in a tree smelling like the animals urine and having a clear advantage. People do use non-modified bows and arrows, or even attack the animals themselves with knives. Also, falconry must be considered as well.
I'm gonna respond to Alfador's comments on this, because he goes more in-depth.
>I actually like when they do this XD Because I often dont hear about movies unless i see them on the big screen. Also, if im late, it reassures me that theres 7 minutes of commercials beforehand XD
Sorry dude; I'm sure there's a lot more people who hate having to sit through commercials. Be more punctual. ;)
Fair enough. I would want may laws to be flexible and open to exception. If these were to be written down in a legal document, each law would be accompanied by it's intent. In this case, the intent is to prevent animal cruelty. So, if someone selling fur could prove it was cruelty free, they wouldn't be breaking the spirit of the law and they'd be let off.
Among the things I hate most are 'zero tolerance' laws. There has never been one that hasn't led to unintended misery and suffering.
>But youve gotta think about the people who hunt, but arent cowards and sit up high in a tree smelling like the animals urine and having a clear advantage. People do use non-modified bows and arrows, or even attack the animals themselves with knives. Also, falconry must be considered as well.
I'm gonna respond to Alfador's comments on this, because he goes more in-depth.
>I actually like when they do this XD Because I often dont hear about movies unless i see them on the big screen. Also, if im late, it reassures me that theres 7 minutes of commercials beforehand XD
Sorry dude; I'm sure there's a lot more people who hate having to sit through commercials. Be more punctual. ;)
Well I usually do that with cokes at least XD
Last time I sneaked food in, it was a large pack of gourmet jellybeans, which we proceeded to see if we could hit the screen from the very back row. Some black guy came and cussed at us because apparently we got some in his afro or something 8D
Last time I sneaked food in, it was a large pack of gourmet jellybeans, which we proceeded to see if we could hit the screen from the very back row. Some black guy came and cussed at us because apparently we got some in his afro or something 8D
It's my opinion that criminal behavior should be treated as a disease. People who commit crime should be required to participate in studies designed to learn more about criminal behavior. The results of those studies should be used in the creation of laws and treatments to help those afflicted.
People whose crimes earn life sentences would, in effect, become life-time guinea pigs until such time as a means is developed to cure them.
People whose crimes earn life sentences would, in effect, become life-time guinea pigs until such time as a means is developed to cure them.
>People who commit crime should be required to participate in studies designed to learn more about criminal behavior. The results of those studies should be used in the creation of laws and treatments to help those afflicted.
Now THIS, I like. Our criminal justice system now is far too fixated with punishment. Punishment's fine if the person has committed a horribly cruel crime and shows no remorse. But damn near everyone else does what they do because they think it's a good idea at the time. A justice system geared towards understanding, prevention and curing would almost certainly be more effective and probably cost less.
Now THIS, I like. Our criminal justice system now is far too fixated with punishment. Punishment's fine if the person has committed a horribly cruel crime and shows no remorse. But damn near everyone else does what they do because they think it's a good idea at the time. A justice system geared towards understanding, prevention and curing would almost certainly be more effective and probably cost less.
*The profits from Stephanie Meyer's Twilight books will be siezed to fund illiteracy prevention programs.
Only the above. If people wanna love trash then let em.. Instead use the money from the Michal Bay movies.
Oh and.. the businesses paying off politicains should be dissassembled shut down and all of the assets spread to the low level eployees so they have money to survive on due to the shut down.
Only the above. If people wanna love trash then let em.. Instead use the money from the Michal Bay movies.
Oh and.. the businesses paying off politicains should be dissassembled shut down and all of the assets spread to the low level eployees so they have money to survive on due to the shut down.
>Only the above. If people wanna love trash then let em.. Instead use the money from the Michal Bay movies.
Ah, but how is one different from the other? ;)
>Oh and.. the businesses paying off politicains should be dissassembled shut down and all of the assets spread to the low level eployees so they have money to survive on due to the shut down.
Not a bad idea. I really did my best to think about how I could punish business criminals without their low-level employees taking the brunt.
Ah, but how is one different from the other? ;)
>Oh and.. the businesses paying off politicains should be dissassembled shut down and all of the assets spread to the low level eployees so they have money to survive on due to the shut down.
Not a bad idea. I really did my best to think about how I could punish business criminals without their low-level employees taking the brunt.
I agree with most of these.
You forgot to add Dick Cheney to the list of people who did crimes against truth and human decency. He admitted to performing torture. http://www.alternet.org/story/14567.....ure_conspiracy You can find plenty of more links all over Google. I would add, similarly, that torture should be banned permanently, including severe pain the death penalty cases. I think the death penalty should only be given to serial killers; one-time killers only get life imprisonment and anyone of a crime less than murder can't be given death. Instead of torturing people for information, we should exclusively use FBI agents to negotiate with them. FBI members are specifically trained to play good cop/bad cop scenarios, because befriending a person usually gets more accurate information than waterboarding. If it doesn't, then threaten them, but do not actually torture them.
I think abstinence should be an abolished concept, or at the very least taught alongside safe sex. Abstinence-only teaching should be considered to be something along the lines of failure to properly parent or teach.
I do want the US military to spend less money, but an important thing to keep in mind is that our military is literally all over the world. We're pretty much the "world police", generally trying to keep peace and help out allies or to cull crazy Muslims from blowing people up. I really do want us to spend less money, but it's honestly a topic that needs deep, deep thinking by many economical and military experts and not something for philosophical-types like us to decide, I think.
I don't think NASA's budget should be reduced so drastically. The future of humanity is space. Almost everything modernized that you use right now, NASA either invented or improved. Microwave ovens? NASA. Solar power? NASA did that, too. Space satellites for phones, internet, etc.? NASA played a part in a lot of that technology. We'd practically still be living in the early 1900's if not for NASA. One day, too, this world will no longer support life. New ice ages, the sun heating up, our planet's core cooling and our atmosphere deteriorating and all kinds of other hellish ecological and cosmological disasters. Humanity will be able to survive even our own home planet's death only if we have sufficient space travel technology and NASA appears to be the most competent, able-bodied and efficient candidate for this. Halving NASA's budget would very seriously endanger all of humanity.
"*False accusations of rape will carry the same punishment as an actual rape (but only if the accusation is proven false by physical evidence)." I'm not sure what you're saying here? If I falsely accuse a person of rape, he faces real rape sentencing unless he can prove innocence? I hope I am misunderstanding you, because I believe in "innocent until proven guilty," not "guilty until proven innocent". It should be up to the accusers to provide evidence for accusations, the same reason why I am not religious, because no religious person provides evidence for their beliefs.
"*Sport hunting will only be legal with a blood alcohol level above the current limit for driving. Orange vests and hats will not be allowed." This is funny, because really, anyone who hunts is stupid to begin with. Go ahead and shoot each other and fix our problem, right? Haha. =D But, I don't like encouraging death in humans, even if it's funny.
ED may be troll heaven, but they honestly have some good articles. Bill O'Reilly's criticism on Wikipedia is *pretty much not allowed*, it was removed from the site. ED has a pretty thorough article of his whackiness, although it is probably at least 20% fake just for the lulz. It has its usefulness and it's very funny to me. I support ED's existence based on that, but also on the freedom of speech and expression as well.
I think Richard Dawkins should be given whatever highest civilian award the US can give to him, currently either the Presidential Medal of Freedom or the Congressional Gold Medal.
You forgot to add Dick Cheney to the list of people who did crimes against truth and human decency. He admitted to performing torture. http://www.alternet.org/story/14567.....ure_conspiracy You can find plenty of more links all over Google. I would add, similarly, that torture should be banned permanently, including severe pain the death penalty cases. I think the death penalty should only be given to serial killers; one-time killers only get life imprisonment and anyone of a crime less than murder can't be given death. Instead of torturing people for information, we should exclusively use FBI agents to negotiate with them. FBI members are specifically trained to play good cop/bad cop scenarios, because befriending a person usually gets more accurate information than waterboarding. If it doesn't, then threaten them, but do not actually torture them.
I think abstinence should be an abolished concept, or at the very least taught alongside safe sex. Abstinence-only teaching should be considered to be something along the lines of failure to properly parent or teach.
I do want the US military to spend less money, but an important thing to keep in mind is that our military is literally all over the world. We're pretty much the "world police", generally trying to keep peace and help out allies or to cull crazy Muslims from blowing people up. I really do want us to spend less money, but it's honestly a topic that needs deep, deep thinking by many economical and military experts and not something for philosophical-types like us to decide, I think.
I don't think NASA's budget should be reduced so drastically. The future of humanity is space. Almost everything modernized that you use right now, NASA either invented or improved. Microwave ovens? NASA. Solar power? NASA did that, too. Space satellites for phones, internet, etc.? NASA played a part in a lot of that technology. We'd practically still be living in the early 1900's if not for NASA. One day, too, this world will no longer support life. New ice ages, the sun heating up, our planet's core cooling and our atmosphere deteriorating and all kinds of other hellish ecological and cosmological disasters. Humanity will be able to survive even our own home planet's death only if we have sufficient space travel technology and NASA appears to be the most competent, able-bodied and efficient candidate for this. Halving NASA's budget would very seriously endanger all of humanity.
"*False accusations of rape will carry the same punishment as an actual rape (but only if the accusation is proven false by physical evidence)." I'm not sure what you're saying here? If I falsely accuse a person of rape, he faces real rape sentencing unless he can prove innocence? I hope I am misunderstanding you, because I believe in "innocent until proven guilty," not "guilty until proven innocent". It should be up to the accusers to provide evidence for accusations, the same reason why I am not religious, because no religious person provides evidence for their beliefs.
"*Sport hunting will only be legal with a blood alcohol level above the current limit for driving. Orange vests and hats will not be allowed." This is funny, because really, anyone who hunts is stupid to begin with. Go ahead and shoot each other and fix our problem, right? Haha. =D But, I don't like encouraging death in humans, even if it's funny.
ED may be troll heaven, but they honestly have some good articles. Bill O'Reilly's criticism on Wikipedia is *pretty much not allowed*, it was removed from the site. ED has a pretty thorough article of his whackiness, although it is probably at least 20% fake just for the lulz. It has its usefulness and it's very funny to me. I support ED's existence based on that, but also on the freedom of speech and expression as well.
I think Richard Dawkins should be given whatever highest civilian award the US can give to him, currently either the Presidential Medal of Freedom or the Congressional Gold Medal.
> "*False accusations of rape will carry the same punishment as an actual rape (but only if the accusation is proven false by physical evidence)." I'm not sure what you're saying here? If I falsely accuse a person of rape, he faces real rape sentencing unless he can prove innocence? I hope I am misunderstanding you, because I believe in "innocent until proven guilty," not "guilty until proven innocent". It should be up to the accusers to provide evidence for accusations, the same reason why I am not religious, because no religious person provides evidence for their beliefs.
No, no, I'm pretty sure what he's saying is that, in the event an accusation of rape proves to be false, the ACCUSER will face penalties equal to what the accused would have faced had the rape been real.
No, no, I'm pretty sure what he's saying is that, in the event an accusation of rape proves to be false, the ACCUSER will face penalties equal to what the accused would have faced had the rape been real.
Ah, okay, but it's already illegal to make false accusations, in fact it's prison-sentence worthy. I'm not sure how many years it carries and how much it changes from state-to-state, though. He could've just said he wanted harsher punishments against people who make false accusations, that'd have been simpler.
I should add that I don't think the right to vote for two-time Bush voters or heterosexual marriage by people who voted to ban gay marriage/limit gay rights should be taken away. People wouldn't think of it as "learning their lesson", they'd just grow to despise liberals and gay people even more. This may cause some kind of political rebellion of hatred to attempt to suppress people's rights even more than before. People were too dumb to begin with to realize that Bush is an idiot and gay people are humans, there is no hope in them learning their lesson. Obtaining victory is enough, don't beat a dead horse.
>You forgot to add Dick Cheney to the list of people who did crimes against truth and human decency.
No I didn't:
*Chinese-style show trials will be held on the White House lawn for key members of the Bush administration, followed by mock-executions, a few weeks in the stocks, then life imprisonment.
C'mon! You think I'd let a shitstain like him off the hook?
>I would add, similarly, that torture should be banned permanently,
Dang, that was so obvious I actually forgot to add it.
>I think the death penalty should only be given to serial killers; one-time killers only get life imprisonment and anyone of a crime less than murder can't be given death.
I dunno. I think that the main qualifications for giving someone the death penalty should be how much their victim suffered. A killer might kill only one person, but if they'd tortured and raped that person for months, I'd kill them myself. Similarly, I'd consider a serial rapist sufficiently evil enough for the death penalty too.
In my mind, the death penalty should not be about punishment. It should be like taking out the garbage. Like, 'This person has caused so much suffering that we cannot ever allow them the chance to hurt anyone else again'. It should be a way to protect society from true incurable evil. I believe pure evil is rare, but that it absolutely exists.
>Instead of torturing people for information, we should exclusively use FBI agents to negotiate with them. FBI members are specifically trained to play good cop/bad cop scenarios, because befriending a person usually gets more accurate information than waterboarding. If it doesn't, then threaten them, but do not actually torture them.
Heck, I'd ban torture purely on the basis that science proves it doesn't work. A big part of my overall scheme here is to get rid of anything that isn't working, yet we keep around for traditions' sake.
>I think abstinence should be an abolished concept, or at the very least taught alongside safe sex. Abstinence-only teaching should be considered to be something along the lines of failure to properly parent or teach.
Abstinence is a good idea. It really is a foolproof way to prevent preganancy. But ONLY teaching abstinence is a very BAD idea. Some people can pull it off, and for them, great. But a lot of 'moral' people are just too uncomfortable with the idea of kids and teens being given realistic info about sex. So for the sake of their squeamishness, kids get pregnant, get STDs, and some of them die.
>I do want the US military to spend less money, but an important thing to keep in mind is that our military is literally all over the world. We're pretty much the "world police", generally trying to keep peace and help out allies or to cull crazy Muslims from blowing people up. I really do want us to spend less money, but it's honestly a topic that needs deep, deep thinking by many economical and military experts and not something for philosophical-types like us to decide, I think.
Two things. 1: I think cutting out a LOT of this 'world's policeman' idea would be good for us and other countries. It makes us arrogant. 2: Almost everything I hear about military spending involves how insanely wasteful it is. The cold war ended and yet the military budget has continued to grow. I am convinced that the military could do everything it truly needs to with half its current budget. It just needs to stop throwing money at projects that won't work, and it needs to stop throwing money at companies like Haliburton who commit open fraud and whose sloppy work endangers soldiers.
>Halving NASA's budget would very seriously endanger all of humanity.
From NASA's website: "The Space Shuttle Endeavour, the orbiter built to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1.7 billion."
On the other hand Space Ship One, which was made purely with private funds, made a successful flight into space and was designed and built for $25,000,000
NASA works on the same principle as the military: 'Don't bother developing innovative, creative, money-saving, safer and cleaner projects when we can just make bigger versons of the old ones that cost more'.
>I'm not sure what you're saying here? If I falsely accuse a person of rape, he faces real rape sentencing unless he can prove innocence?
No; that a woman who maliciously accuses a man of rape in order to destroy his life should get the same jail sentence he would have. Most people think false rape accusations hardly ever happen, but the research I've done shows it may be as high as 10% of all accusations. False accusations damage the credibility of women who report real rapes, and it's an inhumanly cruel thing to do. I know it's already illegal, but someone who'd be willing to subject an innocent person to that much jailtime deserves to serve it themselves.
>But, I don't like encouraging death in humans, even if it's funny.
Well, scroll up a bit and see my reply to Alfador about hunting.
>ED may be troll heaven, but they honestly have some good articles. Bill O'Reilly's criticism on Wikipedia is *pretty much not allowed*, it was removed from the site. ED has a pretty thorough article of his whackiness, although it is probably at least 20% fake just for the lulz. It has its usefulness and it's very funny to me. I support ED's existence based on that, but also on the freedom of speech and expression as well.
I'm of the opinion that there are so many lies on the site that it is absolutely useless as a resource, because it's impossible to separate the truth from the 'lulz'. I think if a lawyer looked at ED and consulted our existing slander laws, there'd be legal precedent for eliminating it. Plus, I'm weighing harm vs. benefit. A few people would be inconvenienced by not being able to look up info on memes and trolls, but more people would be grateful to have that much insult and personal information removed from easy access.
>I think Richard Dawkins should be given whatever highest civilian award the US can give to him, currently either the Presidential Medal of Freedom or the Congressional Gold Medal.
I'd give him a bear hug. And dammit! I forgot to add him to my list of advisers! I'll go change that.
No I didn't:
*Chinese-style show trials will be held on the White House lawn for key members of the Bush administration, followed by mock-executions, a few weeks in the stocks, then life imprisonment.
C'mon! You think I'd let a shitstain like him off the hook?
>I would add, similarly, that torture should be banned permanently,
Dang, that was so obvious I actually forgot to add it.
>I think the death penalty should only be given to serial killers; one-time killers only get life imprisonment and anyone of a crime less than murder can't be given death.
I dunno. I think that the main qualifications for giving someone the death penalty should be how much their victim suffered. A killer might kill only one person, but if they'd tortured and raped that person for months, I'd kill them myself. Similarly, I'd consider a serial rapist sufficiently evil enough for the death penalty too.
In my mind, the death penalty should not be about punishment. It should be like taking out the garbage. Like, 'This person has caused so much suffering that we cannot ever allow them the chance to hurt anyone else again'. It should be a way to protect society from true incurable evil. I believe pure evil is rare, but that it absolutely exists.
>Instead of torturing people for information, we should exclusively use FBI agents to negotiate with them. FBI members are specifically trained to play good cop/bad cop scenarios, because befriending a person usually gets more accurate information than waterboarding. If it doesn't, then threaten them, but do not actually torture them.
Heck, I'd ban torture purely on the basis that science proves it doesn't work. A big part of my overall scheme here is to get rid of anything that isn't working, yet we keep around for traditions' sake.
>I think abstinence should be an abolished concept, or at the very least taught alongside safe sex. Abstinence-only teaching should be considered to be something along the lines of failure to properly parent or teach.
Abstinence is a good idea. It really is a foolproof way to prevent preganancy. But ONLY teaching abstinence is a very BAD idea. Some people can pull it off, and for them, great. But a lot of 'moral' people are just too uncomfortable with the idea of kids and teens being given realistic info about sex. So for the sake of their squeamishness, kids get pregnant, get STDs, and some of them die.
>I do want the US military to spend less money, but an important thing to keep in mind is that our military is literally all over the world. We're pretty much the "world police", generally trying to keep peace and help out allies or to cull crazy Muslims from blowing people up. I really do want us to spend less money, but it's honestly a topic that needs deep, deep thinking by many economical and military experts and not something for philosophical-types like us to decide, I think.
Two things. 1: I think cutting out a LOT of this 'world's policeman' idea would be good for us and other countries. It makes us arrogant. 2: Almost everything I hear about military spending involves how insanely wasteful it is. The cold war ended and yet the military budget has continued to grow. I am convinced that the military could do everything it truly needs to with half its current budget. It just needs to stop throwing money at projects that won't work, and it needs to stop throwing money at companies like Haliburton who commit open fraud and whose sloppy work endangers soldiers.
>Halving NASA's budget would very seriously endanger all of humanity.
From NASA's website: "The Space Shuttle Endeavour, the orbiter built to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1.7 billion."
On the other hand Space Ship One, which was made purely with private funds, made a successful flight into space and was designed and built for $25,000,000
NASA works on the same principle as the military: 'Don't bother developing innovative, creative, money-saving, safer and cleaner projects when we can just make bigger versons of the old ones that cost more'.
>I'm not sure what you're saying here? If I falsely accuse a person of rape, he faces real rape sentencing unless he can prove innocence?
No; that a woman who maliciously accuses a man of rape in order to destroy his life should get the same jail sentence he would have. Most people think false rape accusations hardly ever happen, but the research I've done shows it may be as high as 10% of all accusations. False accusations damage the credibility of women who report real rapes, and it's an inhumanly cruel thing to do. I know it's already illegal, but someone who'd be willing to subject an innocent person to that much jailtime deserves to serve it themselves.
>But, I don't like encouraging death in humans, even if it's funny.
Well, scroll up a bit and see my reply to Alfador about hunting.
>ED may be troll heaven, but they honestly have some good articles. Bill O'Reilly's criticism on Wikipedia is *pretty much not allowed*, it was removed from the site. ED has a pretty thorough article of his whackiness, although it is probably at least 20% fake just for the lulz. It has its usefulness and it's very funny to me. I support ED's existence based on that, but also on the freedom of speech and expression as well.
I'm of the opinion that there are so many lies on the site that it is absolutely useless as a resource, because it's impossible to separate the truth from the 'lulz'. I think if a lawyer looked at ED and consulted our existing slander laws, there'd be legal precedent for eliminating it. Plus, I'm weighing harm vs. benefit. A few people would be inconvenienced by not being able to look up info on memes and trolls, but more people would be grateful to have that much insult and personal information removed from easy access.
>I think Richard Dawkins should be given whatever highest civilian award the US can give to him, currently either the Presidential Medal of Freedom or the Congressional Gold Medal.
I'd give him a bear hug. And dammit! I forgot to add him to my list of advisers! I'll go change that.
>No I didn't:
Oh, whoops. I just saw the word "Bush" and my mind went into spaghetti. The word "Bush" pretty much encompasses everything else, you have to admit. Sorry for misreading. =(
>Abstinence is a good idea. It really is a foolproof way to prevent preganancy. But ONLY teaching abstinence is a very BAD idea.
Yay! We agree that only teaching abstinence is a bad idea. I think the general policy should be something like, "While we can't stop you from having sex, we heavily advise you to not do so. However, if you do choose to, please us contraception."
>if they'd tortured and raped that person for months, I'd kill them myself.
Rather than the death penalty, I think this shows more of a deep mental insanity and the person should be locked in a mental institution for life. Personally, I really think the death penalty should be abolished for a few reasons, but if we have it at all, I think only serial killers should get it, since it's about as low as you can go. No matter how much pain and suffering a person causes, the person can only ever die once. He can torture a person for months or years or kill 30 people, but he can only die once. He can't die thirty times and avenge everyone. If I had to choose between life imprisonment and death, I'd choose death. Shawshank Redemption or any other high-quality prison movie shows that (or anyone who's been in prison is able to say the following as true:) being in prison is Hell on Earth. I'd rather be dead than in prison. While a person can't die more than once, he can suffer for 70 long, mentally isolated, emotionally torturous years until he dies cold, lonely and hungry. They may be too mentally damaged to understand emotions like sadness or empathy, but they can still suffer in their own ways. In the words of the Count of Monte Cristo, "Death is too good for them."
>Two things. 1: I think cutting out a LOT of this 'world's policeman' idea would be good for us and other countries. It makes us arrogant. 2: Almost everything I hear about military spending involves how insanely wasteful it is. The cold war ended and yet the military budget has continued to grow. I am convinced that the military could do everything it truly needs to with half its current budget. It just needs to stop throwing money at projects that won't work, and it needs to stop throwing money at companies like Haliburton who commit open fraud and whose sloppy work endangers soldiers.
Just recently, North Korea attacked a South Korean ship and killed over 30 sailors. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/.....t=1&f=1001 The US, in response, is giving South Korea some "anti-submarine exercises". We are, after all, the ones who kept SK from being absorbed into the hell hole that is known as North Korea and they are an ally of ours. We are obligated to help them, as we should expect them to help us in time of need. A sort of "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". It's just the right thing to do. This is the sort of stuff that I support. An ally of ours is attacked, we help train them to defend themselves. We'll do more if necessary. Lots of innocent, comparatively free people are in danger of being murdered or enslaved by an even worse people. I don't think it's right to sit by and do nothing simply because it's "not our business". While I would like to see less than 300 billion dollars given to the military, I remain agnostic as to what the solution should be. I claim no expertise in the subject and admit I cannot give a reputable opinion on the matter. Good news: Obama has finally asked Congress to vote on a repeal against the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy!
>From NASA's website: "The Space Shuttle Endeavour, the orbiter built to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1.7 billion."
On the other hand Space Ship One, which was made purely with private funds, made a successful flight into space and was designed and built for $25,000,000
I should note that Space Ship One can only enter suborbital flight, it cannot enter deep space like NASA shuttles. That's probably why it costs so much less. I think reducing its budget is a very bad idea. Also, Paul Allen helped fund it, who is one of the most wealthy individuals in the world.
Oh, whoops. I just saw the word "Bush" and my mind went into spaghetti. The word "Bush" pretty much encompasses everything else, you have to admit. Sorry for misreading. =(
>Abstinence is a good idea. It really is a foolproof way to prevent preganancy. But ONLY teaching abstinence is a very BAD idea.
Yay! We agree that only teaching abstinence is a bad idea. I think the general policy should be something like, "While we can't stop you from having sex, we heavily advise you to not do so. However, if you do choose to, please us contraception."
>if they'd tortured and raped that person for months, I'd kill them myself.
Rather than the death penalty, I think this shows more of a deep mental insanity and the person should be locked in a mental institution for life. Personally, I really think the death penalty should be abolished for a few reasons, but if we have it at all, I think only serial killers should get it, since it's about as low as you can go. No matter how much pain and suffering a person causes, the person can only ever die once. He can torture a person for months or years or kill 30 people, but he can only die once. He can't die thirty times and avenge everyone. If I had to choose between life imprisonment and death, I'd choose death. Shawshank Redemption or any other high-quality prison movie shows that (or anyone who's been in prison is able to say the following as true:) being in prison is Hell on Earth. I'd rather be dead than in prison. While a person can't die more than once, he can suffer for 70 long, mentally isolated, emotionally torturous years until he dies cold, lonely and hungry. They may be too mentally damaged to understand emotions like sadness or empathy, but they can still suffer in their own ways. In the words of the Count of Monte Cristo, "Death is too good for them."
>Two things. 1: I think cutting out a LOT of this 'world's policeman' idea would be good for us and other countries. It makes us arrogant. 2: Almost everything I hear about military spending involves how insanely wasteful it is. The cold war ended and yet the military budget has continued to grow. I am convinced that the military could do everything it truly needs to with half its current budget. It just needs to stop throwing money at projects that won't work, and it needs to stop throwing money at companies like Haliburton who commit open fraud and whose sloppy work endangers soldiers.
Just recently, North Korea attacked a South Korean ship and killed over 30 sailors. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/.....t=1&f=1001 The US, in response, is giving South Korea some "anti-submarine exercises". We are, after all, the ones who kept SK from being absorbed into the hell hole that is known as North Korea and they are an ally of ours. We are obligated to help them, as we should expect them to help us in time of need. A sort of "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". It's just the right thing to do. This is the sort of stuff that I support. An ally of ours is attacked, we help train them to defend themselves. We'll do more if necessary. Lots of innocent, comparatively free people are in danger of being murdered or enslaved by an even worse people. I don't think it's right to sit by and do nothing simply because it's "not our business". While I would like to see less than 300 billion dollars given to the military, I remain agnostic as to what the solution should be. I claim no expertise in the subject and admit I cannot give a reputable opinion on the matter. Good news: Obama has finally asked Congress to vote on a repeal against the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy!
>From NASA's website: "The Space Shuttle Endeavour, the orbiter built to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1.7 billion."
On the other hand Space Ship One, which was made purely with private funds, made a successful flight into space and was designed and built for $25,000,000
I should note that Space Ship One can only enter suborbital flight, it cannot enter deep space like NASA shuttles. That's probably why it costs so much less. I think reducing its budget is a very bad idea. Also, Paul Allen helped fund it, who is one of the most wealthy individuals in the world.
Minor clarification, because I tend to type as my thoughts come. I think of myself as a good editor, but a bad self-editor.
"
I should note that Space Ship One can only enter suborbital flight, it cannot enter deep space like NASA shuttles. That's probably why it costs so much less. I think reducing NASA's budget is a very bad idea. Also, Paul Allen helped fund SSO, who is one of the most wealthy individuals in the world."
"
I should note that Space Ship One can only enter suborbital flight, it cannot enter deep space like NASA shuttles. That's probably why it costs so much less. I think reducing NASA's budget is a very bad idea. Also, Paul Allen helped fund SSO, who is one of the most wealthy individuals in the world."
>I think the general policy should be something like, "While we can't stop you from having sex, we heavily advise you to not do so. However, if you do choose to, please us contraception."
Pretty much. I think one core idea behind sex ed should be, 'Don't lie. Teenagers can smell bullshit in a heartbeat and will disregard everything we say to them if we don't respect them enough to be honest.'
>Rather than the death penalty, I think this shows more of a deep mental insanity and the person should be locked in a mental institution for life.
I disagree. People tend to think that killers and rapists are crazy. I doubt it. It's easier to think of them as crazy, because it's hard to imagine that a person can know right from wrong but still choose to do such evil things anyway. That's pretty much the definition of a sociopath.
>While a person can't die more than once, he can suffer for 70 long, mentally isolated, emotionally torturous years until he dies cold, lonely and hungry.
But is it worth 70 years of taxpayer money to house, clothe and feed him all that time?
>This is the sort of stuff that I support. An ally of ours is attacked, we help train them to defend themselves.
>I don't think it's right to sit by and do nothing simply because it's "not our business".
I agree that we should give help when it's asked for and to our allies. But the problem remains: the military wastes more money than you and I can imagine because no one ever tells them 'no'. They're like a spoiled child and whatever president's in office is like the mommy who gives them candy whenever they whine for it.
>Good news: Obama has finally asked Congress to vote on a repeal against the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy!
Frankly, I wish they'd keep it. It was a good 'Get out of Hell free' card for gays. ;)
>From NASA's website: "The Space Shuttle Endeavour, the orbiter built to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1.7 billion."
On the other hand Space Ship One, which was made purely with private funds, made a successful flight into space and was designed and built for $25,000,000
>I should note that Space Ship One can only enter suborbital flight, it cannot enter deep space like NASA shuttles. That's probably why it costs so much less. I think reducing NASA's budget is a very bad idea. Also, Paul Allen helped fund SSO, who is one of the most wealthy individuals in the world.
But still, a bunch of people built a spaceship from the ground up and got it up there for around a fifth of what the shuttle cost (not to mention an eighth of a stealth bomber). I think it shows that design is more important than budget.
And another thing; we still haven't pulled out of this recession. I think we can hold off on NASA missions until unemployment is back at reasonable levels.
Pretty much. I think one core idea behind sex ed should be, 'Don't lie. Teenagers can smell bullshit in a heartbeat and will disregard everything we say to them if we don't respect them enough to be honest.'
>Rather than the death penalty, I think this shows more of a deep mental insanity and the person should be locked in a mental institution for life.
I disagree. People tend to think that killers and rapists are crazy. I doubt it. It's easier to think of them as crazy, because it's hard to imagine that a person can know right from wrong but still choose to do such evil things anyway. That's pretty much the definition of a sociopath.
>While a person can't die more than once, he can suffer for 70 long, mentally isolated, emotionally torturous years until he dies cold, lonely and hungry.
But is it worth 70 years of taxpayer money to house, clothe and feed him all that time?
>This is the sort of stuff that I support. An ally of ours is attacked, we help train them to defend themselves.
>I don't think it's right to sit by and do nothing simply because it's "not our business".
I agree that we should give help when it's asked for and to our allies. But the problem remains: the military wastes more money than you and I can imagine because no one ever tells them 'no'. They're like a spoiled child and whatever president's in office is like the mommy who gives them candy whenever they whine for it.
>Good news: Obama has finally asked Congress to vote on a repeal against the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy!
Frankly, I wish they'd keep it. It was a good 'Get out of Hell free' card for gays. ;)
>From NASA's website: "The Space Shuttle Endeavour, the orbiter built to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1.7 billion."
On the other hand Space Ship One, which was made purely with private funds, made a successful flight into space and was designed and built for $25,000,000
>I should note that Space Ship One can only enter suborbital flight, it cannot enter deep space like NASA shuttles. That's probably why it costs so much less. I think reducing NASA's budget is a very bad idea. Also, Paul Allen helped fund SSO, who is one of the most wealthy individuals in the world.
But still, a bunch of people built a spaceship from the ground up and got it up there for around a fifth of what the shuttle cost (not to mention an eighth of a stealth bomber). I think it shows that design is more important than budget.
And another thing; we still haven't pulled out of this recession. I think we can hold off on NASA missions until unemployment is back at reasonable levels.
>I disagree. People tend to think that killers and rapists are crazy. I doubt it. It's easier to think of them as crazy, because it's hard to imagine that a person can know right from wrong but still choose to do such evil things anyway. That's pretty much the definition of a sociopath.
I actually agree with you. Killers and rapists, especially those who don't do it repeatedly, aren't usually mental, they are psychotic. They are fully aware of reality and their actions, but they completely lack empathy. A person may or may not be detached from reality, even if they do it once or repeatedly or if they torture a person for a month in captivity before killing them. The action itself doesn't 100% prove mental detachment, so I think a psychological evaluation should be done to determine the person's mental state.
>But is it worth 70 years of taxpayer money to house, clothe and feed him all that time?
Yes, I believe it is, because a dead person can't do anything and still must be killed with taxpayer money. A person imprisoned can be forced to do community service. We can have prisoners go around cities picking up trash and taking them to recycling dumps while being transported by armed and armored guards, police and/or military personnel.
A mentally insane person can't do these same things and thus may not have the same "worth", but the principle for them is supposed to be that even though they committed crimes a sane person deserves to be killed for, they are not in the same world as us. They are off in La La Land. It's not fair to subject them to the death penalty when a sane person who knowingly did wrong is put to death, while a person who is unable to tell what is wrong or right is also put to death. I feel that it is not equal treatment due to the context of the individual.
>Frankly, I wish they'd keep it. It was a good 'Get out of Hell free' card for gays. ;)
I always thought that, too. I could even get paid for being in the army reserves and then just go LOL I'M GAY when they tell me it's time to go fight in Afghanistan, but I assume that'd probably carry huge legal punishments. =( I also think it'll be helpful for general public opinion about gays when the first Medal of Honor is given posthumously to a homosexual for "gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty".
>But still, a bunch of people built a spaceship from the ground up and got it up there for around a fifth of what the shuttle cost (not to mention an eighth of a stealth bomber). I think it shows that design is more important than budget.
It's true that their design is much cheaper, but their design doesn't need heavy armor for micrometeorites or intense radiation. It also doesn't need to be designed to have people living on the ship for days, weeks, months or years. It's basically just a really high plane flight and, depending on where you're headed, would only last a few hours. It's kind of like comparing a Boeing 747 to Apollo 11.
>And another thing; we still haven't pulled out of this recession. I think we can hold off on NASA missions until unemployment is back at reasonable levels.
One of the main reasons for interest in a moon base isn't only to launch with low gravity and almost no atmosphere, thus saving on fuel. There is interest in possibly obtaining helium-3 for the purpose of nuclear fusion energy, which could give almost no pollution and would leave radioactive waste lasting only a few hundred years, whereas nuclear fission waste lasts a few thousand. However, even without helium-3, we can use minerals from oceans, but it will be less efficient and much more expensive. NASA making a moon base and mining helium-3 may not only end a recession, it may completely fix all energy problems for thousands of years. Yes, NASA isn't merely only looking at options for a moon base, they're doing lots of Mars probing missions and satellite and telescope launches right now (or working on doing them soon), but I believe it all has a benefit. Reducing NASA's budget very well could lead to an even worse recession.
I actually agree with you. Killers and rapists, especially those who don't do it repeatedly, aren't usually mental, they are psychotic. They are fully aware of reality and their actions, but they completely lack empathy. A person may or may not be detached from reality, even if they do it once or repeatedly or if they torture a person for a month in captivity before killing them. The action itself doesn't 100% prove mental detachment, so I think a psychological evaluation should be done to determine the person's mental state.
>But is it worth 70 years of taxpayer money to house, clothe and feed him all that time?
Yes, I believe it is, because a dead person can't do anything and still must be killed with taxpayer money. A person imprisoned can be forced to do community service. We can have prisoners go around cities picking up trash and taking them to recycling dumps while being transported by armed and armored guards, police and/or military personnel.
A mentally insane person can't do these same things and thus may not have the same "worth", but the principle for them is supposed to be that even though they committed crimes a sane person deserves to be killed for, they are not in the same world as us. They are off in La La Land. It's not fair to subject them to the death penalty when a sane person who knowingly did wrong is put to death, while a person who is unable to tell what is wrong or right is also put to death. I feel that it is not equal treatment due to the context of the individual.
>Frankly, I wish they'd keep it. It was a good 'Get out of Hell free' card for gays. ;)
I always thought that, too. I could even get paid for being in the army reserves and then just go LOL I'M GAY when they tell me it's time to go fight in Afghanistan, but I assume that'd probably carry huge legal punishments. =( I also think it'll be helpful for general public opinion about gays when the first Medal of Honor is given posthumously to a homosexual for "gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty".
>But still, a bunch of people built a spaceship from the ground up and got it up there for around a fifth of what the shuttle cost (not to mention an eighth of a stealth bomber). I think it shows that design is more important than budget.
It's true that their design is much cheaper, but their design doesn't need heavy armor for micrometeorites or intense radiation. It also doesn't need to be designed to have people living on the ship for days, weeks, months or years. It's basically just a really high plane flight and, depending on where you're headed, would only last a few hours. It's kind of like comparing a Boeing 747 to Apollo 11.
>And another thing; we still haven't pulled out of this recession. I think we can hold off on NASA missions until unemployment is back at reasonable levels.
One of the main reasons for interest in a moon base isn't only to launch with low gravity and almost no atmosphere, thus saving on fuel. There is interest in possibly obtaining helium-3 for the purpose of nuclear fusion energy, which could give almost no pollution and would leave radioactive waste lasting only a few hundred years, whereas nuclear fission waste lasts a few thousand. However, even without helium-3, we can use minerals from oceans, but it will be less efficient and much more expensive. NASA making a moon base and mining helium-3 may not only end a recession, it may completely fix all energy problems for thousands of years. Yes, NASA isn't merely only looking at options for a moon base, they're doing lots of Mars probing missions and satellite and telescope launches right now (or working on doing them soon), but I believe it all has a benefit. Reducing NASA's budget very well could lead to an even worse recession.
>Yes, I believe it is, because a dead person can't do anything and still must be killed with taxpayer money.
One could argue that a bullet doesn't cost much.
That's another thing that pisses me off about the death penalty: We lie about making the deaths 'humane'. All we have left is the electric chair, the gas chamber and lethal injection; all designed to look clean and sanitary for the people watching. Let them see a real death! It's what they came to fuckin' see! Besides, a guillotine blade or a bullet to the brain are both far more humane; it's over before the criminal can feel any pain. Whatever we do, we should be honest about our motives.
>A person imprisoned can be forced to do community service. We can have prisoners go around cities picking up trash and taking them to recycling dumps while being transported by armed and armored guards, police and/or military personnel.
Actually, I read an article about how many companies are using prison labor for things you'd never imagine. TONS of things get manufactured by prisoners. It's slave labor. Literally. And it makes financial sense for big companies that there be a really big prison population at all times. America has 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prisoners.
>It's not fair to subject them to the death penalty when a sane person who knowingly did wrong is put to death, while a person who is unable to tell what is wrong or right is also put to death. I feel that it is not equal treatment due to the context of the individual.
And yet we are morally okay with euthanizing an animal simply for being unwanted. In my opinion, the death penalty should be there, not as punishment, but as a regrettably necessary way to dispose of human beings who are too dangerous to be allowed to live.
>I also think it'll be helpful for general public opinion about gays when the first Medal of Honor is given posthumously to a homosexual for "gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty".
That is a hell of a good point.
>It's true that their design is much cheaper, but their design doesn't need heavy armor for micrometeorites or intense radiation. It also doesn't need to be designed to have people living on the ship for days, weeks, months or years. It's basically just a really high plane flight and, depending on where you're headed, would only last a few hours. It's kind of like comparing a Boeing 747 to Apollo 11.
Then let me ask you; how much did it cost NASA to develop and build the first spacecraft that could do the same things SS1 did?
>Yes, NASA isn't merely only looking at options for a moon base, they're doing lots of Mars probing missions and satellite and telescope launches right now (or working on doing them soon), but I believe it all has a benefit. Reducing NASA's budget very well could lead to an even worse recession.
The thing is, I don't see NASA actually acting on any of these grand plans you're talking about. Maybe it's just that the news doesn't bother reporting thoroughly (which is entirely possible, I admit), but I keep hearing about NASA spending BILLIONS of dollars to send the shuttle up again, and I never hear WHY they're doing it. Maybe it's that they feel like they need to keep sending rockets up so people will have something to see when they ask where all the money's going. I don't know. I remember one news story where they were asking why there had to be manned missions and one of NASA's PR guys said what amounted to, 'We've always shot people up in rockets and if we stop shooting people up in rockets then we won't be shooting people up in rockets anymore.' That was the best justification that he could give; tradition.
One could argue that a bullet doesn't cost much.
That's another thing that pisses me off about the death penalty: We lie about making the deaths 'humane'. All we have left is the electric chair, the gas chamber and lethal injection; all designed to look clean and sanitary for the people watching. Let them see a real death! It's what they came to fuckin' see! Besides, a guillotine blade or a bullet to the brain are both far more humane; it's over before the criminal can feel any pain. Whatever we do, we should be honest about our motives.
>A person imprisoned can be forced to do community service. We can have prisoners go around cities picking up trash and taking them to recycling dumps while being transported by armed and armored guards, police and/or military personnel.
Actually, I read an article about how many companies are using prison labor for things you'd never imagine. TONS of things get manufactured by prisoners. It's slave labor. Literally. And it makes financial sense for big companies that there be a really big prison population at all times. America has 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prisoners.
>It's not fair to subject them to the death penalty when a sane person who knowingly did wrong is put to death, while a person who is unable to tell what is wrong or right is also put to death. I feel that it is not equal treatment due to the context of the individual.
And yet we are morally okay with euthanizing an animal simply for being unwanted. In my opinion, the death penalty should be there, not as punishment, but as a regrettably necessary way to dispose of human beings who are too dangerous to be allowed to live.
>I also think it'll be helpful for general public opinion about gays when the first Medal of Honor is given posthumously to a homosexual for "gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty".
That is a hell of a good point.
>It's true that their design is much cheaper, but their design doesn't need heavy armor for micrometeorites or intense radiation. It also doesn't need to be designed to have people living on the ship for days, weeks, months or years. It's basically just a really high plane flight and, depending on where you're headed, would only last a few hours. It's kind of like comparing a Boeing 747 to Apollo 11.
Then let me ask you; how much did it cost NASA to develop and build the first spacecraft that could do the same things SS1 did?
>Yes, NASA isn't merely only looking at options for a moon base, they're doing lots of Mars probing missions and satellite and telescope launches right now (or working on doing them soon), but I believe it all has a benefit. Reducing NASA's budget very well could lead to an even worse recession.
The thing is, I don't see NASA actually acting on any of these grand plans you're talking about. Maybe it's just that the news doesn't bother reporting thoroughly (which is entirely possible, I admit), but I keep hearing about NASA spending BILLIONS of dollars to send the shuttle up again, and I never hear WHY they're doing it. Maybe it's that they feel like they need to keep sending rockets up so people will have something to see when they ask where all the money's going. I don't know. I remember one news story where they were asking why there had to be manned missions and one of NASA's PR guys said what amounted to, 'We've always shot people up in rockets and if we stop shooting people up in rockets then we won't be shooting people up in rockets anymore.' That was the best justification that he could give; tradition.
I guess it just comes down to that I don't like the death penalty. I feel that we've both argued our sides about it enough.
What if we just let prisoner choose if he wants death or life for himself and be told that he will most likely be used for slave labor if he chooses life? I would just like to think that a better decision could be made than flat-out killing them.
Euthinizing animals is sad. Sometimes it's necessary, but when it's done simply for being unwanted, I think that should be considered animal cruelty and negligence due to the owner having not been up to the task of responsibility required to care for another life. I don't like death, either for humans or any other living thing. Except for bacteria that makes me ill. Yeah, I have to admit I don't feel too guilty when I take anti-biotics.
NASA's first sub-orbital launch? That's a good question, I've never thought about that. I couldn't find much, it may take more dedicated research, but their first manned spaceflight orbital launch (again, stressing that it is not suborbital) was 2.9 billion of today's money, according this page linked from http://www.helium.com/items/1429240.....-space-program but it says that it was the program's cost, which would include research, maintenance and lots of other crap, not just the craft itself. I have no clue how much the Mercury carrier itself was, or if it's possible to even find out. In any case, it's probably an easy assumption that it was more expensive than SSO, but you also have to consider that NASA was one of the first groups to try any of this stuff for the first time. SSO got to save money by already knowing facts of science and the way to achieve efficiency probably in part due to the discoveries made by NASA and also of discoveries made by Howard Hughes, who famously went to court after being charged with spending government funded money on dead ends for what they claimed as his own personal agenda to simply build whatever he felt like (he won the court case, just for reference). So, I would say they are more expensive, but it's probably excusable/understandable.
The reason free-thinking science is a good thing is something talked about in Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. When Maxwell made the electromagnetic wave theory of light in mathematical calculations, which were shown to be accurate and caused a revolution in science and technology, Maxwell made that theory for fun. He did it because he was bored. True scientific advancements and discoveries are made because people like doing it. If you restrict science from having as high goals as it wants to imagine and you tell them that they have to have specific goals (cure cancer and AIDS, make more efficient energy sources, etc.), they simply won't have the technology available to do it, because they never got their own Maxwell. They never got someone who discovered that little scientific thing because they simply wanted to. Currently, AIDS can only be cured by a bone marrow transplant from someone who has a natural genetic immunity to it. Bone marrow transplants also carry a pretty high rate of death during or after surgery. It's not only risky, but pretty close to being the most painful thing you can ever experience. While some progress could be made by limiting science and giving it set goals, I think you'd have better performance without those limits. I honestly do believe that NASA is important for scientific discovery, technology and for the future of humanity, specifically the survival of it, if not directly, then indirectly through their research. Perhaps my love of science is as close to being religious as I'll ever get.
What if we just let prisoner choose if he wants death or life for himself and be told that he will most likely be used for slave labor if he chooses life? I would just like to think that a better decision could be made than flat-out killing them.
Euthinizing animals is sad. Sometimes it's necessary, but when it's done simply for being unwanted, I think that should be considered animal cruelty and negligence due to the owner having not been up to the task of responsibility required to care for another life. I don't like death, either for humans or any other living thing. Except for bacteria that makes me ill. Yeah, I have to admit I don't feel too guilty when I take anti-biotics.
NASA's first sub-orbital launch? That's a good question, I've never thought about that. I couldn't find much, it may take more dedicated research, but their first manned spaceflight orbital launch (again, stressing that it is not suborbital) was 2.9 billion of today's money, according this page linked from http://www.helium.com/items/1429240.....-space-program but it says that it was the program's cost, which would include research, maintenance and lots of other crap, not just the craft itself. I have no clue how much the Mercury carrier itself was, or if it's possible to even find out. In any case, it's probably an easy assumption that it was more expensive than SSO, but you also have to consider that NASA was one of the first groups to try any of this stuff for the first time. SSO got to save money by already knowing facts of science and the way to achieve efficiency probably in part due to the discoveries made by NASA and also of discoveries made by Howard Hughes, who famously went to court after being charged with spending government funded money on dead ends for what they claimed as his own personal agenda to simply build whatever he felt like (he won the court case, just for reference). So, I would say they are more expensive, but it's probably excusable/understandable.
The reason free-thinking science is a good thing is something talked about in Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. When Maxwell made the electromagnetic wave theory of light in mathematical calculations, which were shown to be accurate and caused a revolution in science and technology, Maxwell made that theory for fun. He did it because he was bored. True scientific advancements and discoveries are made because people like doing it. If you restrict science from having as high goals as it wants to imagine and you tell them that they have to have specific goals (cure cancer and AIDS, make more efficient energy sources, etc.), they simply won't have the technology available to do it, because they never got their own Maxwell. They never got someone who discovered that little scientific thing because they simply wanted to. Currently, AIDS can only be cured by a bone marrow transplant from someone who has a natural genetic immunity to it. Bone marrow transplants also carry a pretty high rate of death during or after surgery. It's not only risky, but pretty close to being the most painful thing you can ever experience. While some progress could be made by limiting science and giving it set goals, I think you'd have better performance without those limits. I honestly do believe that NASA is important for scientific discovery, technology and for the future of humanity, specifically the survival of it, if not directly, then indirectly through their research. Perhaps my love of science is as close to being religious as I'll ever get.
The NASA version of the SSO would be the X-15 which entered service in 1959 and in today's dollars would cost around 3 million dollars ($600,000 then). While far more cheaper than SSO you must remember that the only precursor to the X-15 was the unmanned V-2 weapon system from 1944 and the Silbervogel (Again 1940s) which never left the conceptual stage. Also remember the X-15 is a hypersonic vehicle compared to the simply super sonic SSO.
After the X-15 they worked on a successor known as the X-20 Dyna-Soar, also based based on the Silbervogel. It was never completed and the budget ran abnormally high at 600+ million. It was scrapped in favor of actual space craft.
After the X-15 they worked on a successor known as the X-20 Dyna-Soar, also based based on the Silbervogel. It was never completed and the budget ran abnormally high at 600+ million. It was scrapped in favor of actual space craft.
Excellent, thank you. Both of these are from the same year, too (both began operation in 1959, the Mercury and X-15). I assume much of the cost in Mercury was armor, making it livable for humans and fuel to escape Earth's gravity to fully exit the atmosphere. Much of the cost is probably for making it livable for humans, which I think is suggested by http://www.aerospaceguide.net/mars/.....nixlander.html the fact that the Phoenix Mars Lander project was only $386 million. That's comparatively cheap to a lot of other things they do and also impressive since they went to freaking Mars.
>What if we just let prisoner choose if he wants death or life for himself and be told that he will most likely be used for slave labor if he chooses life? I would just like to think that a better decision could be made than flat-out killing them.
<blinks> Actually, that's a pretty damn good idea.
> In any case, it's probably an easy assumption that it was more expensive than SSO, but you also have to consider that NASA was one of the first groups to try any of this stuff for the first time. SSO got to save money by already knowing facts of science and the way to achieve efficiency
...I actually realized that shortly after posting. -__-
>While some progress could be made by limiting science and giving it set goals, I think you'd have better performance without those limits. I honestly do believe that NASA is important for scientific discovery, technology and for the future of humanity, specifically the survival of it, if not directly, then indirectly through their research. Perhaps my love of science is as close to being religious as I'll ever get.
Oh, I'm not against limiting science at all! I think it's just that I'm annoyed with NASA as an organization, because it's an American government institution and they're all infected with the same disease. When it comes to money, the American government is like a dysfunctional family: everyone knows the system is not working right, but no one wants to admit what they're doing wrong and change it. Usually, the very best thing for a dysfunctional family is a catastrophe of some sort. Something to MAKE them wake up and look at their behavior and reevaluate it. Right now, big business has snaked its tendrils into everything and does not want to let go. We've let ourselves believe it has to be that way. Now, the only way things ever get done is if they don't upset corporations too much and the right people profit from them.
I'm not talking about cutting money to NASA's research. That's exactly where we want the money to go. But considering the BILLIONS they spend, I am certain that a lot of that money has to be going to contractors who overcharge for their parts or services. I'm basically proposing we tell them; "It's entirely possible to do the same things you're doing right now if you just think a little differently instead of just buying whatever's most expensive."
I'm reminded of the story of NASA spending several thousand to develop a pen that could write in zero G, then realizing that an ordinary ballpoint pen would work just fine. That money didn't need to be spent, and someone knew it at the time and didn't stop it; I'm certain of it.
<blinks> Actually, that's a pretty damn good idea.
> In any case, it's probably an easy assumption that it was more expensive than SSO, but you also have to consider that NASA was one of the first groups to try any of this stuff for the first time. SSO got to save money by already knowing facts of science and the way to achieve efficiency
...I actually realized that shortly after posting. -__-
>While some progress could be made by limiting science and giving it set goals, I think you'd have better performance without those limits. I honestly do believe that NASA is important for scientific discovery, technology and for the future of humanity, specifically the survival of it, if not directly, then indirectly through their research. Perhaps my love of science is as close to being religious as I'll ever get.
Oh, I'm not against limiting science at all! I think it's just that I'm annoyed with NASA as an organization, because it's an American government institution and they're all infected with the same disease. When it comes to money, the American government is like a dysfunctional family: everyone knows the system is not working right, but no one wants to admit what they're doing wrong and change it. Usually, the very best thing for a dysfunctional family is a catastrophe of some sort. Something to MAKE them wake up and look at their behavior and reevaluate it. Right now, big business has snaked its tendrils into everything and does not want to let go. We've let ourselves believe it has to be that way. Now, the only way things ever get done is if they don't upset corporations too much and the right people profit from them.
I'm not talking about cutting money to NASA's research. That's exactly where we want the money to go. But considering the BILLIONS they spend, I am certain that a lot of that money has to be going to contractors who overcharge for their parts or services. I'm basically proposing we tell them; "It's entirely possible to do the same things you're doing right now if you just think a little differently instead of just buying whatever's most expensive."
I'm reminded of the story of NASA spending several thousand to develop a pen that could write in zero G, then realizing that an ordinary ballpoint pen would work just fine. That money didn't need to be spent, and someone knew it at the time and didn't stop it; I'm certain of it.
Actually a ballpoint pen doesn't work quite right in zero G; it does rely on gravity to keep the ink at the bottom of the pen. This is apparent if you try to write on a vertical wall, or on paper upside down as if on the ceiling.
The real solution? Russian cosmonauts were already using pencils.
The real solution? Russian cosmonauts were already using pencils.
HAH!! Go check your copy of The Book Of General Ignorance! Pencils are a Really Bad Idea in zero g because if the tips break off, they can go flying off and end up lodging in something important.
I forget why they said that pens actually did work okay... It seems to make sense that they'd need gravity to work, but the book says different. I remember Stephen Fry talking about it.
I forget why they said that pens actually did work okay... It seems to make sense that they'd need gravity to work, but the book says different. I remember Stephen Fry talking about it.
We can just use deuterium. It's a naturally occuring isotope of hydrogen that has a proton, a neutron, and an electron. When this is in water, it's called heavy water and actually weighs more. There is enough deuterium in a liter of ocean water to power the entire planet for a year.
We will probably use deuterium due to its much better availability, but helium-3 is better, because the nuclear fusion reaction with it wouldn't release a neutron, at least from what I know. Because of the high-energy neutron released from this, it bangs against the fusion reactor. I remember seeing a video of an ITER scientist saying that they'll have to just accept that they'll have to replace the reactor walls about every five years. Helium-3 fusion wouldn't have this problem, but the H3 fusion is more difficult due to not just its lack of availability, but also the unfamiliarity with it. It probably needs more work and such, but I think it has the most potential. An easier source than the moon may be to use decommissioned nuclear weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o.....uclear_weapons We seem to have plenty of those to go around!
My dad was very high up in the military. His comment was that you could cut 20% of the military budget and not hurt it's operations or even it's research. There's a lot of waste going on in there because the military is not held to budget standards.
If you ask me, there's a lot of research that can go do. Some of it is just silly, and aside from supplying some officers gun-wank wet dream, will do nothing extra that our current stuff already does.
If you ask me, there's a lot of research that can go do. Some of it is just silly, and aside from supplying some officers gun-wank wet dream, will do nothing extra that our current stuff already does.
Nice.
I'm SOOO tired... but I'll respond for what the tapioca pudding that is my sleepless brain can comprehend at the moment.
- Don't jail Billo and Pat Robertson. That gives the impression that you will jail anyone arbitrarily. A better idea would be to force them all to go into a real debate. Prevent Billo from shouting over his opponents or cutting their mic. Have a fact checker on hand for Ann Coulter. Make the fundies make an argument without resorting to the bible or demogagery. Publicize this and repeat until they are totally humiliated and discredited. Then you can jail them for being lying asses and no one will question it. This is the tactic we used against Nazi war criminals, and these days holocaust deniers are known to be crazies.
- Like the jail thing. I particularly like reviewing cases of people convicted of small crimes, even slightly violent ones. Often, jail is used as a "hurt them back" thing and they just go back to crime when they get out. This reinforces the "they're all evil and need to be dealt with" idea. Instead, the review should identify why they did crime and fix that. Then after they serve their time, they won't go back. For example, if they fell in the with wrong crowd, relocate them. If they don't have a job, get them one. If they did the bad kind of drugs that make you crazy, put them in rehab until they are clean.
- I voted for Bush the first time. He seemed like a likable, reasonable moderate. I didn't make THAT mistake again. In a bit of gallows thinking, I have to thank him. Without him raping everything I thought I held dear AS A CONSERVATIVE, I never would have started doing the searching, learning, and introspection that led me to my current understanding of what is going on.
Oh, and here is something else you do that will really kick everyone ass in a good way! Make capitalist socialism. Make every C-Corporation (more than 75 employees) doing business in America be REQUIRED BY LAW to be owned by Americans... all of them. I mean every single American citizen owns a straight up percentage of their stock. Oh, and these are stocks that pay dividends. So Walmart is now okay! Sure, the wages are crap, but every Walmart employee is also getting a dividend check from Walmart too... and Target... And Costco... and Ford... And Visa... And Bank of America... And Blue Cross and Blue Shield... And Kellogs... And McDonalds... And... And.. And.. And... Yeah. Now any job that doesn't turn a real profit (everyone can get rich off it, not just a few) will not be able to get work. The only survivors will be the companies that REALLY contribute to society.
Oh, outlaw planned obsolescence. Make people make cars that last 50 years. Then we make enough cars and we're done. Just make enough to keep up with lose and parts for repair. The rest of the factories are re-purposed to make the next, new product!
I'm SOOO tired... but I'll respond for what the tapioca pudding that is my sleepless brain can comprehend at the moment.
- Don't jail Billo and Pat Robertson. That gives the impression that you will jail anyone arbitrarily. A better idea would be to force them all to go into a real debate. Prevent Billo from shouting over his opponents or cutting their mic. Have a fact checker on hand for Ann Coulter. Make the fundies make an argument without resorting to the bible or demogagery. Publicize this and repeat until they are totally humiliated and discredited. Then you can jail them for being lying asses and no one will question it. This is the tactic we used against Nazi war criminals, and these days holocaust deniers are known to be crazies.
- Like the jail thing. I particularly like reviewing cases of people convicted of small crimes, even slightly violent ones. Often, jail is used as a "hurt them back" thing and they just go back to crime when they get out. This reinforces the "they're all evil and need to be dealt with" idea. Instead, the review should identify why they did crime and fix that. Then after they serve their time, they won't go back. For example, if they fell in the with wrong crowd, relocate them. If they don't have a job, get them one. If they did the bad kind of drugs that make you crazy, put them in rehab until they are clean.
- I voted for Bush the first time. He seemed like a likable, reasonable moderate. I didn't make THAT mistake again. In a bit of gallows thinking, I have to thank him. Without him raping everything I thought I held dear AS A CONSERVATIVE, I never would have started doing the searching, learning, and introspection that led me to my current understanding of what is going on.
Oh, and here is something else you do that will really kick everyone ass in a good way! Make capitalist socialism. Make every C-Corporation (more than 75 employees) doing business in America be REQUIRED BY LAW to be owned by Americans... all of them. I mean every single American citizen owns a straight up percentage of their stock. Oh, and these are stocks that pay dividends. So Walmart is now okay! Sure, the wages are crap, but every Walmart employee is also getting a dividend check from Walmart too... and Target... And Costco... and Ford... And Visa... And Bank of America... And Blue Cross and Blue Shield... And Kellogs... And McDonalds... And... And.. And.. And... Yeah. Now any job that doesn't turn a real profit (everyone can get rich off it, not just a few) will not be able to get work. The only survivors will be the companies that REALLY contribute to society.
Oh, outlaw planned obsolescence. Make people make cars that last 50 years. Then we make enough cars and we're done. Just make enough to keep up with lose and parts for repair. The rest of the factories are re-purposed to make the next, new product!
Amendment... also companies that will persist are those that are run as a pleasure and done on a small scale with low margins... Running a specialty store or service will be very simple. Get a job to save up for your inventory, then just ride off dividend checks and low-cost housing as you sell the one item that is your passion but only 1 in 50,000 people care about...
Or if you have an idea for a cool invention, take a job for a few monthes to get the price of the parts you need to make a prototype. Then quit and live off dividend checks in low cost housing while you develope you new idea!
Or if you have an idea for a cool invention, take a job for a few monthes to get the price of the parts you need to make a prototype. Then quit and live off dividend checks in low cost housing while you develope you new idea!
>Don't jail Billo and Pat Robertson. That gives the impression that you will jail anyone arbitrarily. A better idea would be to force them all to go into a real debate. Prevent Billo from shouting over his opponents or cutting their mic. Have a fact checker on hand for Ann Coulter. Make the fundies make an argument without resorting to the bible or demogagery. Publicize this and repeat until they are totally humiliated and discredited. Then you can jail them for being lying asses and no one will question it. This is the tactic we used against Nazi war criminals, and these days holocaust deniers are known to be crazies.
That's not a bad idea. Still, these people derive their power from their followers, and I'm not sure this would sway them. Although you're absolutely right that humiliation would be better. Jailtime would likely martyr them; I should've realized that. Maybe compulsory public service of some devilishly ironic sort? Make 'em work in homeless shelters, or rehab centers or medical clinics for immigrants? (Who knows; it might actually wake a few of 'em up.)
>Often, jail is used as a "hurt them back" thing and they just go back to crime when they get out.
YES.
>This reinforces the "they're all evil and need to be dealt with" idea. Instead, the review should identify why they did crime and fix that. Then after they serve their time, they won't go back. For example, if they fell in the with wrong crowd, relocate them. If they don't have a job, get them one. If they did the bad kind of drugs that make you crazy, put them in rehab until they are clean.
EVEN MORE YES. If the whole reason someone committed a crime was due to circumstances that would likely never occur again, then jailing them wouldn't solve dick. Although I do think, in some cases, there should be an element of punishment involved. I very firmly believe that everyone deserves to suffer the exact amount that they've caused others to needlessly suffer. But that doesn't mean prison's always the best way to accomplish this. I'd like to see more punishments designed with the aim of teaching empathy in mind.
>I voted for Bush the first time. He seemed like a likable, reasonable moderate. I didn't make THAT mistake again.
You learned. My emperordom will greatly encourage learning from mistakes. :)
>In a bit of gallows thinking, I have to thank him. Without him raping everything I thought I held dear AS A CONSERVATIVE, I never would have started doing the searching, learning, and introspection that led me to my current understanding of what is going on.
Same reason I have to thank my mother. ...but her ass is still going to Saudi Arabia.
>Make every C-Corporation (more than 75 employees) doing business in America be REQUIRED BY LAW to be owned by Americans... all of them. I mean every single American citizen owns a straight up percentage of their stock.
See, THIS is why I need you on my board of advisors!! I know a little more than jack squat about economics (and math) so you would be essential. Hell, I have no fucking idea what the rest of what you said means.
>Oh, outlaw planned obsolescence. Make people make cars that last 50 years.
I do know about planned obsolescence and how disgustingly underhanded it is. This, and other morality-devoid business practices need to go away. Comapnies need to be firmly taught that making more profit is NOT a justification for clearly dishonest or dangerous tactics.
That's not a bad idea. Still, these people derive their power from their followers, and I'm not sure this would sway them. Although you're absolutely right that humiliation would be better. Jailtime would likely martyr them; I should've realized that. Maybe compulsory public service of some devilishly ironic sort? Make 'em work in homeless shelters, or rehab centers or medical clinics for immigrants? (Who knows; it might actually wake a few of 'em up.)
>Often, jail is used as a "hurt them back" thing and they just go back to crime when they get out.
YES.
>This reinforces the "they're all evil and need to be dealt with" idea. Instead, the review should identify why they did crime and fix that. Then after they serve their time, they won't go back. For example, if they fell in the with wrong crowd, relocate them. If they don't have a job, get them one. If they did the bad kind of drugs that make you crazy, put them in rehab until they are clean.
EVEN MORE YES. If the whole reason someone committed a crime was due to circumstances that would likely never occur again, then jailing them wouldn't solve dick. Although I do think, in some cases, there should be an element of punishment involved. I very firmly believe that everyone deserves to suffer the exact amount that they've caused others to needlessly suffer. But that doesn't mean prison's always the best way to accomplish this. I'd like to see more punishments designed with the aim of teaching empathy in mind.
>I voted for Bush the first time. He seemed like a likable, reasonable moderate. I didn't make THAT mistake again.
You learned. My emperordom will greatly encourage learning from mistakes. :)
>In a bit of gallows thinking, I have to thank him. Without him raping everything I thought I held dear AS A CONSERVATIVE, I never would have started doing the searching, learning, and introspection that led me to my current understanding of what is going on.
Same reason I have to thank my mother. ...but her ass is still going to Saudi Arabia.
>Make every C-Corporation (more than 75 employees) doing business in America be REQUIRED BY LAW to be owned by Americans... all of them. I mean every single American citizen owns a straight up percentage of their stock.
See, THIS is why I need you on my board of advisors!! I know a little more than jack squat about economics (and math) so you would be essential. Hell, I have no fucking idea what the rest of what you said means.
>Oh, outlaw planned obsolescence. Make people make cars that last 50 years.
I do know about planned obsolescence and how disgustingly underhanded it is. This, and other morality-devoid business practices need to go away. Comapnies need to be firmly taught that making more profit is NOT a justification for clearly dishonest or dangerous tactics.
*Since a DVD or CD costs approx. $5 to make and can cost approx. $15-25 to buy, media companies will be ordered to indicate the total production cost of any audio/visual media (including video games) on the media itself. Once this is in practice, the file-sharing laws will change so that if a movie, album or game is making a profit 150+ percent greater than its production cost, it will be completely legal to download it off the internet.
Hmm... Come to think of it, I don't like this one either. What about downloadable games? They don't cost ANYTHING to make. What if your game or music is only downloadable? Well that's because you're not operating with those big publishers. This law would kill the indie music and game markets.
Hmm... Come to think of it, I don't like this one either. What about downloadable games? They don't cost ANYTHING to make. What if your game or music is only downloadable? Well that's because you're not operating with those big publishers. This law would kill the indie music and game markets.
Voting for Bush the first time is at least understandable on the basis that Al Gore really wasn't a much better alternative. From http://www.ontheissues.org/al_gore.htm :
US should not seek international right to abortion. (Jul 2007)
Ban partial-birth abortions, except for maternal health. (Oct 2000)
Next president’s Supreme Court nominees will decide abortion. (Jun 2000) (He would've nominated anyone who he would've known who agreed with him just to get it banned)
Find some way for civic union; but not gay marriage. (Oct 2000)
Clinton-Gore drug policy: spending up; drug use down. (Oct 2000)
Science doesn’t say medical marijuana is proper. (May 2000)
Lead a national crusade against drugs. (May 2000)
I could go on, but... well, really, he was just a Republican with a blue tie.
US should not seek international right to abortion. (Jul 2007)
Ban partial-birth abortions, except for maternal health. (Oct 2000)
Next president’s Supreme Court nominees will decide abortion. (Jun 2000) (He would've nominated anyone who he would've known who agreed with him just to get it banned)
Find some way for civic union; but not gay marriage. (Oct 2000)
Clinton-Gore drug policy: spending up; drug use down. (Oct 2000)
Science doesn’t say medical marijuana is proper. (May 2000)
Lead a national crusade against drugs. (May 2000)
I could go on, but... well, really, he was just a Republican with a blue tie.
In all honesty, Clinton was too. He called himself a "Rockefeller Republican". I don't mind. Clinton did his job and kept the economy moving. I may be one of those crazy, left-wing socialists... but I'm also a pragmatist. So if you can get results, I'm willing to lend an ear. As such, I probably would have voted for Gore now.
Of course, during that election I was still too brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson to think clearly.
Of course, during that election I was still too brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson to think clearly.
I read it...
60% I was like "Meh, that'd be cool."
30% I was like "Wow, I TOTALLY can't tell your political affiliation..."
10% I was like "Huh, Mad Max."
I'm not saying that your rule would result in a breakdown of human society... But I'm gonna go ahead and say it. Get over Bush. Seriously.
60% I was like "Meh, that'd be cool."
30% I was like "Wow, I TOTALLY can't tell your political affiliation..."
10% I was like "Huh, Mad Max."
I'm not saying that your rule would result in a breakdown of human society... But I'm gonna go ahead and say it. Get over Bush. Seriously.
>Get over Bush. Seriously.
Sorry, no.
The man, and his administration, is responsible for uncountable deaths. LITERALLY uncountable. There are tens of thousands of people dead today that would probably be alive today if not for him. You don't 'get over' something like that. You get the motherfuckers responsible, and you make them pay.
Why is it that so many people are wholeheartedly devoted to punishing a murderer or rapist, but not a politician, religious leader or business leader whose actions lead to far more suffering than any serial killer could ever come close to?
Sorry, no.
The man, and his administration, is responsible for uncountable deaths. LITERALLY uncountable. There are tens of thousands of people dead today that would probably be alive today if not for him. You don't 'get over' something like that. You get the motherfuckers responsible, and you make them pay.
Why is it that so many people are wholeheartedly devoted to punishing a murderer or rapist, but not a politician, religious leader or business leader whose actions lead to far more suffering than any serial killer could ever come close to?
If it's uncountable, how were you able to throw out a number? And I'm curious, since President Obama has made it clear that he will continue the war in Afghanistan, would you kill him and his administration too?
And don't give me any "He didn't start the conflict" stuff. He has had the option to withdraw at any time.
I'm not advocating death, nor am I advocating war, but if you're going to make such a broad statement, you must apply it to all those who have been directly involved in any kind of major conflict. I can honestly think of only two or three presidents that WEREN'T involved in a major military conflict.
And don't give me any "He didn't start the conflict" stuff. He has had the option to withdraw at any time.
I'm not advocating death, nor am I advocating war, but if you're going to make such a broad statement, you must apply it to all those who have been directly involved in any kind of major conflict. I can honestly think of only two or three presidents that WEREN'T involved in a major military conflict.
>If it's uncountable, how were you able to throw out a number?
That's such nitpicky bullshit that you should be ashamed of yourself for saying it. You know damn well that no major American news ever reports upon the number of dead Iraqi civilians. It's uncountable because the number's so fucking high they can't keep track of all the deaths.
>And I'm curious, since President Obama has made it clear that he will continue the war in Afghanistan, would you kill him and his administration too?
1. You're assuming I said I'd kill Bush and his cronies. I didn't say that.
2. If we're still in Iraq Or Afghanistan by the time he leaves office, then Obama's just as guilty and deserves the same consequences.
>but if you're going to make such a broad statement, you must apply it to all those who have been directly involved in any kind of major conflict.
Wrong. I'm applying it to the people who started a needless conflict and allowed other people's children to die so Haliburton and Blackwater could make money and oil companies could rake in record profits (which is exactly what they did under Bush, and no one should be surprised by that). Why on earth would you think these people don't deserve to be prosecuted for this?
That's such nitpicky bullshit that you should be ashamed of yourself for saying it. You know damn well that no major American news ever reports upon the number of dead Iraqi civilians. It's uncountable because the number's so fucking high they can't keep track of all the deaths.
>And I'm curious, since President Obama has made it clear that he will continue the war in Afghanistan, would you kill him and his administration too?
1. You're assuming I said I'd kill Bush and his cronies. I didn't say that.
2. If we're still in Iraq Or Afghanistan by the time he leaves office, then Obama's just as guilty and deserves the same consequences.
>but if you're going to make such a broad statement, you must apply it to all those who have been directly involved in any kind of major conflict.
Wrong. I'm applying it to the people who started a needless conflict and allowed other people's children to die so Haliburton and Blackwater could make money and oil companies could rake in record profits (which is exactly what they did under Bush, and no one should be surprised by that). Why on earth would you think these people don't deserve to be prosecuted for this?
Almost forgot...
>30% I was like "Wow, I TOTALLY can't tell your political affiliation..."
GOOD. I don't have any political affiliations. I only tend to vote democrat because I usually dislike them least. There's no ideology I support 100%. I only care about what ideas work and which ones don't.
>30% I was like "Wow, I TOTALLY can't tell your political affiliation..."
GOOD. I don't have any political affiliations. I only tend to vote democrat because I usually dislike them least. There's no ideology I support 100%. I only care about what ideas work and which ones don't.
> I only tend to vote democrat because I usually dislike them least.
Same here! The one time I actually voted in a general election, I'd estimate about 80% of my votes went to Democratic candidates for local and state elections, 9% went to some third party, and I even voted for one Republican--because I actually read the synopsis of each of their stances on the issues, and in one case I favored the Republican candidate. I was surprised, myself.
Same here! The one time I actually voted in a general election, I'd estimate about 80% of my votes went to Democratic candidates for local and state elections, 9% went to some third party, and I even voted for one Republican--because I actually read the synopsis of each of their stances on the issues, and in one case I favored the Republican candidate. I was surprised, myself.
I've made a vow to myself: In any election, I don't cast any votes for any person or proposal I know nothing about. Ignorant people shouldn't vote. So I usually skip over all the school board and drain contractor elections (and just write-in George Carlin or something).
Since I don't keep myself truly informed enough on all the issues to cast a really useful vote (except on easy questions like "Would you like us to go to war with another half dozen countries?" or "Gay marriage at long last?"), ever since that election I honestly... haven't voted. Some might see that as chickening out, or allowing the ignorant to have that much more sway in the government. I look at it as one fewer person voting in matters he knows little to nothing about.
Even in cases where it IS necessary to vote, I'm one voice among literally MILLIONS even for the most local of elections, city ballots. If, from time to time, I forget to send in an absentee ballot form, well, it's not as if the votes would be that close to 50%...
Even in cases where it IS necessary to vote, I'm one voice among literally MILLIONS even for the most local of elections, city ballots. If, from time to time, I forget to send in an absentee ballot form, well, it's not as if the votes would be that close to 50%...
I think you're full of bull. And words, lots of words. Some of that is choosing poorly, some of it is screwing around, and some of it is close to stuff I'd like to do myself.
For example
- Dismantle Homeland Sec., Ban the USA from making any more governmental branches.
- All 'street drugs' will be banned for good. Not just on-again off-again banned. Though nanotech symbiotes, cybernetics like the Tasp and plug-in memory will be allowed.
- The Smokeatoriums from Seaquest. The only place to get cigs. To be honest, I'd like to ban cigs completly. I think it'd be funny to make highschoolers hang around smoking with pipes and cigarillos.
- Teachers don't get paid enough right now, car companies get paid too much. If we seize a few billion dollars, then we could fix that.
- Ban gay marriage completly. People can live the way the want to (that does not result in domestic disturbances) but marrage is between a man and a woman. A margin of error involving Vegas and bridal viels is allowed.
- Make the R&D nerds run the company. Stop squeezing civilization for dollars, start building a world you'd want to live in.
-
You got some good ieas, but These, please, these!
*Michael Bay will be restricted from making movies for the rest of his life. He will be federally forced to work in a movie theater for 50 years.
*The profits from Stephanie Meyer's Twilight books will be siezed to fund illiteracy prevention programs. JK Rowling, while OK, will be put on notice as a scofflaw for the same reason. Several religious people will be tennis-prison jailed for being too stupid to preform thier jobs correctly.
For example
- Dismantle Homeland Sec., Ban the USA from making any more governmental branches.
- All 'street drugs' will be banned for good. Not just on-again off-again banned. Though nanotech symbiotes, cybernetics like the Tasp and plug-in memory will be allowed.
- The Smokeatoriums from Seaquest. The only place to get cigs. To be honest, I'd like to ban cigs completly. I think it'd be funny to make highschoolers hang around smoking with pipes and cigarillos.
- Teachers don't get paid enough right now, car companies get paid too much. If we seize a few billion dollars, then we could fix that.
- Ban gay marriage completly. People can live the way the want to (that does not result in domestic disturbances) but marrage is between a man and a woman. A margin of error involving Vegas and bridal viels is allowed.
- Make the R&D nerds run the company. Stop squeezing civilization for dollars, start building a world you'd want to live in.
-
You got some good ieas, but These, please, these!
*Michael Bay will be restricted from making movies for the rest of his life. He will be federally forced to work in a movie theater for 50 years.
*The profits from Stephanie Meyer's Twilight books will be siezed to fund illiteracy prevention programs. JK Rowling, while OK, will be put on notice as a scofflaw for the same reason. Several religious people will be tennis-prison jailed for being too stupid to preform thier jobs correctly.
Aw, I didn't think I was that boring.
I just think that gay marriage is bad bookkeeping. The emphasis should go on letting them love, not getting married, which is just a vanity plate for them. If they actually do love each other, then marrage wouldn't matter.
Gay bars should still exist, no way to stop that. If the reign of Reynard results in time-travel, there should be a study to see how far back the 'gay bar' has gone. 100 years? 500? 3 million?
I just think that gay marriage is bad bookkeeping. The emphasis should go on letting them love, not getting married, which is just a vanity plate for them. If they actually do love each other, then marrage wouldn't matter.
Gay bars should still exist, no way to stop that. If the reign of Reynard results in time-travel, there should be a study to see how far back the 'gay bar' has gone. 100 years? 500? 3 million?
Fine, go ahead and try that; then get yourself hit by a bus, and see how far your "roommate" gets when trying to see you in the hospital. Or have some jointly-owned property, then die and watch as your "unmarried partner"'s family vultures swoop in and cart it all away for themselves.
Obviously you don't know marriage law, so you have no ground to argue on. Good day, sir.
Obviously you don't know marriage law, so you have no ground to argue on. Good day, sir.
Alfador said most of it, but also think of this: You're a gay person, living with your lover, and you have an adopted child, who has been adopted in your name. If you were to die, then your partner has no parental rights whatsoever, despite being the parent to your child in every meaningful sense.
You have to separate the idea of marriage as a religious tradition, and marriage as a way to officially say, "This person is my family and I want them to have all the rights associated with that".
You have to separate the idea of marriage as a religious tradition, and marriage as a way to officially say, "This person is my family and I want them to have all the rights associated with that".
>Little bit harsh with the bush administration and those that voted for them, for one.
There are tens of thousands of people who are dead because of his administration, and hundreds of thousands injured. It's impossible for me to be as harsh as he deserves.
>Second, again, harsh/ridiculous with the line about all the republicans on it.
Not sure what you mean there.
>Third, why dismantle the CIA?
Because I've never heard a single reason why they should stay in business. They seem to exist to keep themselves in existence. I don't see why other government agencies couldn't do what they're supposed to be doing. Like, why do we need a CIA and a dept. of Homeland Security?
There are tens of thousands of people who are dead because of his administration, and hundreds of thousands injured. It's impossible for me to be as harsh as he deserves.
>Second, again, harsh/ridiculous with the line about all the republicans on it.
Not sure what you mean there.
>Third, why dismantle the CIA?
Because I've never heard a single reason why they should stay in business. They seem to exist to keep themselves in existence. I don't see why other government agencies couldn't do what they're supposed to be doing. Like, why do we need a CIA and a dept. of Homeland Security?
Tens of thousands of people who are dead because of his administration? If you mean the war, not quite sure that I agree. It was going to have be done eventually, and I seriously doubt there was a single other country that would have done it. I grieve for those lost, but there's a cost for anything.
I mean this part for the second section: "The following individuals will be arrested for crimes against truth and human decency: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps. Anyone else who it can be proven has risen to fame and fortune through a pattern of deception, viciousness and a willful disregard for facts may face similar punishment." I think that is going a little bit far. Even in your imagination, there's no way that you can punish everyone, and I think that politics is coloring your judgment a little bit.
And CIA operates abroad, Homeland Security works in tandem with the FBI to keep things safe at home. At least, that's the way it is supposed to work, from what I know. The CIA is something that I consider definitely needed. However, this is my opinion, as I don't currently have facts to support the reasons why.
Hey, at least I'll admit I don't have facts to back up my reasoning.
I mean this part for the second section: "The following individuals will be arrested for crimes against truth and human decency: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps. Anyone else who it can be proven has risen to fame and fortune through a pattern of deception, viciousness and a willful disregard for facts may face similar punishment." I think that is going a little bit far. Even in your imagination, there's no way that you can punish everyone, and I think that politics is coloring your judgment a little bit.
And CIA operates abroad, Homeland Security works in tandem with the FBI to keep things safe at home. At least, that's the way it is supposed to work, from what I know. The CIA is something that I consider definitely needed. However, this is my opinion, as I don't currently have facts to support the reasons why.
Hey, at least I'll admit I don't have facts to back up my reasoning.
>It was going to have be done eventually, and I seriously doubt there was a single other country that would have done it. I grieve for those lost, but there's a cost for anything.
If you're talking about Saddam, then you know what would have taken him out eventually? Old age. From everything I've heard, Saddam was still an asshole at that point, but was FAR from the greatest threat in the world. And he was absolutely no threat whatsoever to us. If this war really was about liberating the Iraqi people (instead of money), then there was a LONG list of other dictators who treat their people worse. North Korea? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Heck, you can almost pick a country at random in Africa and find a government swollen on guns and wealth and the corpses of its people.
>I think that politics is coloring your judgment a little bit.
Not really. It's just that I've looked for people in the left-wing who lie that blatantly and I can't find any. Sure, there's liars. But then there's people like Bill-o, who would rather defend Nazi soldiers who massacred unarmed Americans during WWII than admit to being wrong (This really happened). Besides; none of the people I mentioned are republicans. They are NEOCONS. Actually, since virtually all of them are TV pundits, you have to wonder if they have any true affiliation at all, or are just saying what their audience wants to hear. The other three are heartless, hypocritical religious bastards, and Sarah Palin's a frighteningly-stupid, vindictive, lying animal murderer. I genuinely believe that these are some of the most egregious liars in our country. The biggest hypocrites. I believe there are only three deadly sins: Stupidity, Dishonesty and Cruelty, and everyone on this list fits all three.
>The CIA is something that I consider definitely needed. However, this is my opinion, as I don't currently have facts to support the reasons why.
Most of what I know of the CIA comes from hearing about its abuses of power. I think it's a case of, we need someone to do that job, but the people doing it now have lost their shit.
If you're talking about Saddam, then you know what would have taken him out eventually? Old age. From everything I've heard, Saddam was still an asshole at that point, but was FAR from the greatest threat in the world. And he was absolutely no threat whatsoever to us. If this war really was about liberating the Iraqi people (instead of money), then there was a LONG list of other dictators who treat their people worse. North Korea? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Heck, you can almost pick a country at random in Africa and find a government swollen on guns and wealth and the corpses of its people.
>I think that politics is coloring your judgment a little bit.
Not really. It's just that I've looked for people in the left-wing who lie that blatantly and I can't find any. Sure, there's liars. But then there's people like Bill-o, who would rather defend Nazi soldiers who massacred unarmed Americans during WWII than admit to being wrong (This really happened). Besides; none of the people I mentioned are republicans. They are NEOCONS. Actually, since virtually all of them are TV pundits, you have to wonder if they have any true affiliation at all, or are just saying what their audience wants to hear. The other three are heartless, hypocritical religious bastards, and Sarah Palin's a frighteningly-stupid, vindictive, lying animal murderer. I genuinely believe that these are some of the most egregious liars in our country. The biggest hypocrites. I believe there are only three deadly sins: Stupidity, Dishonesty and Cruelty, and everyone on this list fits all three.
>The CIA is something that I consider definitely needed. However, this is my opinion, as I don't currently have facts to support the reasons why.
Most of what I know of the CIA comes from hearing about its abuses of power. I think it's a case of, we need someone to do that job, but the people doing it now have lost their shit.
While I have other disagreements in your list that Spear points out the one I think sort of gets me as an Architect, Engineer and Simcity fan is this part:
*There will be no restrictions on where sex shops, titty bars or adult bookstores can be located. There will be only one restriction on what can be sold: material depicting cruelty to living beings. This will be taken literally.
While I understand you're stating this for moral reasons I must say there's a hard non-moral reason that zoning exists. A commercial structure is designed to accommodate the traffic it generates: people come and go. A school has a lot of kids and children plus more traffic is not a winning combination. I could cite other reasons but it really boils down to where you live is not where you want others to do their work for reasons beyond moral ones.
As well commercial structures have different standards than residential ones and sorting out the new plumbing and power requirements would be so incredibly wasteful. I could go on but there was a book (sorry I can't remember it's title) about a real modern city (or cities) that attempted to forgo zoning/urban planning and how such nightmarish things like a hospital surrounded by factories happened.
*There will be no restrictions on where sex shops, titty bars or adult bookstores can be located. There will be only one restriction on what can be sold: material depicting cruelty to living beings. This will be taken literally.
While I understand you're stating this for moral reasons I must say there's a hard non-moral reason that zoning exists. A commercial structure is designed to accommodate the traffic it generates: people come and go. A school has a lot of kids and children plus more traffic is not a winning combination. I could cite other reasons but it really boils down to where you live is not where you want others to do their work for reasons beyond moral ones.
As well commercial structures have different standards than residential ones and sorting out the new plumbing and power requirements would be so incredibly wasteful. I could go on but there was a book (sorry I can't remember it's title) about a real modern city (or cities) that attempted to forgo zoning/urban planning and how such nightmarish things like a hospital surrounded by factories happened.
Because, as cool a guy as he is (and there's a rumor he's a furry!), I really don't know much about how his mind works. With all the other people I chose, they're all brilliant and unafraid to pitch new ideas and attack bad ones. I'd want people who not only know more than me but who won't spare my feelings if I'm wrong. (That's why only two are close friends, and they've both aptly demonstrated the ability to disagree firmly and thoughtfully with me.)
I'm pretty sure Christopher Walken would be straight-forward with you. He strikes me as the kind of guy who can be a bullshitter, but will tell you like it is. He was quoted by TMZ as saying 'he, uhh...he did that on purpose" When a pigeon shat on one of their reporters when they tried to interview him.
I sure would be happier in your United States of America than the one we really live in, Alex.
But of course I have to bring up a few points based on your mandates. Just to make life difficult, tee hee.
Gay marriage will be legalized nationwide. Polygamy too. Divorce will be made significantly easier and attempts will be made to destigmatize it.
Certainly gay marriage should be as valid as regular marriage; anything else is discrimination. And while I don't disagree with the thought process behind making divorce easier and adding polygamy to the mix, doesn't doing so essentially defeat the idea of marriage? Why have it at all? Just for the piece of paper that says you're married and maybe a tax break?
Movie ratings will be decided by the filmmakers themselves.
I don't think this is such a good idea. I loathe censorship as much as you, but this would still need to be a process carried out by an independent panel following a strict, consistent guide stating what type of content results in what rating, to make ratings as consistent as possible over as long a period of time as possible. It still boggles my mind to think that "Airplane" was rated PG despite the presence of naked breasts, and now that kind of thing typically results in an R rating. (When it should result in a G rating anyways.)
But the real reason the rating would have to be independent is that movie creators will simply follow the dollar and rate their movie whatever they think will sell the most tickets. Since they can't control the rating directly currently, they just cut out "objectionable" scenes to bring the rating down to an "acceptable" level. Like Avatar, which apparently had some sort of a "sex scene" which wasn't sex in any way that we know it using any of the body parts we use for it. But the scene still had to be cut to keep the rating PG-13 (it will, however, be on the DVD.)
With your system in place, they would just be dishonest about content if it meant more money rolling in. I would think maybe there should be a law saying they can only submit a movie for review once, take the rating they get and live with it, or never release the movie at all. Artistic vision should be promoted and never cast aside for anything.
Fur stores will be shut down and owners will face steep fines for profiting off animal cruelty... employees and owners of fur farms will be jailed, with sentences determined by number of animals caged and killed. Most will face life imprisonment.
This is what I have the biggest problem with. I don't disagree with your attitude towards these people in any way; they probably deserve much worse than what you're giving them. But I could never place any faith in a regime that would choose to outlaw any one particular thing and then willfully punish those who violated said decree before it existed. No one would be safe, ever, because you could simply decide one day that something is illegal and put a whole mess of people in prison. And even if we could trust you to be a most benevolent ruler not to abuse this privilege, and even if you planned on being emperor for life, unless you plan to invent immortality you would have to consider how this power might be used by your eventual successor, and his (or her) successor, and so forth.
Sport hunting will only be legal with a blood alcohol level above the current limit for driving. Orange vests and hats will not be allowed.
I'm not a hunter so I don't quite know what goes on when people hunt, but I see no merit in prohibiting safety for mankind. I realize that it is the basis for most arguments in favor of animal cruelty, but the reality is that mankind is, intellectually speaking, superior to all other forms of life on Earth. If you wanted to outlaw sport hunting entirely, I could see that, but allowing it to continue with two new impositions, one promoting safety and one preventing it? Color me confused.
Since a DVD or CD costs approx. $5 to make and can cost approx. $15-25 to buy, media companies will be ordered to indicate the total production cost of any audio/visual media (including video games) on the media itself. Once this is in practice, the file-sharing laws will change so that if a movie, album or game is making a profit 150+ percent greater than its production cost, it will be completely legal to download it off the internet.
I'm a little confused by this one too. For a company to ascertain the production cost of an individual DVD/CD as it relates to profitability, they would need to know in advance how many of the discs they'll sell. For example, the director of the movie was paid $1,000,000; if they sell 500,000 copies of the DVD then the director's salary contributed $2 to the disc price, but if they sell 1,000,000 copies of the DVD it only contributed $1. You also have to factor in how the movie performed in theaters, or what kinds of royalties a music artist is getting from radio plays, touring, etc. Again, people in the industry will try to game the system by spending more frivolously in order to bring the prices up to the level they want them to be at, which means movies will start to look more and more alike as the lower-budget films go away in favor of big-budget action movies with special effects explosions. You would also find that some people would willfully stay away from purchasing any DVDs or CDs, simply waiting until everybody else snaps up enough of the popular ones and legal downloading may commence. Once again, artistic vision would suffer.
The servers of Encyclopedia Dramatica will be incinerated and the site's owners publicly scourged with glass-embedded whips.
Free speech is free speech. Even though ED are just supertrolls, any free speech that gets outlawed or punished in any way cause people to fear the unknown and clam up, defeating any good intention you have to get the public involved in the lawmaking process.
But of course I have to bring up a few points based on your mandates. Just to make life difficult, tee hee.
Gay marriage will be legalized nationwide. Polygamy too. Divorce will be made significantly easier and attempts will be made to destigmatize it.
Certainly gay marriage should be as valid as regular marriage; anything else is discrimination. And while I don't disagree with the thought process behind making divorce easier and adding polygamy to the mix, doesn't doing so essentially defeat the idea of marriage? Why have it at all? Just for the piece of paper that says you're married and maybe a tax break?
Movie ratings will be decided by the filmmakers themselves.
I don't think this is such a good idea. I loathe censorship as much as you, but this would still need to be a process carried out by an independent panel following a strict, consistent guide stating what type of content results in what rating, to make ratings as consistent as possible over as long a period of time as possible. It still boggles my mind to think that "Airplane" was rated PG despite the presence of naked breasts, and now that kind of thing typically results in an R rating. (When it should result in a G rating anyways.)
But the real reason the rating would have to be independent is that movie creators will simply follow the dollar and rate their movie whatever they think will sell the most tickets. Since they can't control the rating directly currently, they just cut out "objectionable" scenes to bring the rating down to an "acceptable" level. Like Avatar, which apparently had some sort of a "sex scene" which wasn't sex in any way that we know it using any of the body parts we use for it. But the scene still had to be cut to keep the rating PG-13 (it will, however, be on the DVD.)
With your system in place, they would just be dishonest about content if it meant more money rolling in. I would think maybe there should be a law saying they can only submit a movie for review once, take the rating they get and live with it, or never release the movie at all. Artistic vision should be promoted and never cast aside for anything.
Fur stores will be shut down and owners will face steep fines for profiting off animal cruelty... employees and owners of fur farms will be jailed, with sentences determined by number of animals caged and killed. Most will face life imprisonment.
This is what I have the biggest problem with. I don't disagree with your attitude towards these people in any way; they probably deserve much worse than what you're giving them. But I could never place any faith in a regime that would choose to outlaw any one particular thing and then willfully punish those who violated said decree before it existed. No one would be safe, ever, because you could simply decide one day that something is illegal and put a whole mess of people in prison. And even if we could trust you to be a most benevolent ruler not to abuse this privilege, and even if you planned on being emperor for life, unless you plan to invent immortality you would have to consider how this power might be used by your eventual successor, and his (or her) successor, and so forth.
Sport hunting will only be legal with a blood alcohol level above the current limit for driving. Orange vests and hats will not be allowed.
I'm not a hunter so I don't quite know what goes on when people hunt, but I see no merit in prohibiting safety for mankind. I realize that it is the basis for most arguments in favor of animal cruelty, but the reality is that mankind is, intellectually speaking, superior to all other forms of life on Earth. If you wanted to outlaw sport hunting entirely, I could see that, but allowing it to continue with two new impositions, one promoting safety and one preventing it? Color me confused.
Since a DVD or CD costs approx. $5 to make and can cost approx. $15-25 to buy, media companies will be ordered to indicate the total production cost of any audio/visual media (including video games) on the media itself. Once this is in practice, the file-sharing laws will change so that if a movie, album or game is making a profit 150+ percent greater than its production cost, it will be completely legal to download it off the internet.
I'm a little confused by this one too. For a company to ascertain the production cost of an individual DVD/CD as it relates to profitability, they would need to know in advance how many of the discs they'll sell. For example, the director of the movie was paid $1,000,000; if they sell 500,000 copies of the DVD then the director's salary contributed $2 to the disc price, but if they sell 1,000,000 copies of the DVD it only contributed $1. You also have to factor in how the movie performed in theaters, or what kinds of royalties a music artist is getting from radio plays, touring, etc. Again, people in the industry will try to game the system by spending more frivolously in order to bring the prices up to the level they want them to be at, which means movies will start to look more and more alike as the lower-budget films go away in favor of big-budget action movies with special effects explosions. You would also find that some people would willfully stay away from purchasing any DVDs or CDs, simply waiting until everybody else snaps up enough of the popular ones and legal downloading may commence. Once again, artistic vision would suffer.
The servers of Encyclopedia Dramatica will be incinerated and the site's owners publicly scourged with glass-embedded whips.
Free speech is free speech. Even though ED are just supertrolls, any free speech that gets outlawed or punished in any way cause people to fear the unknown and clam up, defeating any good intention you have to get the public involved in the lawmaking process.
> Why have it at all? Just for the piece of paper that says you're married and maybe a tax break?
For the legal benefits that come with being married as granted by countless laws on the books that use the word. Spouses cannot be forced to testify against one another in court, they have certain automatic rights regarding children and medical powers-of-attorney in the case of one being incapacitated or dead, as immediate family they cannot be barred from visiting in the hospital... the list is endless.
If religions want to insist that marriage belongs to them, they must first agree to expunge it from the law books, otherwise separation of church and state is a farce worse than it already is.
For the legal benefits that come with being married as granted by countless laws on the books that use the word. Spouses cannot be forced to testify against one another in court, they have certain automatic rights regarding children and medical powers-of-attorney in the case of one being incapacitated or dead, as immediate family they cannot be barred from visiting in the hospital... the list is endless.
If religions want to insist that marriage belongs to them, they must first agree to expunge it from the law books, otherwise separation of church and state is a farce worse than it already is.
For the legal benefits that come with being married as granted by countless laws on the books that use the word.
>Certainly gay marriage should be as valid as regular marriage; anything else is discrimination. And while I don't disagree with the thought process behind making divorce easier and adding polygamy to the mix, doesn't doing so essentially defeat the idea of marriage?
YES. How much do we ever think about marriage? About whether or not it's really necessary? If two people want to spend their whole life together, that's great! Good for them! But if a relationship has gone straight to hell, it shouldn't be a worse hell trying to leave it. Human beings are not wired for monogamy. Polygamy is FAR closer to 'natural' for us.
But like Alfie said; "For the legal benefits that come with being married as granted by countless laws on the books that use the word." That's it in a nutshell. Marriage makes perfect sense for legal and economic reasons. If you plan to stay with someone forever, whoever they are, you should be able to collect insurance if they die, both have custody of your children, etc.
Our society has outgrown marriage as a tradition. So either we make marriage between any group of consenting parties legal, or religions can keep their one-man-one-woman definition and there'll be a completely separate legal partnership for everyone (like civil unions).
>I don't think this is such a good idea. I loathe censorship as much as you, but this would still need to be a process carried out by an independent panel following a strict, consistent guide stating what type of content results in what rating, to make ratings as consistent as possible over as long a period of time as possible.
I could agree to that. The problem is, the MPAA is corrupt as fuck. I watched a documentary called This Film Has Not Been Rated, about the people who decide movie ratings. I was appalled. These people give harsher ratings to sex than violence, especially gay sex, and can basically keep any film from mainstream distribution by slapping an NC17 on it. NC17s aren't even allowed to advertise! Plus they don't give reasons for their ratings, or tell filmmakers what to cut to get a lower rating, and their appeals process is the most outrageously one-sided, unfair bullshit I think I've ever seen.
Your concerns about filmmakers rating their own films is valid. But I think I would rather try that for a while and see if it's any better than what we currently have.
>I would think maybe there should be a law saying they can only submit a movie for review once, take the rating they get and live with it, or never release the movie at all.
Unfortunately, that's almost exactly what we have now. Except it's religious conservatives handing out the ratings.
>But I could never place any faith in a regime that would choose to outlaw any one particular thing and then willfully punish those who violated said decree before it existed. No one would be safe, ever, because you could simply decide one day that something is illegal and put a whole mess of people in prison. And even if we could trust you to be a most benevolent ruler not to abuse this privilege, and even if you planned on being emperor for life, unless you plan to invent immortality you would have to consider how this power might be used by your eventual successor, and his (or her) successor, and so forth.
That's valid, however, I believe that fur farms are a special case because they are already violating existing animal cruelty laws. If there was any consistency in the laws whatsoever, we would recognize that animals we consider livestock deserve the same freedom from cruelty that animals we consider pets receive. Dogs and foxes are so genetically similar as to be nearly the same species. But the law doesn't treat them that way.
I don't think it's possible that a person working in a fur farm or a factory farm, or who traps animals for furs, can be unaware of the suffering they cause. I think any normal person would be shocked and horrified to see what goes on in these professions. The problem is, they don't know. They want their food and fur without guilt.
In addition to these laws, I would make it absolutely clear: Cruelty Will Not Be Tolerated. Cruelty means causing needless suffering. Even if the law doesn't always recognize that, the animals certainly do. Humans are at a point where our technology can give us what we need in a much less cruel way. Since we have the ability, there is no excuse for us not to.
But as to your point about retroativiely calling people criminals, there's validity there. Maybe I'd give a month's warning. Fur farm owners and employees have a month to quit and find new jobs. Anyone still working gets punished.
>If you wanted to outlaw sport hunting entirely, I could see that, but allowing it to continue with two new impositions, one promoting safety and one preventing it? Color me confused.
Now I'm confused. BOTH of those impositions were designed to decrease safety. Scroll up to see my comments about this to Alfador; that should explain it.
>I'm a little confused by this one too. For a company to ascertain the production cost of an individual DVD/CD as it relates to profitability, they would need to know in advance how many of the discs they'll sell.
>Again, people in the industry will try to game the system by spending more frivolously in order to bring the prices up to the level they want them to be at
This is why I need people who know economics as my advisers. I'll admit, those are good points. But this was the best I could think of. Virtually every kind of consumer electronics have come down in price over time, except CDs and DVDs. The prices they charge for them, versus how much they cost to make, is ridiculous. And a ton of that money is going to industry parasites instead of artists.
I'm for whatever is fairest to both consumers and artists, so if this doesn't work, I'm open to any other suggestions.
>Free speech is free speech. Even though ED are just supertrolls, any free speech that gets outlawed or punished in any way cause people to fear the unknown and clam up, defeating any good intention you have to get the public involved in the lawmaking process.
I believe that free speech is more important than my own life, yet I am also glad we have restrictions on it. One of those restrictions is slander, which ED absolutely is. Speech whose only purpose is to spread lies and cause harm should not be protected.
Heck, if nothing else I wouldn't make this an actual law; I'd just take some really big guys along and do it personally. That works out nicely.
>Certainly gay marriage should be as valid as regular marriage; anything else is discrimination. And while I don't disagree with the thought process behind making divorce easier and adding polygamy to the mix, doesn't doing so essentially defeat the idea of marriage?
YES. How much do we ever think about marriage? About whether or not it's really necessary? If two people want to spend their whole life together, that's great! Good for them! But if a relationship has gone straight to hell, it shouldn't be a worse hell trying to leave it. Human beings are not wired for monogamy. Polygamy is FAR closer to 'natural' for us.
But like Alfie said; "For the legal benefits that come with being married as granted by countless laws on the books that use the word." That's it in a nutshell. Marriage makes perfect sense for legal and economic reasons. If you plan to stay with someone forever, whoever they are, you should be able to collect insurance if they die, both have custody of your children, etc.
Our society has outgrown marriage as a tradition. So either we make marriage between any group of consenting parties legal, or religions can keep their one-man-one-woman definition and there'll be a completely separate legal partnership for everyone (like civil unions).
>I don't think this is such a good idea. I loathe censorship as much as you, but this would still need to be a process carried out by an independent panel following a strict, consistent guide stating what type of content results in what rating, to make ratings as consistent as possible over as long a period of time as possible.
I could agree to that. The problem is, the MPAA is corrupt as fuck. I watched a documentary called This Film Has Not Been Rated, about the people who decide movie ratings. I was appalled. These people give harsher ratings to sex than violence, especially gay sex, and can basically keep any film from mainstream distribution by slapping an NC17 on it. NC17s aren't even allowed to advertise! Plus they don't give reasons for their ratings, or tell filmmakers what to cut to get a lower rating, and their appeals process is the most outrageously one-sided, unfair bullshit I think I've ever seen.
Your concerns about filmmakers rating their own films is valid. But I think I would rather try that for a while and see if it's any better than what we currently have.
>I would think maybe there should be a law saying they can only submit a movie for review once, take the rating they get and live with it, or never release the movie at all.
Unfortunately, that's almost exactly what we have now. Except it's religious conservatives handing out the ratings.
>But I could never place any faith in a regime that would choose to outlaw any one particular thing and then willfully punish those who violated said decree before it existed. No one would be safe, ever, because you could simply decide one day that something is illegal and put a whole mess of people in prison. And even if we could trust you to be a most benevolent ruler not to abuse this privilege, and even if you planned on being emperor for life, unless you plan to invent immortality you would have to consider how this power might be used by your eventual successor, and his (or her) successor, and so forth.
That's valid, however, I believe that fur farms are a special case because they are already violating existing animal cruelty laws. If there was any consistency in the laws whatsoever, we would recognize that animals we consider livestock deserve the same freedom from cruelty that animals we consider pets receive. Dogs and foxes are so genetically similar as to be nearly the same species. But the law doesn't treat them that way.
I don't think it's possible that a person working in a fur farm or a factory farm, or who traps animals for furs, can be unaware of the suffering they cause. I think any normal person would be shocked and horrified to see what goes on in these professions. The problem is, they don't know. They want their food and fur without guilt.
In addition to these laws, I would make it absolutely clear: Cruelty Will Not Be Tolerated. Cruelty means causing needless suffering. Even if the law doesn't always recognize that, the animals certainly do. Humans are at a point where our technology can give us what we need in a much less cruel way. Since we have the ability, there is no excuse for us not to.
But as to your point about retroativiely calling people criminals, there's validity there. Maybe I'd give a month's warning. Fur farm owners and employees have a month to quit and find new jobs. Anyone still working gets punished.
>If you wanted to outlaw sport hunting entirely, I could see that, but allowing it to continue with two new impositions, one promoting safety and one preventing it? Color me confused.
Now I'm confused. BOTH of those impositions were designed to decrease safety. Scroll up to see my comments about this to Alfador; that should explain it.
>I'm a little confused by this one too. For a company to ascertain the production cost of an individual DVD/CD as it relates to profitability, they would need to know in advance how many of the discs they'll sell.
>Again, people in the industry will try to game the system by spending more frivolously in order to bring the prices up to the level they want them to be at
This is why I need people who know economics as my advisers. I'll admit, those are good points. But this was the best I could think of. Virtually every kind of consumer electronics have come down in price over time, except CDs and DVDs. The prices they charge for them, versus how much they cost to make, is ridiculous. And a ton of that money is going to industry parasites instead of artists.
I'm for whatever is fairest to both consumers and artists, so if this doesn't work, I'm open to any other suggestions.
>Free speech is free speech. Even though ED are just supertrolls, any free speech that gets outlawed or punished in any way cause people to fear the unknown and clam up, defeating any good intention you have to get the public involved in the lawmaking process.
I believe that free speech is more important than my own life, yet I am also glad we have restrictions on it. One of those restrictions is slander, which ED absolutely is. Speech whose only purpose is to spread lies and cause harm should not be protected.
Heck, if nothing else I wouldn't make this an actual law; I'd just take some really big guys along and do it personally. That works out nicely.
I'm trying to learn what exactly you're against that's on ED. I wasn't entirely sure at first, but I think I'm starting to understand. I believe the right course of action should be, if you were emperor, to ask ED to revamp their site and articles to follow slander law (or whatever you, being emperor, say what constitutes as slander). What I think is this:
ED shouldn't be allowed to post real-life images, phone numbers, addresses or general private information about any person. This is what Wikipedia does, they have a whole self-made political system that very closely watches for laws on copyrights and privacy, so they only post information and images that is already publicly available or known. They also have the whole [citation needed] thing going on for unsourced claims, something you'd probably prefer on ED, I assume. However, I would stress that ED is a joke site and isn't meant to be taken seriously, so for them, I would say they could just redirect the words of the article as clickable links to things like their "Lie" page (they often do this).
ED shouldn't be allowed to post lies that could ruin a person, a company or a trade beyond what it has already apparently been ruined. For example, while it probably needs a bit of editing, ED's "W" page is generally what I would classify as humor and I don't think it ruins Bush's image, reputation or career beyond anything he has already done himself. Most of the things they say are true to some extent, but sarcastic and exaggerated. ED should be allowed to "lie" to some extent based on the concepts of personal interpretation, sarcasm and exaggeration. They may be required to have some kind of giant label on the front page that has some kind of disclaimer (even 4chan's /b/ has one) that it is a satirical site and not meant to be taken seriously.
ED shouldn't be allowed to post real-life images, phone numbers, addresses or general private information about any person. This is what Wikipedia does, they have a whole self-made political system that very closely watches for laws on copyrights and privacy, so they only post information and images that is already publicly available or known. They also have the whole [citation needed] thing going on for unsourced claims, something you'd probably prefer on ED, I assume. However, I would stress that ED is a joke site and isn't meant to be taken seriously, so for them, I would say they could just redirect the words of the article as clickable links to things like their "Lie" page (they often do this).
ED shouldn't be allowed to post lies that could ruin a person, a company or a trade beyond what it has already apparently been ruined. For example, while it probably needs a bit of editing, ED's "W" page is generally what I would classify as humor and I don't think it ruins Bush's image, reputation or career beyond anything he has already done himself. Most of the things they say are true to some extent, but sarcastic and exaggerated. ED should be allowed to "lie" to some extent based on the concepts of personal interpretation, sarcasm and exaggeration. They may be required to have some kind of giant label on the front page that has some kind of disclaimer (even 4chan's /b/ has one) that it is a satirical site and not meant to be taken seriously.
Actually, I just checked something over there and found it missing, which rather surprised me.
The few times I'd poked around there before, I'd seen articles calling animal cruelty hilarious, and so much racism that it was impossible for it to have been just ironic. I felt like I was reaching into a trough of vomit up to my armpits. This was not satire. It was people wallowing in the deepest pits of human cruelty and hatred they could find. It was wannabe sociopaths competing with each other to see who could kill off the most of their compassion.
Now it looks like they've cleaned up a bit. Which, in a way, is a little more sickening. At least the vileness was honest. Now it just feels like a bunch of trendy kids bitching about everyone in school they hate. If I had to guess, I'd say they've cleaned house to appear more mainstream, and make more money selling 'lulz' on t-shirts. They've got a fucking Twitter page for chrissakes.
Anyway, ED is not satire and never has been. It uses satire as a mask for the fact that they think everything they write there is justified.
The few times I'd poked around there before, I'd seen articles calling animal cruelty hilarious, and so much racism that it was impossible for it to have been just ironic. I felt like I was reaching into a trough of vomit up to my armpits. This was not satire. It was people wallowing in the deepest pits of human cruelty and hatred they could find. It was wannabe sociopaths competing with each other to see who could kill off the most of their compassion.
Now it looks like they've cleaned up a bit. Which, in a way, is a little more sickening. At least the vileness was honest. Now it just feels like a bunch of trendy kids bitching about everyone in school they hate. If I had to guess, I'd say they've cleaned house to appear more mainstream, and make more money selling 'lulz' on t-shirts. They've got a fucking Twitter page for chrissakes.
Anyway, ED is not satire and never has been. It uses satire as a mask for the fact that they think everything they write there is justified.
I've always interpreted it as satire myself. Have for years. There are some people who truly are serious about what they say, but they're individuals. I don't think it's each and every single person who makes ED articles. Heck, I've made and edited ED articles. I think the issues with ED could be solved if it had a symbol either on the top of their front page or on the top of every page on the site that said what 4chan says exactly: "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact." Maybe it's not satire for everyone else, but it definitely is for me and I think I personally should be allowed to enjoy the humor, but I will say that perhaps they should clean their act up a bit.
>Heck, I've made and edited ED articles.
I just lost a great deal of respect for you.
>I think the issues with ED could be solved if it had a symbol either on the top of their front page or on the top of every page on the site that said what 4chan says exactly: "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Except that no one on /b/ listens to that or takes it seriously. No one would on ED either. That's not a real warning; it's pure ass-covering.
I just lost a great deal of respect for you.
>I think the issues with ED could be solved if it had a symbol either on the top of their front page or on the top of every page on the site that said what 4chan says exactly: "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Except that no one on /b/ listens to that or takes it seriously. No one would on ED either. That's not a real warning; it's pure ass-covering.
If it matters any...
*The type of things I have done on ED is make the "What What" page just so I could redirect it to "In the Ass" when accessed.
*Edited the Video Games article to claim that Halo was the first game ever and invented graphics.
*Told people on ED and on related websites of discussion with ED users they were going too far when they were riding on zoophiles, contacting police to persecute them and told them that selling crack is worse than having sex with a dog. The response was that I was simply wrong and that zoophiles are DA DEVUL
I don't take ED seriously and I honestly do only use it to, at least for me, make humor that is either exaggeratory, sarcastic, but never harmful. I specifically speak out against that when it happens. If you don't respect me on the mere simple basis that I occasionally go there... I'm sorry, I don't have a response. I still think you're a good person, though, and I want to be friends.
*The type of things I have done on ED is make the "What What" page just so I could redirect it to "In the Ass" when accessed.
*Edited the Video Games article to claim that Halo was the first game ever and invented graphics.
*Told people on ED and on related websites of discussion with ED users they were going too far when they were riding on zoophiles, contacting police to persecute them and told them that selling crack is worse than having sex with a dog. The response was that I was simply wrong and that zoophiles are DA DEVUL
I don't take ED seriously and I honestly do only use it to, at least for me, make humor that is either exaggeratory, sarcastic, but never harmful. I specifically speak out against that when it happens. If you don't respect me on the mere simple basis that I occasionally go there... I'm sorry, I don't have a response. I still think you're a good person, though, and I want to be friends.
>I don't take ED seriously and I honestly do only use it to, at least for me, make humor that is either exaggeratory, sarcastic, but never harmful. I specifically speak out against that when it happens. If you don't respect me on the mere simple basis that I occasionally go there... I'm sorry, I don't have a response. I still think you're a good person, though, and I want to be friends.
I didn't say I lost all respect for you, just a decent chunk. I've seen ED do everything in its power to hurt a dear friend of mine for literally no more reason than that they didn't like his art. So, to be honest, my hatred of them is partly a personal hate.
That's nice that you don't take it seriously and you don't use it to hurt people. But Other People Do. And as far as I can tell, those people are running the show.
I like to think I have a good understanding of humor. I can laugh at any subject if the joke's constructed right. But when you have a site that's just repeating insult after insult after insult, and there's no setup or punchline, I have to ask; who finds this funny?
Put simply, if you want to be a part of a group that I fiercely dislike, then you have to understand that I'm never going to be comfortable with that. I don't hate YOU, but I still can't fathom why you'd want to spend time over there.
I didn't say I lost all respect for you, just a decent chunk. I've seen ED do everything in its power to hurt a dear friend of mine for literally no more reason than that they didn't like his art. So, to be honest, my hatred of them is partly a personal hate.
That's nice that you don't take it seriously and you don't use it to hurt people. But Other People Do. And as far as I can tell, those people are running the show.
I like to think I have a good understanding of humor. I can laugh at any subject if the joke's constructed right. But when you have a site that's just repeating insult after insult after insult, and there's no setup or punchline, I have to ask; who finds this funny?
Put simply, if you want to be a part of a group that I fiercely dislike, then you have to understand that I'm never going to be comfortable with that. I don't hate YOU, but I still can't fathom why you'd want to spend time over there.
>Plus [the MPAA doesn't] give reasons for their ratings, or tell filmmakers what to cut to get a lower rating, and their appeals process is the most outrageously one-sided, unfair bullshit I think I've ever seen.
If that's the way it is then I'm with you on the overhaul. I only know what I've read and it all seems to suggest a different story. I should probably check out This Film Is Not Yet Rated sometime. Anyways, one thing I would certainly add to any kind of rating system is content descriptors (like the ones television ratings use) that tell even the viewer why a rating was given. That way, you'd know if that R rating was given for harmless nudity or grotesque violence (or both.)
>Now I'm confused. BOTH of those impositions were designed to decrease safety. Scroll up to see my comments about this to Alfador; that should explain it.
By the time I got to the bottom of your edict it was pretty late and I misread your statement, thinking that you wanted hunters to be less drunk, not more. So, criticism cheerfully withdrawn.
If that's the way it is then I'm with you on the overhaul. I only know what I've read and it all seems to suggest a different story. I should probably check out This Film Is Not Yet Rated sometime. Anyways, one thing I would certainly add to any kind of rating system is content descriptors (like the ones television ratings use) that tell even the viewer why a rating was given. That way, you'd know if that R rating was given for harmless nudity or grotesque violence (or both.)
>Now I'm confused. BOTH of those impositions were designed to decrease safety. Scroll up to see my comments about this to Alfador; that should explain it.
By the time I got to the bottom of your edict it was pretty late and I misread your statement, thinking that you wanted hunters to be less drunk, not more. So, criticism cheerfully withdrawn.
>If that's the way it is then I'm with you on the overhaul. I only know what I've read and it all seems to suggest a different story. I should probably check out This Film Is Not Yet Rated sometime. Anyways, one thing I would certainly add to any kind of rating system is content descriptors (like the ones television ratings use) that tell even the viewer why a rating was given. That way, you'd know if that R rating was given for harmless nudity or grotesque violence (or both.)
That is a good idea. I've got a friend who doesn't mind violence but is very sex-phobic, and sometimes if I wanna go see a movie with him, it's annoying to track down whether there's gonna be any titty in the movie.
That is a good idea. I've got a friend who doesn't mind violence but is very sex-phobic, and sometimes if I wanna go see a movie with him, it's annoying to track down whether there's gonna be any titty in the movie.
*The following individuals will be arrested for crimes against truth and human decency: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps. Anyone else who it can be proven has risen to fame and fortune through a pattern of deception, viciousness and a willful disregard for facts may face similar punishment.
*The profits from Stephanie Meyer's Twilight books will be siezed to fund illiteracy prevention programs.
I would have cheered out loud, but my parents are asleep. :P
*The profits from Stephanie Meyer's Twilight books will be siezed to fund illiteracy prevention programs.
I would have cheered out loud, but my parents are asleep. :P
*The meat industry will be overhauled top to bottom. Veal and pate will no longer be produced in the U.S. The owners of farms will be ordered to increase the quality of life for the animals by all plausible means. At the same time, abundant money and resources will be given to scientists to genetically engineer cows/chickens/pigs/etc. that are incapable of thought and incapable of feeling pain. Once this is accomplished, it will be made illegal for stores to sell any kind of meat other than from these kinds of animals.
I recall reading an article in an issue of National Geographic, in which researchers were "growing meat." They were using harvested stem cells to generate animal tissue, which, at least when considering macro-organisms, is "guilt-free meat." Past the initial harvest of stem cells, a conscious animal should not be involved, especially if they're able to reproduce said stem cells.
I just thought I'd put that out there.
I recall reading an article in an issue of National Geographic, in which researchers were "growing meat." They were using harvested stem cells to generate animal tissue, which, at least when considering macro-organisms, is "guilt-free meat." Past the initial harvest of stem cells, a conscious animal should not be involved, especially if they're able to reproduce said stem cells.
I just thought I'd put that out there.
>I recall reading an article in an issue of National Geographic, in which researchers were "growing meat." They were using harvested stem cells to generate animal tissue, which, at least when considering macro-organisms, is "guilt-free meat."
FUCK YEAH.
I half-guessed we already had this technology, so that's all the more reason this needs to be thoroughly researched and streamlined to the point where it can supply the whole country with cruelty-free food.
FUCK YEAH.
I half-guessed we already had this technology, so that's all the more reason this needs to be thoroughly researched and streamlined to the point where it can supply the whole country with cruelty-free food.
>You please my octopus.
Is that a reference to your genitals?
>Oh, and you forgot about destroying /b/ and 4chan,
Ehhh, I think /b/'s dying anyway. Christ, they're mainstream enough that Law & Order actually referenced Moot in their episode last night. (Which I'm sure caused a thousand facepalms.)
>and banning religious hate speech. Let's all go rape Fred Phelps with chainsaws~
I'm not sure I'd exactly *ban* it. Like, I want Fred Phelps to still be allowed to have his protests, because free speech means allowing the speech you dislike least. I do however have a problem with him protesting funerals, because that's infringing on the mourner's rights. On the other hand, if it proves too problematic to do anything legally against Phelps, I might just have him brought to my royal palace and go medieval on his ass.
BTW, GODDAMMIT! I FORGOT TO LEGALIZE CANNIBALISM!!!
Is that a reference to your genitals?
>Oh, and you forgot about destroying /b/ and 4chan,
Ehhh, I think /b/'s dying anyway. Christ, they're mainstream enough that Law & Order actually referenced Moot in their episode last night. (Which I'm sure caused a thousand facepalms.)
>and banning religious hate speech. Let's all go rape Fred Phelps with chainsaws~
I'm not sure I'd exactly *ban* it. Like, I want Fred Phelps to still be allowed to have his protests, because free speech means allowing the speech you dislike least. I do however have a problem with him protesting funerals, because that's infringing on the mourner's rights. On the other hand, if it proves too problematic to do anything legally against Phelps, I might just have him brought to my royal palace and go medieval on his ass.
BTW, GODDAMMIT! I FORGOT TO LEGALIZE CANNIBALISM!!!
>Fred's dead, baby. Fred's dead.
LOL! PERFECT!!
>So, how did you like Kick-Ass?
Loved the everliving fuck out of it. I really liked how brutally it skewered every superhero movie cliche ever, but then, by the end, it basically said, "Okay, you've been through enough. Here's the fuckin' awesome ending that you've been drooling for." The ending really didn't fit with the rest of the movie, but I appreciate that they didn't care and went with it anyway. The characters deserved it. And I'm not ashamed to admit that Hit Girl made my pants tighten. :3
LOL! PERFECT!!
>So, how did you like Kick-Ass?
Loved the everliving fuck out of it. I really liked how brutally it skewered every superhero movie cliche ever, but then, by the end, it basically said, "Okay, you've been through enough. Here's the fuckin' awesome ending that you've been drooling for." The ending really didn't fit with the rest of the movie, but I appreciate that they didn't care and went with it anyway. The characters deserved it. And I'm not ashamed to admit that Hit Girl made my pants tighten. :3
>LOL! PERFECT!!
I try~
>Loved the everliving fuck out of it. I really liked how brutally it skewered every superhero movie cliche ever, but then, by the end, it basically said, "Okay, you've been through enough. Here's the fuckin' awesome ending that you've been drooling for." The ending really didn't fit with the rest of the movie, but I appreciate that they didn't care and went with it anyway. The characters deserved it. And I'm not ashamed to admit that Hit Girl made my pants tighten. :3
I loved it just as much ^^
You know the scene in Rasuf's apartment when Hit Girl first appears, and that happy dance-y music is playing in the background? I have that on my iPod now.
I just love female characters that kick ass, I dunno why.
"Show's over, motherfuckers."
I try~
>Loved the everliving fuck out of it. I really liked how brutally it skewered every superhero movie cliche ever, but then, by the end, it basically said, "Okay, you've been through enough. Here's the fuckin' awesome ending that you've been drooling for." The ending really didn't fit with the rest of the movie, but I appreciate that they didn't care and went with it anyway. The characters deserved it. And I'm not ashamed to admit that Hit Girl made my pants tighten. :3
I loved it just as much ^^
You know the scene in Rasuf's apartment when Hit Girl first appears, and that happy dance-y music is playing in the background? I have that on my iPod now.
I just love female characters that kick ass, I dunno why.
"Show's over, motherfuckers."
I see alot things I agree with and a few I don't, but I think I'll just comment a few:
>The following individuals will be arrested for crimes against truth and human decency: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps. Anyone else who it can be proven has risen to fame and fortune through a pattern of deception, viciousness and a willful disregard for facts may face similar punishment.
Hell to the yes! Espeacially Sarah Palin. She looks she was designed in a factory just for the sole purpose of gaining votes. She's attractive (though YMMV), she's a Christian, a family-oriented women, has a an infant son with disabilities and pretty much a down-home nice girl, yet she hardly knows politics and policies of both the nation and the World and instead relies on Republican talking points to make herself sound politcally-savvy. She's manipulating votes and people and they don't know it. If she gets in the White House in 2012 and we still have all these problems Barack Obama trying to fix, we'd be royally fucked up the ass.
>Physically assaulting a papparazi will be legal, so long as it does not cause permanent physical damage.
If you invade someone's privacy, you are the only one responsible for the consequences. It's as simple as that.
>Sport hunting will only be legal with a blood alcohol level above the current limit for driving. Orange vests and hats will not be allowed.
Kinda disagree with this since I come from a family that hunts and those orange vests and hats have purpose in helping those who AREN'T hunting getting from place to place where people are hunting. But restrictions on hunting for sport, I have no problem with.
>*It will be legal to slap, once, anyone who misuses an apostrophe.
Oh, I see what you did there.
>The Disney Corporation will be ordered to release a complete high quality DVD box set of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers, which will be given free to anyone who bought the other incomplete, shitty box sets. Box sets of other Disney Afternoon shows must follow. Also, they must give double refunds to anyone who bought the 'Most Wanted' Robin Hood DVD (where they cropped the top and bottom to make a fake widescreen edition). They must agree to let Pixar do whatever they want without interference. Also, they must make a sequel to The Great Mouse Detective.
Beautiful! Still Disney actually releases some of there TV shows unlike Nickelodeon which has only released four DVD compliations of there Nicktoons cartoons (Spongebob, Ren and Stimpy, Invader Zim and Avatar: The Last Airbending) and those last three were either due to John K. getting the rights back and overwelming fan demand. Not only that, but the Avatar: The Last Bender's final season has still yet to be released. Is Nickelodeon or Viacom ashamed of there past succeses or what?
>The profits from Stephanie Meyer's Twilight books will be siezed to fund illiteracy prevention programs.
Mweheeheehee. That's awesome and karmic. Though I actually should read the books so I can offer some proper critique on the series without sucumbing to Complaining About Books I Don't Read syndrome.
>The following individuals will be arrested for crimes against truth and human decency: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps. Anyone else who it can be proven has risen to fame and fortune through a pattern of deception, viciousness and a willful disregard for facts may face similar punishment.
Hell to the yes! Espeacially Sarah Palin. She looks she was designed in a factory just for the sole purpose of gaining votes. She's attractive (though YMMV), she's a Christian, a family-oriented women, has a an infant son with disabilities and pretty much a down-home nice girl, yet she hardly knows politics and policies of both the nation and the World and instead relies on Republican talking points to make herself sound politcally-savvy. She's manipulating votes and people and they don't know it. If she gets in the White House in 2012 and we still have all these problems Barack Obama trying to fix, we'd be royally fucked up the ass.
>Physically assaulting a papparazi will be legal, so long as it does not cause permanent physical damage.
If you invade someone's privacy, you are the only one responsible for the consequences. It's as simple as that.
>Sport hunting will only be legal with a blood alcohol level above the current limit for driving. Orange vests and hats will not be allowed.
Kinda disagree with this since I come from a family that hunts and those orange vests and hats have purpose in helping those who AREN'T hunting getting from place to place where people are hunting. But restrictions on hunting for sport, I have no problem with.
>*It will be legal to slap, once, anyone who misuses an apostrophe.
Oh, I see what you did there.
>The Disney Corporation will be ordered to release a complete high quality DVD box set of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers, which will be given free to anyone who bought the other incomplete, shitty box sets. Box sets of other Disney Afternoon shows must follow. Also, they must give double refunds to anyone who bought the 'Most Wanted' Robin Hood DVD (where they cropped the top and bottom to make a fake widescreen edition). They must agree to let Pixar do whatever they want without interference. Also, they must make a sequel to The Great Mouse Detective.
Beautiful! Still Disney actually releases some of there TV shows unlike Nickelodeon which has only released four DVD compliations of there Nicktoons cartoons (Spongebob, Ren and Stimpy, Invader Zim and Avatar: The Last Airbending) and those last three were either due to John K. getting the rights back and overwelming fan demand. Not only that, but the Avatar: The Last Bender's final season has still yet to be released. Is Nickelodeon or Viacom ashamed of there past succeses or what?
>The profits from Stephanie Meyer's Twilight books will be siezed to fund illiteracy prevention programs.
Mweheeheehee. That's awesome and karmic. Though I actually should read the books so I can offer some proper critique on the series without sucumbing to Complaining About Books I Don't Read syndrome.
>Espeacially Sarah Palin. She looks she was designed in a factory just for the sole purpose of gaining votes.
That's actually a really good description! I imagine that, when John McCain was lagging in the polls, the GOP were probly like, "Look, no one in this country gives a shit about anything but image. We need an image that will appeal to our base enough to defeat Obama, and it has to be a woman to swing the Hilary voters, and all she has to do is be unswervingly loyal to the Party."
>If you invade someone's privacy, you are the only one responsible for the consequences. It's as simple as that.
EXACTLY what I was going for.
>Kinda disagree with this since I come from a family that hunts and those orange vests and hats have purpose in helping those who AREN'T hunting getting from place to place where people are hunting. But restrictions on hunting for sport, I have no problem with.
Oh, if non-hunters wanna wear 'em, that's perfectly fine. Check my comments to Alfador on this.
>Beautiful! Still Disney actually releases some of there TV shows unlike Nickelodeon which has only released four DVD compliations of there Nicktoons cartoons
Well, I might just have to lean on those guys too.
Seriously, I think the biggest reason people don't buy TV box sets is because they seem so often to be retardedly expensive, aren't complete, and designed by people who have no idea what the fans want.
>Mweheeheehee. That's awesome and karmic. Though I actually should read the books so I can offer some proper critique on the series without sucumbing to Complaining About Books I Don't Read syndrome.
I have had the plots and characters described to me, and in this case I am wholly comfortable condemning the books based on that alone. Like, I don't need to see the Marmaduke movie to know the Marmaduke movie is going to be bad, because it's a fucking Marmaduke movie.
That's actually a really good description! I imagine that, when John McCain was lagging in the polls, the GOP were probly like, "Look, no one in this country gives a shit about anything but image. We need an image that will appeal to our base enough to defeat Obama, and it has to be a woman to swing the Hilary voters, and all she has to do is be unswervingly loyal to the Party."
>If you invade someone's privacy, you are the only one responsible for the consequences. It's as simple as that.
EXACTLY what I was going for.
>Kinda disagree with this since I come from a family that hunts and those orange vests and hats have purpose in helping those who AREN'T hunting getting from place to place where people are hunting. But restrictions on hunting for sport, I have no problem with.
Oh, if non-hunters wanna wear 'em, that's perfectly fine. Check my comments to Alfador on this.
>Beautiful! Still Disney actually releases some of there TV shows unlike Nickelodeon which has only released four DVD compliations of there Nicktoons cartoons
Well, I might just have to lean on those guys too.
Seriously, I think the biggest reason people don't buy TV box sets is because they seem so often to be retardedly expensive, aren't complete, and designed by people who have no idea what the fans want.
>Mweheeheehee. That's awesome and karmic. Though I actually should read the books so I can offer some proper critique on the series without sucumbing to Complaining About Books I Don't Read syndrome.
I have had the plots and characters described to me, and in this case I am wholly comfortable condemning the books based on that alone. Like, I don't need to see the Marmaduke movie to know the Marmaduke movie is going to be bad, because it's a fucking Marmaduke movie.
*While owning a fur garment or pelt will not be illegal, American stores will not be allowed to sell fur.
Hold on, why not just do the same thing with the meat industry and create animals who can't think or feel pain? You could just grow pelts in vats, no animals are harmed, and everyone gets what they want. Of course, while you're at it, you could genetically make some actual furries in the lab.
*Various friends in real life and online will be pretty much given whatever their hearts desire forever.
Well then, I'll take a big-ass, high-performance desktop computer, a complete set of lifting weights, some high-quality but compact headphones, and a pair of trained poodle guard dogs.
Oh, that reminds me: I think one law I'd declare would be to have any technology companies focus on how to make technology longer-lasting, or at least making stuff that actually works. I'm tired of buying shit that goes obsolete in less than a year, and electronics that focus more on being tiny and shiny instead of doing what they're friggin' supposed to do and breaking the day after I bought it. Also, it should be made easier to refund anything you buy.
Hold on, why not just do the same thing with the meat industry and create animals who can't think or feel pain? You could just grow pelts in vats, no animals are harmed, and everyone gets what they want. Of course, while you're at it, you could genetically make some actual furries in the lab.
*Various friends in real life and online will be pretty much given whatever their hearts desire forever.
Well then, I'll take a big-ass, high-performance desktop computer, a complete set of lifting weights, some high-quality but compact headphones, and a pair of trained poodle guard dogs.
Oh, that reminds me: I think one law I'd declare would be to have any technology companies focus on how to make technology longer-lasting, or at least making stuff that actually works. I'm tired of buying shit that goes obsolete in less than a year, and electronics that focus more on being tiny and shiny instead of doing what they're friggin' supposed to do and breaking the day after I bought it. Also, it should be made easier to refund anything you buy.
>Hold on, why not just do the same thing with the meat industry and create animals who can't think or feel pain? You could just grow pelts in vats, no animals are harmed, and everyone gets what they want.
Um, I already have that exact idea up there.
>Of course, while you're at it, you could genetically make some actual furries in the lab.
0.0
JESUS BALLSNIFFING CHRIST! WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT!? <runs off to edit>
>Well then, I'll take a big-ass, high-performance desktop computer, a complete set of lifting weights, some high-quality but compact headphones, and a pair of trained poodle guard dogs.
And it would be yours. Although you might have to train the poodles yourself.
>Oh, that reminds me: I think one law I'd declare would be to have any technology companies focus on how to make technology longer-lasting, or at least making stuff that actually works.
Landon already proposed we do away with planned obsolescence, and I agree.
All I could say about buying stuff that works is to read a lot of customer review websites before you buy anything like that. Vote with your wallet.
Um, I already have that exact idea up there.
>Of course, while you're at it, you could genetically make some actual furries in the lab.
0.0
JESUS BALLSNIFFING CHRIST! WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT!? <runs off to edit>
>Well then, I'll take a big-ass, high-performance desktop computer, a complete set of lifting weights, some high-quality but compact headphones, and a pair of trained poodle guard dogs.
And it would be yours. Although you might have to train the poodles yourself.
>Oh, that reminds me: I think one law I'd declare would be to have any technology companies focus on how to make technology longer-lasting, or at least making stuff that actually works.
Landon already proposed we do away with planned obsolescence, and I agree.
All I could say about buying stuff that works is to read a lot of customer review websites before you buy anything like that. Vote with your wallet.
"The Catholic church will be declared a criminal organization and the Pope will be barred from entering the U.S. indefinitely."
Yes, yes and moar yes.
The general thrust of this is basically as follows: if what you are doing is harmful to the general population, then you must pay restitution equal or (generally) greater than the harm that you have caused. Sounds about right. Punishments really should fit their crimes. I like it!
Yes, yes and moar yes.
The general thrust of this is basically as follows: if what you are doing is harmful to the general population, then you must pay restitution equal or (generally) greater than the harm that you have caused. Sounds about right. Punishments really should fit their crimes. I like it!
>Yes, yes and moar yes.
I imagine Catholics would pitch an enormous hissy fit if this happened in real life, but it'd be good for them to have a leader finally just say to them, "Ahhhhhh, SHADDAP!!!"
>The general thrust of this is basically as follows: if what you are doing is harmful to the general population, then you must pay restitution equal or (generally) greater than the harm that you have caused.
EXACTLY!! I'm so glad I got that across. Real life tends to not care much about administering karmic justice. Since we humans have the capability to, I think we should.
I imagine Catholics would pitch an enormous hissy fit if this happened in real life, but it'd be good for them to have a leader finally just say to them, "Ahhhhhh, SHADDAP!!!"
>The general thrust of this is basically as follows: if what you are doing is harmful to the general population, then you must pay restitution equal or (generally) greater than the harm that you have caused.
EXACTLY!! I'm so glad I got that across. Real life tends to not care much about administering karmic justice. Since we humans have the capability to, I think we should.
*The Disney Corporation will be ordered to release a complete high quality DVD box set of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers, which will be given free to anyone who bought the other incomplete, shitty box sets. Box sets of other Disney Afternoon shows must follow.
> YES!! Disney taunts me with its "only one DVD of goof troop can be found just to piss Jose off" rule! And I liked Bonkers say what many will about it.
...they must make a sequel to The Great Mouse Detective.
> A "Hound of Baskerville" Spin would be delicious or maybe the "Sperckled Band" you can have a sexy female seductress snake as the main villain.
*Similarly, Warner Brothers will be ordered to release complete box sets of Tiny Toon Adventures, Animaniacs, Road Rovers, etc. Plus they must manufacture Fifi plushies designed by furries.
> As much as I love Fifi I'm gonna have to hold out for Shirley or Sphinx.
*Swearing and nudity will be allowed on television.
> Does this apply to animation too. I mean most cartoons I see now lack the subtle innuendo of the classics, but i imagine Bugs' cross dressing scenes would have been alot more interesting. And would that mean we'd see Lola shove a banana down her pants for a male disguise?
> YES!! Disney taunts me with its "only one DVD of goof troop can be found just to piss Jose off" rule! And I liked Bonkers say what many will about it.
...they must make a sequel to The Great Mouse Detective.
> A "Hound of Baskerville" Spin would be delicious or maybe the "Sperckled Band" you can have a sexy female seductress snake as the main villain.
*Similarly, Warner Brothers will be ordered to release complete box sets of Tiny Toon Adventures, Animaniacs, Road Rovers, etc. Plus they must manufacture Fifi plushies designed by furries.
> As much as I love Fifi I'm gonna have to hold out for Shirley or Sphinx.
*Swearing and nudity will be allowed on television.
> Does this apply to animation too. I mean most cartoons I see now lack the subtle innuendo of the classics, but i imagine Bugs' cross dressing scenes would have been alot more interesting. And would that mean we'd see Lola shove a banana down her pants for a male disguise?
>YES!! Disney taunts me with its "only one DVD of goof troop can be found just to piss Jose off" rule! And I liked Bonkers say what many will about it.
They relesead two box sets of CDRR, but left out about twenty episodes and said, "That's good enough." And the transfers were so bad, a lot of times the chipmunks looked bright red!
>A "Hound of Baskerville" Spin would be delicious or maybe the "Sperckled Band" you can have a sexy female seductress snake as the main villain.
Or maybe the could adapt any of the half-dozen or so books from the series the movie was based on!!
>As much as I love Fifi I'm gonna have to hold out for Shirley or Sphinx.
Can't see why they couldn't be coerced into making those too. :)
>Does this apply to animation too. I mean most cartoons I see now lack the subtle innuendo of the classics, but i imagine Bugs' cross dressing scenes would have been alot more interesting. And would that mean we'd see Lola shove a banana down her pants for a male disguise?
I would totally approve of more filth in cartoons. :3
They relesead two box sets of CDRR, but left out about twenty episodes and said, "That's good enough." And the transfers were so bad, a lot of times the chipmunks looked bright red!
>A "Hound of Baskerville" Spin would be delicious or maybe the "Sperckled Band" you can have a sexy female seductress snake as the main villain.
Or maybe the could adapt any of the half-dozen or so books from the series the movie was based on!!
>As much as I love Fifi I'm gonna have to hold out for Shirley or Sphinx.
Can't see why they couldn't be coerced into making those too. :)
>Does this apply to animation too. I mean most cartoons I see now lack the subtle innuendo of the classics, but i imagine Bugs' cross dressing scenes would have been alot more interesting. And would that mean we'd see Lola shove a banana down her pants for a male disguise?
I would totally approve of more filth in cartoons. :3
Hehehe I agree with almost all of your decrees except cutting NASA's Funding. We need it's funding to try to explore more of the solar system so that humanity will be able to avoid extinction, if humanity is spread out among different planets we have a better chance of surviving. That and there are enough resources in the solar system itself to make every person on Earth live like an Emperor for millions of years. I think we need to take advantage of that fact. That and the Helium-3 we mine on the moon will be useful for our Nuclear Fusion power plants.
Oh and you should build more thorium based Nuclear reactors, Thorium can be used as a fissionable material and it is much more abundant in the Earth's crust than Uranium. That way it will be able to last way longer than Oil or Coal.
Oh and you should build more thorium based Nuclear reactors, Thorium can be used as a fissionable material and it is much more abundant in the Earth's crust than Uranium. That way it will be able to last way longer than Oil or Coal.
Cutting NASA's budget not only makes sense in terms of forcing them to abandon their old, stale, money-gorging ideas in favor of new ones, but it makes sense in terms of the current economy. It won't kill us to hold off on the space exploration until the unemployment rate's at acceptable levels.
>Oh and you should build more thorium based Nuclear reactors, Thorium can be used as a fissionable material and it is much more abundant in the Earth's crust than Uranium. That way it will be able to last way longer than Oil or Coal.
<blinks> I have never heard of thorium. You've given me a new thing to look up on Wikipedia!
>Oh and you should build more thorium based Nuclear reactors, Thorium can be used as a fissionable material and it is much more abundant in the Earth's crust than Uranium. That way it will be able to last way longer than Oil or Coal.
<blinks> I have never heard of thorium. You've given me a new thing to look up on Wikipedia!
I realy love the ballsy open aproch to this. And I agree with a large majority of it. Massive parts of it are hypocritical or just out right will end life in this country =p but fuck it it's a fantasy what if. XD
I would tweak a few of the laws and reglatons in the name of farness or to keep the nation from devolveing into a moraly decadent shit hole even faster then it might otherwise. XD And comeing from ME thats saying allot. =p
I would tweak a few of the laws and reglatons in the name of farness or to keep the nation from devolveing into a moraly decadent shit hole even faster then it might otherwise. XD And comeing from ME thats saying allot. =p
>Massive parts of it are hypocritical or just out right will end life in this country =p but fuck it it's a fantasy what if. XD
Please let me know what parts you think are hypocritical; I did my best to try to avoid that.
>I would tweak a few of the laws and reglatons in the name of farness or to keep the nation from devolveing into a moraly decadent shit hole even faster then it might otherwise. XD And comeing from ME thats saying allot. =p
Actually, i think this puritan pussy-fest could use a hack of a lot MORE 'moral decadence'. At least, the kind the conservative Christians disapprove of. ;)
Please let me know what parts you think are hypocritical; I did my best to try to avoid that.
>I would tweak a few of the laws and reglatons in the name of farness or to keep the nation from devolveing into a moraly decadent shit hole even faster then it might otherwise. XD And comeing from ME thats saying allot. =p
Actually, i think this puritan pussy-fest could use a hack of a lot MORE 'moral decadence'. At least, the kind the conservative Christians disapprove of. ;)
Well it's just...what you propose is totaly impossible. I cant even begin to start, thats just the nature of these kind of "what if's" It's mental masterbation for the little dictater inside all of us.
Mostly the parts were you constructed a socity that while remaining concentual in it's activitys forces others to endue a place of resadence were othwise moraly reprehensable activitys are not only legal but allmost encuraged. Not that thats a beef with me =p
I diddent meen to try and blow holes in your post, just stateing that I love these shorts of posts if for no other reason they all the reasons why they would never work, dispite how awsome it might be if they did work.
for example even with all the requirments for video eveidence of concent and so on, do you have idea how insanly easy ti would be to coerce, even with the safe guards in place, a person into giveing there concent to something realy horrific. Not to mention the fact that when you remove the element of fantasy from the equation instead of liberty and freedom you create a breeding ground for the deeply disturbed. Your society will cannibalize itself.
For example, it's one thing to agree to being devoured in fantasy, it's a mental exersize and like with meny other kinks like BDSM theres elements at play that go far beyond and run allot deeper then the simple act of eating another sentient thing. it's not realy about eating the person at all if you strip away all the serface layers, theres stuff ticking away in there that go allot deeper. I find allot of "fringe kings: are like that.
Now imagin a world were there are people that actualy WILLINGLY and HAPPALY concent to that. While it's nice there geting what they want, it's literaly Assisted suicide Or worse. One could state well, if they want to die let them die but thats not realy the point for one theres a value on human life no matter how depraved or sick a person might be. For another it takes something, alltogether very wrong, to be going on inside a persons head to actualy want to be Killed and eaten for pleasure. It goes ageinst ever basic self preservation and servival instinct, it serves no Biological function and no perpose aside from a psychological one.
Covered by a vail of concent these acts can be excused as extream, but not nessasaraly evil or wrong but the truth is, it's the mental effect that legalizeing and allowing these acts to be proformed will have that will couse the most damage.
what happends when some canibels have a kid and he goes to school and gets concent from his 7 year old class mate to be killed and eaten? what if the parents agree? in fantasy thats, well, it's realy freaking weird but it's fictional it cant hurt anybody or couse any real harm. In reality, that kid is going to die and be consumed for no reason, go get a hamberger instead jeez!
the problem is that people, espeshaly children, are very easy to manipulate, your systum would be heavaly abused.
As to the hipocracy well, Forceing peoble to make it mandatory that relgion only reute adults is a violation of your right to faith and religion and this is comeing from ME and I HATE religion XD. Lineing up the bush administration and subjecting them to humiliation and then imprisenment for just sucking major ass is allso far worse then the damage they coused while in power.
Back on the nature of sexual freedoms, I remain as open minded as possible but I allso have a right to live in a world were people dont fuck corpses, we need to face the facts that some sexual kinks when iexplored in fantasy are nothing more then an exersize of the mind but when proformed in reality become a horrific act and are dead give aways of saver mental illness. You like screwing dead people thats good for you, you want to fantasy about it? good for you! but when you actualy DO it even with the persons concent, thats just..wow...it's not as bad as the canible isum and snuff stuff becouse the person sient being killed so somebody can get off but it's still a bit extream.
Im not bashing these extream kinks but part of what MAKES these kinks atractive in fantasy is that it IS only fantasy. How do you draw the line? were are the paramiters around things like concent espeshaly were children and the mentaly retarted are concerned?
CHildren mature at different rates, how do you determin they can realy agree to something like Sex let alone being hung on public tv for the dellight of the 24 hour snuff channel? these acts are permanent, somebody just DIED even concentualy for the sexual gratifacation of another or to feed there morbid curiosity with death and dieing? This is just as wrong as if you lined up convicted criminals and made them participate.
I respect you Alex and I realize this emperror of amarica post you made is just a flight of fancy and not reality so please dont take this post as agressive or anything I am replying in the context that this would be a real plane your proposeing and not just something for fun. Im doeing it that way to point out the bad spots.
some of your ideas are magnificent however, your planes for government reform on how things are handled are great and while I dont belive we should remove all cencership I do agree that it should be tightly regulated so that pointless cencership is avoided. perhaps cencered and uncencered tv and radio stations. SO that parents with children that cant moniter them 24/7 dont have to worry about them turning into the cannibal corpse fucking hour on tv. =p
I guess in not realy one to talk though becouse i AGREE with you this nation is to Politicly correct to moraly upright but the issue isent that we are to moral the issue is we are to focused on whats considered wrong. Morality might need some redefinition but we shouldent do away with it all together. =p
A strong seperation of church and state is good but requireing you to be of legal drinking age to wership a god in an orginized church is realy pushing things twords opressive. Revokeing peoples right to marry based off being to stupid to lie to the new regime is out right Nazi like. XD Removeing a persons right to vote based off the fact that they places there faith in a politicle leader that you diddent like isent fair or just.
As a fantasy your new world older, it's freaking awsome and I love it.
As a Reality I would be one of the crazy basterds trying to put a bullet in your head. =p No offense. hell I have a few new world order ideas of my own and even the most vanilla of them is dangerously close to logans run or any of thouse other movies about a creepy "perfect" society.
I hate to admit it but part of why our system works at all is because it's flawed.
WHat we should do is reform the politicle systum and we can remove the corroption and the bull shit and THEN worry about what to and not to legalize. =p
Mostly the parts were you constructed a socity that while remaining concentual in it's activitys forces others to endue a place of resadence were othwise moraly reprehensable activitys are not only legal but allmost encuraged. Not that thats a beef with me =p
I diddent meen to try and blow holes in your post, just stateing that I love these shorts of posts if for no other reason they all the reasons why they would never work, dispite how awsome it might be if they did work.
for example even with all the requirments for video eveidence of concent and so on, do you have idea how insanly easy ti would be to coerce, even with the safe guards in place, a person into giveing there concent to something realy horrific. Not to mention the fact that when you remove the element of fantasy from the equation instead of liberty and freedom you create a breeding ground for the deeply disturbed. Your society will cannibalize itself.
For example, it's one thing to agree to being devoured in fantasy, it's a mental exersize and like with meny other kinks like BDSM theres elements at play that go far beyond and run allot deeper then the simple act of eating another sentient thing. it's not realy about eating the person at all if you strip away all the serface layers, theres stuff ticking away in there that go allot deeper. I find allot of "fringe kings: are like that.
Now imagin a world were there are people that actualy WILLINGLY and HAPPALY concent to that. While it's nice there geting what they want, it's literaly Assisted suicide Or worse. One could state well, if they want to die let them die but thats not realy the point for one theres a value on human life no matter how depraved or sick a person might be. For another it takes something, alltogether very wrong, to be going on inside a persons head to actualy want to be Killed and eaten for pleasure. It goes ageinst ever basic self preservation and servival instinct, it serves no Biological function and no perpose aside from a psychological one.
Covered by a vail of concent these acts can be excused as extream, but not nessasaraly evil or wrong but the truth is, it's the mental effect that legalizeing and allowing these acts to be proformed will have that will couse the most damage.
what happends when some canibels have a kid and he goes to school and gets concent from his 7 year old class mate to be killed and eaten? what if the parents agree? in fantasy thats, well, it's realy freaking weird but it's fictional it cant hurt anybody or couse any real harm. In reality, that kid is going to die and be consumed for no reason, go get a hamberger instead jeez!
the problem is that people, espeshaly children, are very easy to manipulate, your systum would be heavaly abused.
As to the hipocracy well, Forceing peoble to make it mandatory that relgion only reute adults is a violation of your right to faith and religion and this is comeing from ME and I HATE religion XD. Lineing up the bush administration and subjecting them to humiliation and then imprisenment for just sucking major ass is allso far worse then the damage they coused while in power.
Back on the nature of sexual freedoms, I remain as open minded as possible but I allso have a right to live in a world were people dont fuck corpses, we need to face the facts that some sexual kinks when iexplored in fantasy are nothing more then an exersize of the mind but when proformed in reality become a horrific act and are dead give aways of saver mental illness. You like screwing dead people thats good for you, you want to fantasy about it? good for you! but when you actualy DO it even with the persons concent, thats just..wow...it's not as bad as the canible isum and snuff stuff becouse the person sient being killed so somebody can get off but it's still a bit extream.
Im not bashing these extream kinks but part of what MAKES these kinks atractive in fantasy is that it IS only fantasy. How do you draw the line? were are the paramiters around things like concent espeshaly were children and the mentaly retarted are concerned?
CHildren mature at different rates, how do you determin they can realy agree to something like Sex let alone being hung on public tv for the dellight of the 24 hour snuff channel? these acts are permanent, somebody just DIED even concentualy for the sexual gratifacation of another or to feed there morbid curiosity with death and dieing? This is just as wrong as if you lined up convicted criminals and made them participate.
I respect you Alex and I realize this emperror of amarica post you made is just a flight of fancy and not reality so please dont take this post as agressive or anything I am replying in the context that this would be a real plane your proposeing and not just something for fun. Im doeing it that way to point out the bad spots.
some of your ideas are magnificent however, your planes for government reform on how things are handled are great and while I dont belive we should remove all cencership I do agree that it should be tightly regulated so that pointless cencership is avoided. perhaps cencered and uncencered tv and radio stations. SO that parents with children that cant moniter them 24/7 dont have to worry about them turning into the cannibal corpse fucking hour on tv. =p
I guess in not realy one to talk though becouse i AGREE with you this nation is to Politicly correct to moraly upright but the issue isent that we are to moral the issue is we are to focused on whats considered wrong. Morality might need some redefinition but we shouldent do away with it all together. =p
A strong seperation of church and state is good but requireing you to be of legal drinking age to wership a god in an orginized church is realy pushing things twords opressive. Revokeing peoples right to marry based off being to stupid to lie to the new regime is out right Nazi like. XD Removeing a persons right to vote based off the fact that they places there faith in a politicle leader that you diddent like isent fair or just.
As a fantasy your new world older, it's freaking awsome and I love it.
As a Reality I would be one of the crazy basterds trying to put a bullet in your head. =p No offense. hell I have a few new world order ideas of my own and even the most vanilla of them is dangerously close to logans run or any of thouse other movies about a creepy "perfect" society.
I hate to admit it but part of why our system works at all is because it's flawed.
WHat we should do is reform the politicle systum and we can remove the corroption and the bull shit and THEN worry about what to and not to legalize. =p
>Mostly the parts were you constructed a socity that while remaining concentual in it's activitys forces others to endue a place of resadence were othwise moraly reprehensable activitys are not only legal but allmost encuraged. Not that thats a beef with me =p
And I'm sure that people who were against mixed-race marriages didn't like it when those were made legal, just like how the people who are against gay marriage won't like it when that gets inevitably legalized nationwide. I'm sorry, but I think an individual's right to find happiness in whatever way they choose (so long as it doesn't harm others) is far more important than someone else's 'right' to live in a world where things they don't like don't happen.
There are plenty of people on FA who dislike a certain fetish, but it's not enough for them to just not look. They think their personal disgust gives them to right to force other people to take the images down. If we give people the right to restrict what other people can do based on moral disgust, then what's to stop the racists and homophobes from eradicating society's progress in those areas? Both of those groups believe that their attitudes are completely moral.
>for example even with all the requirments for video eveidence of concent and so on, do you have idea how insanly easy ti would be to coerce, even with the safe guards in place, a person into giveing there concent to something realy horrific.
Hence, why it has to be videotaped. If there is coercion, the video will show evidence of it and those people will be prosecuted. Yes, it can be easy to force coercion, but I doubt it's possible to do it without showing any trace.
>Not to mention the fact that when you remove the element of fantasy from the equation instead of liberty and freedom you create a breeding ground for the deeply disturbed. Your society will cannibalize itself.
I'm sorry; I just haven't seen any psychological research that would lead me to believe you're right about this. If we legalized assisted suicide, I highly doubt the number of assisted suicides would jump up. Because not that many people really wanna commit suicide! All it would mean is that the assistant wouldn't go to jail for the rest of their life.
>Now imagin a world were there are people that actualy WILLINGLY and HAPPALY concent to that. While it's nice there geting what they want, it's literaly Assisted suicide Or worse. One could state well, if they want to die let them die but thats not realy the point for one theres a value on human life no matter how depraved or sick a person might be.
We ALREADY live in a world like that. Making it legal would not CREATE people who want to be eaten. The human mind is easily swayed towards obsession and there will always be people who want to do dangerous things.
and what gives you the right to decide how people you'll never meet should live their life, or end it? How does it effect you? And who says there's a value on human life? And how much? I think it should be each person's right to determine the worth of their own life.
>For another it takes something, alltogether very wrong, to be going on inside a persons head to actualy want to be Killed and eaten for pleasure. It goes ageinst ever basic self preservation and servival instinct, it serves no Biological function and no perpose aside from a psychological one.
But you admit it serves a psychological purpose. It makes them happy. Why isn't that enough?
>it's the mental effect that legalizeing and allowing these acts to be proformed will have that will couse the most damage.
I have seen no evidence that this 'metal effect' you're talking about would really happen. You're using the same tactics people have always used when it was suggested that the laws about sexuality be loosened. I'm just taking it to the upper extremes.
>what happends when some canibels have a kid and he goes to school and gets concent from his 7 year old class mate to be killed and eaten? what if the parents agree? in fantasy thats, well, it's realy freaking weird but it's fictional it cant hurt anybody or couse any real harm. In reality, that kid is going to die and be consumed for no reason, go get a hamberger instead jeez!
Right now, a 7-year-old kid might want to drive an eighteen-wheeler and his dad might have no problem with it. But the DMV ain't gonna give the kid a license.
I was thinking that, if a person wanted to be eaten, for example, they would go register their decision and get paperwork for it. It'd be like a movie company getting police permission before staging a car chase or an explosion. You get the paperwork and it's like, "I made this decision for myself; do not prosecute the person who ate me."
>As to the hipocracy well, Forceing peoble to make it mandatory that relgion only reute adults is a violation of your right to faith and religion and this is comeing from ME and I HATE religion XD.
I don't understand your reasoning. The reason we don't allow minors to drive or vote or fuck is because they're not mentally ready for it. So why do we think they're mentally ready for concepts like Hell and the trinity and transubstantiation? I can't really do anything about parents teaching their kid religious bullshit, but I see no reason why it's wrong to treat a church like a bar: "What you sell is harmful to children, so children are not allowed inside." Children are hardwired to believe what their parents say, even if it's completely contradictory. Brainwashing them when they're still in single-digits is taking unfair advantage of that and robbing of them of the ability to make a choice later on in life if they want to believe in a religion or not. No child is ever born a Christian or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Republican or a Democrat or a Capitalist or a Socialist, etc.
>Lineing up the bush administration and subjecting them to humiliation and then imprisenment for just sucking major ass is allso far worse then the damage they coused while in power.
WRONG. Their administration committed cold-blooded MURDER. Nothing I could do to them would be worse than what they did to the people of Iraq and American soldiers and civilians.
>Back on the nature of sexual freedoms, I remain as open minded as possible but I allso have a right to live in a world were people dont fuck corpses,
Really? I wasn't aware you had that right. Please show me where you are guaranteed the right to live in a world free of necrophilia.
>but when proformed in reality become a horrific act and are dead give aways of saver mental illness.
Oh, like how, for hundreds of years it was common knowledge that homosexuality was nothing more than a sign of severe mental illness?
>Im not bashing these extream kinks but part of what MAKES these kinks atractive in fantasy is that it IS only fantasy. How do you draw the line?
I draw the line at anything nonconsensual or that harms people who are uninvolved. Beyond that, I support everything else, even things that personally disgust me.
>were are the paramiters around things like concent espeshaly were children and the mentaly retarted are concerned?
As I'd said, the only way for someone who is declared unable to give consent (under our current law) to change that is if they take a bunch of aptitude tests and pass them. If they can demonstrate they have the mental capacity to consent, then they get an exception.
>CHildren mature at different rates, how do you determin they can realy agree to something like Sex let alone being hung on public tv for the dellight of the 24 hour snuff channel?
How do we determine if a child can consent to sex? By having child psychology experts develop a test that gauges how much the person taking it understands concepts like permanence, STDs, pregnancy, coercion, abuse, etc.
>these acts are permanent, somebody just DIED even concentualy for the sexual gratifacation of another or to feed there morbid curiosity with death and dieing? This is just as wrong as if you lined up convicted criminals and made them participate.
No, it isn't. Because in the prisoner scenario they're being forced, and in the other scenario the participants aren't.
>I respect you Alex and I realize this emperror of amarica post you made is just a flight of fancy and not reality so please dont take this post as agressive or anything I am replying in the context that this would be a real plane your proposeing and not just something for fun. Im doeing it that way to point out the bad spots.
I understand your objections, I just don't agree with them.
>and while I dont belive we should remove all cencership I do agree that it should be tightly regulated so that pointless cencership is avoided.
I never said we should have no censorship, just that there should not be censorship unless it can be proved that something will cause real harm. (Like if a TV told lies about someone to ruin their career.)
>perhaps cencered and uncencered tv and radio stations. SO that parents with children that cant moniter them 24/7 dont have to worry about them turning into the cannibal corpse fucking hour on tv. =p
Not a bad idea. I'm not against ratings, just people deciding what I can and can't watch if I choose to.
>Morality might need some redefinition but we shouldent do away with it all together. =p
I'm not suggesting that at all; I just want our morality to be based on what causes real harm and what doesn't.
>A strong seperation of church and state is good but requireing you to be of legal drinking age to wership a god in an orginized church is realy pushing things twords opressive.
Why? The kid can worship his ass off at home.
>Revokeing peoples right to marry based off being to stupid to lie to the new regime is out right Nazi like. XD
I hadn't thought of it that way, but you actually just helped my case. If they are either too stupid, or too proud of their bigotry, to just lie and say they didn't vote against gay marriage, then screw them. They think they have the right to decide whether or not gay people can get married, so why shouldn't I decided that they don't need to be married? I'm only following their own morality.
>Removeing a persons right to vote based off the fact that they places there faith in a politicle leader that you diddent like isent fair or just.
Yes it is. If you have a hot stove and your kid touches it, then most of the time they will learn, "That hurts!" and not do it again. If they intentionally do it twice however, then maybe the kid's too stupid to make the decision and you need to keep them out of the kitchen.
By 2004 there was no doubt at all about what kind of person Bush was. By then he had already started a war based on lies and was already responsible for thousands of deaths. Anyone who knew all this and nevertheless voted for him again showed such an utter lack of comprehension (or compassion) that they demonstrated they are unable to handle the responsibility of voting.
>I hate to admit it but part of why our system works at all is because it's flawed.
I'm sorry; that statement just made my brain shit all over itself.
And I'm sure that people who were against mixed-race marriages didn't like it when those were made legal, just like how the people who are against gay marriage won't like it when that gets inevitably legalized nationwide. I'm sorry, but I think an individual's right to find happiness in whatever way they choose (so long as it doesn't harm others) is far more important than someone else's 'right' to live in a world where things they don't like don't happen.
There are plenty of people on FA who dislike a certain fetish, but it's not enough for them to just not look. They think their personal disgust gives them to right to force other people to take the images down. If we give people the right to restrict what other people can do based on moral disgust, then what's to stop the racists and homophobes from eradicating society's progress in those areas? Both of those groups believe that their attitudes are completely moral.
>for example even with all the requirments for video eveidence of concent and so on, do you have idea how insanly easy ti would be to coerce, even with the safe guards in place, a person into giveing there concent to something realy horrific.
Hence, why it has to be videotaped. If there is coercion, the video will show evidence of it and those people will be prosecuted. Yes, it can be easy to force coercion, but I doubt it's possible to do it without showing any trace.
>Not to mention the fact that when you remove the element of fantasy from the equation instead of liberty and freedom you create a breeding ground for the deeply disturbed. Your society will cannibalize itself.
I'm sorry; I just haven't seen any psychological research that would lead me to believe you're right about this. If we legalized assisted suicide, I highly doubt the number of assisted suicides would jump up. Because not that many people really wanna commit suicide! All it would mean is that the assistant wouldn't go to jail for the rest of their life.
>Now imagin a world were there are people that actualy WILLINGLY and HAPPALY concent to that. While it's nice there geting what they want, it's literaly Assisted suicide Or worse. One could state well, if they want to die let them die but thats not realy the point for one theres a value on human life no matter how depraved or sick a person might be.
We ALREADY live in a world like that. Making it legal would not CREATE people who want to be eaten. The human mind is easily swayed towards obsession and there will always be people who want to do dangerous things.
and what gives you the right to decide how people you'll never meet should live their life, or end it? How does it effect you? And who says there's a value on human life? And how much? I think it should be each person's right to determine the worth of their own life.
>For another it takes something, alltogether very wrong, to be going on inside a persons head to actualy want to be Killed and eaten for pleasure. It goes ageinst ever basic self preservation and servival instinct, it serves no Biological function and no perpose aside from a psychological one.
But you admit it serves a psychological purpose. It makes them happy. Why isn't that enough?
>it's the mental effect that legalizeing and allowing these acts to be proformed will have that will couse the most damage.
I have seen no evidence that this 'metal effect' you're talking about would really happen. You're using the same tactics people have always used when it was suggested that the laws about sexuality be loosened. I'm just taking it to the upper extremes.
>what happends when some canibels have a kid and he goes to school and gets concent from his 7 year old class mate to be killed and eaten? what if the parents agree? in fantasy thats, well, it's realy freaking weird but it's fictional it cant hurt anybody or couse any real harm. In reality, that kid is going to die and be consumed for no reason, go get a hamberger instead jeez!
Right now, a 7-year-old kid might want to drive an eighteen-wheeler and his dad might have no problem with it. But the DMV ain't gonna give the kid a license.
I was thinking that, if a person wanted to be eaten, for example, they would go register their decision and get paperwork for it. It'd be like a movie company getting police permission before staging a car chase or an explosion. You get the paperwork and it's like, "I made this decision for myself; do not prosecute the person who ate me."
>As to the hipocracy well, Forceing peoble to make it mandatory that relgion only reute adults is a violation of your right to faith and religion and this is comeing from ME and I HATE religion XD.
I don't understand your reasoning. The reason we don't allow minors to drive or vote or fuck is because they're not mentally ready for it. So why do we think they're mentally ready for concepts like Hell and the trinity and transubstantiation? I can't really do anything about parents teaching their kid religious bullshit, but I see no reason why it's wrong to treat a church like a bar: "What you sell is harmful to children, so children are not allowed inside." Children are hardwired to believe what their parents say, even if it's completely contradictory. Brainwashing them when they're still in single-digits is taking unfair advantage of that and robbing of them of the ability to make a choice later on in life if they want to believe in a religion or not. No child is ever born a Christian or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Republican or a Democrat or a Capitalist or a Socialist, etc.
>Lineing up the bush administration and subjecting them to humiliation and then imprisenment for just sucking major ass is allso far worse then the damage they coused while in power.
WRONG. Their administration committed cold-blooded MURDER. Nothing I could do to them would be worse than what they did to the people of Iraq and American soldiers and civilians.
>Back on the nature of sexual freedoms, I remain as open minded as possible but I allso have a right to live in a world were people dont fuck corpses,
Really? I wasn't aware you had that right. Please show me where you are guaranteed the right to live in a world free of necrophilia.
>but when proformed in reality become a horrific act and are dead give aways of saver mental illness.
Oh, like how, for hundreds of years it was common knowledge that homosexuality was nothing more than a sign of severe mental illness?
>Im not bashing these extream kinks but part of what MAKES these kinks atractive in fantasy is that it IS only fantasy. How do you draw the line?
I draw the line at anything nonconsensual or that harms people who are uninvolved. Beyond that, I support everything else, even things that personally disgust me.
>were are the paramiters around things like concent espeshaly were children and the mentaly retarted are concerned?
As I'd said, the only way for someone who is declared unable to give consent (under our current law) to change that is if they take a bunch of aptitude tests and pass them. If they can demonstrate they have the mental capacity to consent, then they get an exception.
>CHildren mature at different rates, how do you determin they can realy agree to something like Sex let alone being hung on public tv for the dellight of the 24 hour snuff channel?
How do we determine if a child can consent to sex? By having child psychology experts develop a test that gauges how much the person taking it understands concepts like permanence, STDs, pregnancy, coercion, abuse, etc.
>these acts are permanent, somebody just DIED even concentualy for the sexual gratifacation of another or to feed there morbid curiosity with death and dieing? This is just as wrong as if you lined up convicted criminals and made them participate.
No, it isn't. Because in the prisoner scenario they're being forced, and in the other scenario the participants aren't.
>I respect you Alex and I realize this emperror of amarica post you made is just a flight of fancy and not reality so please dont take this post as agressive or anything I am replying in the context that this would be a real plane your proposeing and not just something for fun. Im doeing it that way to point out the bad spots.
I understand your objections, I just don't agree with them.
>and while I dont belive we should remove all cencership I do agree that it should be tightly regulated so that pointless cencership is avoided.
I never said we should have no censorship, just that there should not be censorship unless it can be proved that something will cause real harm. (Like if a TV told lies about someone to ruin their career.)
>perhaps cencered and uncencered tv and radio stations. SO that parents with children that cant moniter them 24/7 dont have to worry about them turning into the cannibal corpse fucking hour on tv. =p
Not a bad idea. I'm not against ratings, just people deciding what I can and can't watch if I choose to.
>Morality might need some redefinition but we shouldent do away with it all together. =p
I'm not suggesting that at all; I just want our morality to be based on what causes real harm and what doesn't.
>A strong seperation of church and state is good but requireing you to be of legal drinking age to wership a god in an orginized church is realy pushing things twords opressive.
Why? The kid can worship his ass off at home.
>Revokeing peoples right to marry based off being to stupid to lie to the new regime is out right Nazi like. XD
I hadn't thought of it that way, but you actually just helped my case. If they are either too stupid, or too proud of their bigotry, to just lie and say they didn't vote against gay marriage, then screw them. They think they have the right to decide whether or not gay people can get married, so why shouldn't I decided that they don't need to be married? I'm only following their own morality.
>Removeing a persons right to vote based off the fact that they places there faith in a politicle leader that you diddent like isent fair or just.
Yes it is. If you have a hot stove and your kid touches it, then most of the time they will learn, "That hurts!" and not do it again. If they intentionally do it twice however, then maybe the kid's too stupid to make the decision and you need to keep them out of the kitchen.
By 2004 there was no doubt at all about what kind of person Bush was. By then he had already started a war based on lies and was already responsible for thousands of deaths. Anyone who knew all this and nevertheless voted for him again showed such an utter lack of comprehension (or compassion) that they demonstrated they are unable to handle the responsibility of voting.
>I hate to admit it but part of why our system works at all is because it's flawed.
I'm sorry; that statement just made my brain shit all over itself.
>>And I'm sure that people who were against mixed-race marriages didn't like it when those were made legal, just like how the people who are against gay marriage won't like it when that gets inevitably legalized nationwide. I'm sorry, but I think an individual's right to find happiness in whatever way they choose (so long as it doesn't harm others) is far more important than someone else's 'right' to live in a world where things they don't like don't happen.
I think you Misunderstood I never instended to imply interracial or gay marriage was Immoral, it's just wrong from a religious stand point, a standpoint I do not share. Im ok with legalizeing it, I was refering to were you take away a persons right to marry based off there previous opasition to gay marage.
>>There are plenty of people on FA who dislike a certain fetish, but it's not enough for them to just not look. They think their personal disgust gives them to right to force other people to take the images down. If we give people the right to restrict what other people can do based on moral disgust, then what's to stop the racists and homophobes from eradicating society's progress in those areas? Both of those groups believe that their attitudes are completely moral.
I agree completly But one must understand that the line in the sand has to be drawn some place. Meny things people dislike that dont couse phsyical or Psychological harm, some things people like DO couse it. Thats generaly were I draw my line. It's ok to have a open and free socity but it still has to be some what regulated to protect and serve your people. im not saying we need to stop people from doeing anything at all in fiction but when they try to bring it into reality stricter Polacys should be in place. if somebodys into the concentual rape and murder of young women, it's still wrong even though some people like to Role play girls online and participate in that. Concentual or not it's violant and murderous and cultavateing urges like thats not healthy. Fantasy is a safe outlet, reality is to far. thats all Im saying here.
>for example even with all the requirments for video eveidence of concent and so on, do you have idea how insanly easy ti would be to coerce, even with the safe guards in place, a person into giveing there concent to something realy horrific.
>>Hence, why it has to be videotaped. If there is coercion, the video will show evidence of it and those people will be prosecuted. Yes, it can be easy to force coercion, but I doubt it's possible to do it without showing any trace.
I can hold your wife at gun point of screan, or I can threaten your livelyhood, maybe im in some position of power over you. I can understand a video type of concent and so on for some things but again I hate to sound like a bigot here but some of the more extream fetishes are just to dangerous, if it's something that would require concent to do becouse it's on the edge or over it of what sanity would dictate is normal it should be very carefully considered befor legalizeing, so you know you can regulate and maintain a safe level of control over it so people are not hurt. When you try to change the world for the better, you need to consider every possible thing that could fuck it up and dubbly consider anything in your own plan that could. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Im not against the idea of video concent to allow some of the more extream kinks to be played out in reality but there should be aditional measures or perhaps a short investigation or registration process to ensure no false hood is takeing place. I dont like the idea of haveing people registure for anything as it reeks of thought control but I would rather know Martin and Lisa are Registered, checked out and legal to beat the tar out of each other befor haveing angry rape sex then half ass it with a video type. =p
>Not to mention the fact that when you remove the element of fantasy from the equation instead of liberty and freedom you create a breeding ground for the deeply disturbed. Your society will cannibalize itself.
>>I'm sorry; I just haven't seen any psychological research that would lead me to believe you're right about this. If we legalized assisted suicide, I highly doubt the number of assisted suicides would jump up. Because not that many people really wanna commit suicide! All it would mean is that the assistant wouldn't go to jail for the rest of their life.
Assisted suicides nto the best example we could use here as anybody who wants to kill themselves, and I mean realy wants to, is allready sad or disturbed enough to do it with, or without help. Im speaking about the phychological effects of completly legalizeing some of the darker kinks and practices seen, for example, right here on fa. If you like haveing sombody shit on your chest thats fine, it's not my thing but it's not realy going to hurt anybody but some things are more then just a kink, and can be dangerous. Im criticizing your plan to ere on the side of caution. It might seem strange but things of a purely sexual nature or actualy simpler and less dangerous then kinks and so on of a less sexual nature like, geting off to a horse isent realy all that bad, sure it ranks on the weirdness scail but fuck even vanilla missionary sex ranks on the weirdness scail. =p some things like geting off to sliting a girls throught even concentualy, are just not right. I can honestly say thats unhealthy you should never derive pleasure from being victomized or drawing blood or ending life. Concentualy or otherwise. thats something I cannot relent on, Life is two importent.
>Now imagin a world were there are people that actualy WILLINGLY and HAPPALY concent to that. While it's nice there geting what they want, it's literaly Assisted suicide Or worse. One could state well, if they want to die let them die but thats not realy the point for one theres a value on human life no matter how depraved or sick a person might be.
>>We ALREADY live in a world like that. Making it legal would not CREATE people who want to be eaten. The human mind is easily swayed towards obsession and there will always be people who want to do dangerous things.
and what gives you the right to decide how people you'll never meet should live their life, or end it? How does it effect you? And who says there's a value on human life? And how much? I think it should be each person's right to determine the worth of their own life.
You make a valid point here, these are personal values and choices in play and I cant put a price on them, nore do I have a rate to deside how others will live. Choice is a wonderfull thing, truly being able to deside anything at all for yourself, is something we have all be after from day one. SOmething Amarica, once upon a time, was close to haveing but we fucked that up it seems. I have dificulty finding a counter argument to this statement so I'll do the best I can and state that obsession is unhealthy and thats a proven fact, I dont not personaly belive situations that would incurage dangerous levels of obsession resulting in a persons death should be allowed. they should be discuraged. As to the value of human life, while nobody can put a price tag on it, it's valuable enough that under most circumstances you should not have the right to end it so...casualy, as to allow yourself to be eaten or killed. It's the only one you get. If you have some, horrific terminal illness and killing you now for your Liver will save your child or cousin your brother, thats allot different, thats a willing sacrafice. Not a sences throw away of your life becouse you were sad, or wanted to star in a snuff film.
>For another it takes something, alltogether very wrong, to be going on inside a persons head to actualy want to be Killed and eaten for pleasure. It goes ageinst ever basic self preservation and servival instinct, it serves no Biological function and no perpose aside from a psychological one.
>>But you admit it serves a psychological purpose. It makes them happy. Why isn't that enough?
that seems an awfull lot like twisting logic there =p Happyness isent allways good. I know thats a bizaar concept but sometimes, things that make you happy are the worst things for you. Look at amarica, were all fat assed Mc Donalds adicted lazy bastards. If the idea of haveing your guts riped out on camera turns you on and makes you happy, perhaps we should stop and ask ourselves why? and is there another way that doesent involve death or permanent damage? This is tricky territory, anything I say Can easly be turned back on me becouse were entering into the realm of subjective logic, were truth and reason are all perspective in the end. Like wise I could just say the very idea if uttrly sick, but then I would be a closed minded fool to say that after openly admiting some of the things I like, in fantasy, but like non the less. Self destructive desires such as cuting or Suicide are not born of a healthy mind, the human mind, I hate to say it, is ultamitly selfish, we are hard wired to act on instincs of self preservation. Not to mention it's a massive waste. If you feel the need to die do so in some way that wont be throwing away your life. theres a multitude of ways you can add meaning to your existence while dramaticly shortening your life span. A career in the armed forces for example might be just the tickit. now your defending the people you love. Much better in my opinion then allowing yourself to be eaten for fun or worse, intamacy, becouse once your poop that person has basicly used you even if they will allways remember you. I might be a romantic pimp that allways remembers the whores I lay with but at the end of the day im useing them, in the former case it was for some form of intamate oneness or what ever it is fans of canibalisum find so atractive. It's still a waste, why not love this person in a lasting way instead of ending there life? is this argument so hard to suport? one could argue that the person becomes a part of you forever, technicly thats bullshit as there genetic material and even the viamins and minerals gained from there concumption will eventualy be used up and passed through the body.
>it's the mental effect that legalizeing and allowing these acts to be proformed will have that will couse the most damage.
>>I have seen no evidence that this 'metal effect' you're talking about would really happen. You're using the same tactics people have always used when it was suggested that the laws about sexuality be loosened. I'm just taking it to the upper extremes.
Yes thats true but your allso giveing them ammo by suporting there slippery slop argument. IF we legalize this then why not that? and so on. Im not saying we should restrict people, but you cant just allow them to do anything they damn well please ether thats not law it's anarchy. That doesent work. I have been looking at sexuality for a long time and allot of things that are turned into a fetish have allmost nothing to do with sex. this is becouse the human mind is capable of forming obsessions or cunnections to objects and concepts as well as people. maybe it's becouse human beings are such sexualy based creatures but this obsessions or cunnections often times become sexual. the sereal killer gets a sexual charge out of murder but that doesent make murder apropreate or right. There are some thing that are not objective. Morality is a tricky thing to discuse becouse who is to deside whats moral and whats not, yet there are some things that are black and white. You argue I have no right to say concentual murder is wrong? why not take it one step ferther. why not argue that nonconcentual murder can be an expression of true art, in the game of life and death between killer and victum and that there can be no more beatutiful expression of life, nor any greater value be placed on it, then that of the value the killer puts on that life befor takeing it away. Is that wrong? Fuck yes it's wrong, but in the mind of the killer it's justifyed. Im just trying to say that you have to know were to call it and were to let it go, in the case of death, I would say it's safe to call it wrong. theres no evidence of a phychological effect on a socity wide level becouse it has never happend true enough but that doesent mean I cant cunnect a few logical dots and come to the conclusion that if you allow some activitys to exist it's bad for you all. A TV station that shows real life snuf films considerably cheapens the value of life. In adition what does it say about a person who enjoys watching men die? COncenting or not, your enjoying slaughter.
>what happends when some canibels have a kid and he goes to school and gets concent from his 7 year old class mate to be killed and eaten? what if the parents agree? in fantasy thats, well, it's realy freaking weird but it's fictional it cant hurt anybody or couse any real harm. In reality, that kid is going to die and be consumed for no reason, go get a hamberger instead jeez!
>>Right now, a 7-year-old kid might want to drive an eighteen-wheeler and his dad might have no problem with it. But the DMV ain't gonna give the kid a license.
I was thinking that, if a person wanted to be eaten, for example, they would go register their decision and get paperwork for it. It'd be like a movie company getting police permission before staging a car chase or an explosion. You get the paperwork and it's like, "I made this decision for myself; do not prosecute the person who ate me."
thats a fair enough argument, and the DMV does have some good reason for not allowing a 7 year old to drive a semi truck XD mostly hes psyicly to small to drive it effectively not to mention theres a great deal of responsability there. it's not a tracter or a dirt bike. the point I was trying to make here was that some adults are allmost to stupid to deserve the right to concent to something odd or dangerous a child should never have that right unless it can be, irefutably proven they can handle that right. IN that event, if we treat children like adults, we have to try them like adults as well. this poses another problem, becouse we learn through example as well as through doeing. Kids steal shit all the time but they dont useualy go to jail for theft. If there mature enough to concent to beain eaten then there mature enough to deal with jail time. Perhaps in the case of minors concent to something like canibilsum should be reserved for the legaly emancipated. AS not even the parents should have the right to deside something like that for there child. it's a life or death choice.
>As to the hipocracy well, Forceing peoble to make it mandatory that relgion only reute adults is a violation of your right to faith and religion and this is comeing from ME and I HATE religion XD.
>>I don't understand your reasoning. The reason we don't allow minors to drive or vote or fuck is because they're not mentally ready for it. So why do we think they're mentally ready for concepts like Hell and the trinity and transubstantiation? I can't really do anything about parents teaching their kid religious bullshit, but I see no reason why it's wrong to treat a church like a bar: "What you sell is harmful to children, so children are not allowed inside." Children are hardwired to believe what their parents say, even if it's completely contradictory. Brainwashing them when they're still in single-digits is taking unfair advantage of that and robbing of them of the ability to make a choice later on in life if they want to believe in a religion or not. No child is ever born a Christian or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Republican or a Democrat or a Capitalist or a Socialist, etc.
My reasoning here stems from the way your treating relgion. let me go on record again by stateing I realy dont like religion it leaves a foul taste in my mouth more often then not. You cant treat it like it's alchohol though. You cannot prove or disprove there is a god, and all a cherch is is a gathering place to wership that god. you said it yourself, you cant stop parents from teaching there children that on the easter a magic jew zombie arose from the dead. I dont however see your right to restrict the parents desire to Expose there children to there belifes wich there going to do anyway. I grew up an Episcopalian.Thats damn near Catholic and I walked away from all of that the moment I was old enough to smell bull shit. Kids arnt useualy stupid be defalt. Regulate the cherches involvement in The affiars of socity government and education not the cherchs themselves.
>Lineing up the bush administration and subjecting them to humiliation and then imprisenment for just sucking major ass is allso far worse then the damage they coused while in power.
>>WRONG. Their administration committed cold-blooded MURDER. Nothing I could do to them would be worse than what they did to the people of Iraq and American soldiers and civilians.
I seriously doubt that bush called up the camanding officers in charge of thouse black actions and requested they be done. I hate to even have to mention this but amarican soldeirs or any soldeirs for that matter, have commited rape and murder in allmost every war ever fought in the history of man kind war brings out the very worst monsters in people. Bush was a fucking retard yes, but he wasent a murderer, no more then Eisinhower or any other president was. If you seek blame, blame the military directly for allowing that bull shit to happen. Bush probobly diddent even know about it untill after the fact and whats is any man suposed to do about it then? you cant bring the dead back. I would have liked to see a prompter investigation however.
>Back on the nature of sexual freedoms, I remain as open minded as possible but I allso have a right to live in a world were people dont fuck corpses,
>>Really? I wasn't aware you had that right. Please show me where you are guaranteed the right to live in a world free of necrophilia.
Technicly speaking you dont even have the right to freedom of speach, that right is a gift given to you by people who died for it. SO if you want to call me on dislikeing the idea of somebody doeing my dead aunt thats cool but if you want to cut it down to the nit and grit of things in the end, you aly have the rights you earn, or take. I dont like that, I want to belive that you ahve serten human rights but if the world ended tomarrow it would be every man for himself, anything goes. I guess both arguments are pointless here. when I made that statement I diddent directly reference concent, geting back to thouse suposid human freedoms that dont realy exist unless an ordered government says they do, the dead have a right to remain undefiled and the liveing have a right to the peace of mind of knowing nobodys useing there loved ones corpse as a toy. if concent some how enters into it thats a slightly different matter I supose and one that would have to be handled based on that is currently aceptible socialy at the time. in your proposed world order, it would be aceptable and while it would bug me if sombody I knew and loved wanted that after death so long as you proved the concent I would be in no position to argue I supose.
>but when proformed in reality become a horrific act and are dead give aways of saver mental illness.
>>Oh, like how, for hundreds of years it was common knowledge that homosexuality was nothing more than a sign of severe mental illness?
Not exactly, you can pick apart my points and break them down into easy targits if you like but Im not typeing all this to argue your morality or mine.the asumption that homosexuality is an illness was born of religion and it came and whent and came again with the times. It has even be social encuraged befor. Maybe it is An Illness, maybe it's not, it's absolutly harmless in every sence of the word so it's moot. Love between two people is powerfull enough to conqer allot of things. In some cases though it should allso mean a person excersizes restraint even when there lover doesent want them two in the best interests of preserveing that lovers health mental or otherwise. Homosexuality isent dangerous, it's just hated becouse a 2000 year old buck says it is. thats not valid. Im targiting darker stuff here then same sex relations but i have mentioned this before.
>Im not bashing these extream kinks but part of what MAKES these kinks atractive in fantasy is that it IS only fantasy. How do you draw the line?
>>I draw the line at anything nonconsensual or that harms people who are uninvolved. Beyond that, I support everything else, even things that personally disgust me.
I agree to that but a sane man doesent allways make sane choices and an insane man allmost never does. If a person is disturbed and you dont catch it, then they could do something realy sad and stupid and it would be legal. I realize heres allways cracks in any systum, but I do not were this conversation is headed, I feel like im defending my veiw points on the value of human life and I shouldent have to. SOme times, something can be concentual and still be wrong, im sorry but I cannot relent on that. I can agree to let you shoot me in the back of the head, it's still killing another sentient human being. I guess it doesent matter, this arguments to easy to debunk.
>were are the paramiters around things like concent espeshaly were children and the mentaly retarted are concerned?
>>As I'd said, the only way for someone who is declared unable to give consent (under our current law) to change that is if they take a bunch of aptitude tests and pass them. If they can demonstrate they have the mental capacity to consent, then they get an exception.
fare enough I cant argue this point that seems well thought out.
>CHildren mature at different rates, how do you determin they can realy agree to something like Sex let alone being hung on public tv for the dellight of the 24 hour snuff channel?
>>How do we determine if a child can consent to sex? By having child psychology experts develop a test that gauges how much the person taking it understands concepts like permanence, STDs, pregnancy, coercion, abuse, etc.
Well humans even chilren are sexual beings, so thats not so much of a streach realy, Im more concerned about the casual way people can die in this new world order and others can derive enjoyment from it. It just doesent feel right to me I guess.
>these acts are permanent, somebody just DIED even concentualy for the sexual gratifacation of another or to feed there morbid curiosity with death and dieing? This is just as wrong as if you lined up convicted criminals and made them participate.
>>No, it isn't. Because in the prisoner scenario they're being forced, and in the other scenario the participants aren't.
enjoying the death of another is wrong. Thats black and white, and I dislike dealing in black and white territory. Im sorry but no argument you can present will convince me any situation were the death of another can bring pleasure can be justafyed. It's allready dangerous enough territory with horror flicks, and even in thouse the majority of people are watching for shock value, to experience fear or adrenalin in a safe envirnment. Not becouse watching freddy carve up a teenager makes them hard.
>I respect you Alex and I realize this emperror of amarica post you made is just a flight of fancy and not reality so please dont take this post as agressive or anything I am replying in the context that this would be a real plane your proposeing and not just something for fun. Im doeing it that way to point out the bad spots.
>>I understand your objections, I just don't agree with them.
And that is one right I would die to let you keep. Objection is our greatist weapon and defense, it helps us find falt in our own opinions and in the opinions of others as well as gives birth to healthy debate.
>and while I dont belive we should remove all cencership I do agree that it should be tightly regulated so that pointless cencership is avoided.
>>I never said we should have no censorship, just that there should not be censorship unless it can be proved that something will cause real harm. (Like if a TV told lies about someone to ruin their career.)
true enough but some ferther regulation should be allowed. concentual or not a small child shouldent be exposed to the concept of a person dieing for pleasure for example. if they choice at a alter time to participate in that thats fine but seeing it in erly child hood might couse issues, if there to young to understand they might not get why pushing there sister down the stares was such a bad thing. I am a strong advocate of parental acountability but even the best parent cannot be watching everything there child does or sees all the time. It would be wise to inplament simple safe guards that give parents the tools to help raise there children in an open minded but safe enviornment. If the kid asks about sex, tell them, sex is natural, but some things should definatly be left for later levels of psyical and mental maturity like the aformentioned snuff.
>perhaps cencered and uncencered tv and radio stations. SO that parents with children that cant moniter them 24/7 dont have to worry about them turning into the cannibal corpse fucking hour on tv. =p
>>Not a bad idea. I'm not against ratings, just people deciding what I can and can't watch if I choose to.
I agree completly, allow the people subscribeing to the TV to place blocks on things they dont want to see or dont want there kids to see.
>Morality might need some redefinition but we shouldent do away with it all together. =p
>>I'm not suggesting that at all; I just want our morality to be based on what causes real harm and what doesn't.
Unfortunatly thats another tricky spot becouse as I said befor, just becouse it's concentual doesent mean it's right. Again this useualy circles back around to harmfull things. I draw my line in the sande one step erlyer then you do Alex and thats the only real difference between out opinions. you draw it at concent. I draw it at harm and concent.
>A strong seperation of church and state is good but requireing you to be of legal drinking age to wership a god in an orginized church is realy pushing things twords opressive.
>>Why? The kid can worship his ass off at home.
meny relgions actualy call for there follows to gather together in wership. It isent right for you to interfear in nonviolent religious practices. Hell I would like it all outlawed but that wouldent be just ether.
>Revokeing peoples right to marry based off being to stupid to lie to the new regime is out right Nazi like. XD
>>I hadn't thought of it that way, but you actually just helped my case. If they are either too stupid, or too proud of their bigotry, to just lie and say they didn't vote against gay marriage, then screw them. They think they have the right to decide whether or not gay people can get married, so why shouldn't I decided that they don't need to be married? I'm only following their own morality.
But you cant if you want to change things for the better. I can shoot you in the foot but that doesent mean you should shoot me in the foot, that just lowers you to my level. Teach the ignorent.
>Removeing a persons right to vote based off the fact that they places there faith in a politicle leader that you diddent like isent fair or just.
>>Yes it is. If you have a hot stove and your kid touches it, then most of the time they will learn, "That hurts!" and not do it again. If they intentionally do it twice however, then maybe the kid's too stupid to make the decision and you need to keep them out of the kitchen.
thats a good way to put it but think of it this way. our politicle structure has been and currently is, controlled by two major politicle partys that are both full of crap. we are fed, day in, day out, a stream of propaganda and bull shit designed to sway our votes. I blame the fucked up systum not the common man thats been wheened on soul milk. Educate and put more democratic responsability into the hands of the people who actualy want a say in how the nation is run, encurage responsable choices. If your child wants to touch the stove so damn badly, then teach them how to cook.
>>By 2004 there was no doubt at all about what kind of person Bush was. By then he had already started a war based on lies and was already responsible for thousands of deaths. Anyone who knew all this and nevertheless voted for him again showed such an utter lack of comprehension (or compassion) that they demonstrated they are unable to handle the responsibility of voting.
Again I site the above, we had the illution of choice presented to us when we realy only had an ultamatum. Bush or Carry and both were fucking terrible options. you can vote for the other guy or even yourslef but it doesent amount to jack shit becouse your vote doesent actualy carry any waight, enough people have to convince the members of the electoral collage (who are allmost all republican or democrat) to vote for sombody else and THEY have to have enough votes to win. our systum, fails. We fail becouse we do not try to change that.
>I hate to admit it but part of why our system works at all is because it's flawed.
>>I'm sorry; that statement just made my brain shit all over itself.
Why ever for? no systum can be perfect, perfection is a pretty little lie bad men tell to stupid people to make them walk into hell. A good systum works well dispite it's flaws, and good people and governments try to work around or fix the flaws when they can.
I think you Misunderstood I never instended to imply interracial or gay marriage was Immoral, it's just wrong from a religious stand point, a standpoint I do not share. Im ok with legalizeing it, I was refering to were you take away a persons right to marry based off there previous opasition to gay marage.
>>There are plenty of people on FA who dislike a certain fetish, but it's not enough for them to just not look. They think their personal disgust gives them to right to force other people to take the images down. If we give people the right to restrict what other people can do based on moral disgust, then what's to stop the racists and homophobes from eradicating society's progress in those areas? Both of those groups believe that their attitudes are completely moral.
I agree completly But one must understand that the line in the sand has to be drawn some place. Meny things people dislike that dont couse phsyical or Psychological harm, some things people like DO couse it. Thats generaly were I draw my line. It's ok to have a open and free socity but it still has to be some what regulated to protect and serve your people. im not saying we need to stop people from doeing anything at all in fiction but when they try to bring it into reality stricter Polacys should be in place. if somebodys into the concentual rape and murder of young women, it's still wrong even though some people like to Role play girls online and participate in that. Concentual or not it's violant and murderous and cultavateing urges like thats not healthy. Fantasy is a safe outlet, reality is to far. thats all Im saying here.
>for example even with all the requirments for video eveidence of concent and so on, do you have idea how insanly easy ti would be to coerce, even with the safe guards in place, a person into giveing there concent to something realy horrific.
>>Hence, why it has to be videotaped. If there is coercion, the video will show evidence of it and those people will be prosecuted. Yes, it can be easy to force coercion, but I doubt it's possible to do it without showing any trace.
I can hold your wife at gun point of screan, or I can threaten your livelyhood, maybe im in some position of power over you. I can understand a video type of concent and so on for some things but again I hate to sound like a bigot here but some of the more extream fetishes are just to dangerous, if it's something that would require concent to do becouse it's on the edge or over it of what sanity would dictate is normal it should be very carefully considered befor legalizeing, so you know you can regulate and maintain a safe level of control over it so people are not hurt. When you try to change the world for the better, you need to consider every possible thing that could fuck it up and dubbly consider anything in your own plan that could. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Im not against the idea of video concent to allow some of the more extream kinks to be played out in reality but there should be aditional measures or perhaps a short investigation or registration process to ensure no false hood is takeing place. I dont like the idea of haveing people registure for anything as it reeks of thought control but I would rather know Martin and Lisa are Registered, checked out and legal to beat the tar out of each other befor haveing angry rape sex then half ass it with a video type. =p
>Not to mention the fact that when you remove the element of fantasy from the equation instead of liberty and freedom you create a breeding ground for the deeply disturbed. Your society will cannibalize itself.
>>I'm sorry; I just haven't seen any psychological research that would lead me to believe you're right about this. If we legalized assisted suicide, I highly doubt the number of assisted suicides would jump up. Because not that many people really wanna commit suicide! All it would mean is that the assistant wouldn't go to jail for the rest of their life.
Assisted suicides nto the best example we could use here as anybody who wants to kill themselves, and I mean realy wants to, is allready sad or disturbed enough to do it with, or without help. Im speaking about the phychological effects of completly legalizeing some of the darker kinks and practices seen, for example, right here on fa. If you like haveing sombody shit on your chest thats fine, it's not my thing but it's not realy going to hurt anybody but some things are more then just a kink, and can be dangerous. Im criticizing your plan to ere on the side of caution. It might seem strange but things of a purely sexual nature or actualy simpler and less dangerous then kinks and so on of a less sexual nature like, geting off to a horse isent realy all that bad, sure it ranks on the weirdness scail but fuck even vanilla missionary sex ranks on the weirdness scail. =p some things like geting off to sliting a girls throught even concentualy, are just not right. I can honestly say thats unhealthy you should never derive pleasure from being victomized or drawing blood or ending life. Concentualy or otherwise. thats something I cannot relent on, Life is two importent.
>Now imagin a world were there are people that actualy WILLINGLY and HAPPALY concent to that. While it's nice there geting what they want, it's literaly Assisted suicide Or worse. One could state well, if they want to die let them die but thats not realy the point for one theres a value on human life no matter how depraved or sick a person might be.
>>We ALREADY live in a world like that. Making it legal would not CREATE people who want to be eaten. The human mind is easily swayed towards obsession and there will always be people who want to do dangerous things.
and what gives you the right to decide how people you'll never meet should live their life, or end it? How does it effect you? And who says there's a value on human life? And how much? I think it should be each person's right to determine the worth of their own life.
You make a valid point here, these are personal values and choices in play and I cant put a price on them, nore do I have a rate to deside how others will live. Choice is a wonderfull thing, truly being able to deside anything at all for yourself, is something we have all be after from day one. SOmething Amarica, once upon a time, was close to haveing but we fucked that up it seems. I have dificulty finding a counter argument to this statement so I'll do the best I can and state that obsession is unhealthy and thats a proven fact, I dont not personaly belive situations that would incurage dangerous levels of obsession resulting in a persons death should be allowed. they should be discuraged. As to the value of human life, while nobody can put a price tag on it, it's valuable enough that under most circumstances you should not have the right to end it so...casualy, as to allow yourself to be eaten or killed. It's the only one you get. If you have some, horrific terminal illness and killing you now for your Liver will save your child or cousin your brother, thats allot different, thats a willing sacrafice. Not a sences throw away of your life becouse you were sad, or wanted to star in a snuff film.
>For another it takes something, alltogether very wrong, to be going on inside a persons head to actualy want to be Killed and eaten for pleasure. It goes ageinst ever basic self preservation and servival instinct, it serves no Biological function and no perpose aside from a psychological one.
>>But you admit it serves a psychological purpose. It makes them happy. Why isn't that enough?
that seems an awfull lot like twisting logic there =p Happyness isent allways good. I know thats a bizaar concept but sometimes, things that make you happy are the worst things for you. Look at amarica, were all fat assed Mc Donalds adicted lazy bastards. If the idea of haveing your guts riped out on camera turns you on and makes you happy, perhaps we should stop and ask ourselves why? and is there another way that doesent involve death or permanent damage? This is tricky territory, anything I say Can easly be turned back on me becouse were entering into the realm of subjective logic, were truth and reason are all perspective in the end. Like wise I could just say the very idea if uttrly sick, but then I would be a closed minded fool to say that after openly admiting some of the things I like, in fantasy, but like non the less. Self destructive desires such as cuting or Suicide are not born of a healthy mind, the human mind, I hate to say it, is ultamitly selfish, we are hard wired to act on instincs of self preservation. Not to mention it's a massive waste. If you feel the need to die do so in some way that wont be throwing away your life. theres a multitude of ways you can add meaning to your existence while dramaticly shortening your life span. A career in the armed forces for example might be just the tickit. now your defending the people you love. Much better in my opinion then allowing yourself to be eaten for fun or worse, intamacy, becouse once your poop that person has basicly used you even if they will allways remember you. I might be a romantic pimp that allways remembers the whores I lay with but at the end of the day im useing them, in the former case it was for some form of intamate oneness or what ever it is fans of canibalisum find so atractive. It's still a waste, why not love this person in a lasting way instead of ending there life? is this argument so hard to suport? one could argue that the person becomes a part of you forever, technicly thats bullshit as there genetic material and even the viamins and minerals gained from there concumption will eventualy be used up and passed through the body.
>it's the mental effect that legalizeing and allowing these acts to be proformed will have that will couse the most damage.
>>I have seen no evidence that this 'metal effect' you're talking about would really happen. You're using the same tactics people have always used when it was suggested that the laws about sexuality be loosened. I'm just taking it to the upper extremes.
Yes thats true but your allso giveing them ammo by suporting there slippery slop argument. IF we legalize this then why not that? and so on. Im not saying we should restrict people, but you cant just allow them to do anything they damn well please ether thats not law it's anarchy. That doesent work. I have been looking at sexuality for a long time and allot of things that are turned into a fetish have allmost nothing to do with sex. this is becouse the human mind is capable of forming obsessions or cunnections to objects and concepts as well as people. maybe it's becouse human beings are such sexualy based creatures but this obsessions or cunnections often times become sexual. the sereal killer gets a sexual charge out of murder but that doesent make murder apropreate or right. There are some thing that are not objective. Morality is a tricky thing to discuse becouse who is to deside whats moral and whats not, yet there are some things that are black and white. You argue I have no right to say concentual murder is wrong? why not take it one step ferther. why not argue that nonconcentual murder can be an expression of true art, in the game of life and death between killer and victum and that there can be no more beatutiful expression of life, nor any greater value be placed on it, then that of the value the killer puts on that life befor takeing it away. Is that wrong? Fuck yes it's wrong, but in the mind of the killer it's justifyed. Im just trying to say that you have to know were to call it and were to let it go, in the case of death, I would say it's safe to call it wrong. theres no evidence of a phychological effect on a socity wide level becouse it has never happend true enough but that doesent mean I cant cunnect a few logical dots and come to the conclusion that if you allow some activitys to exist it's bad for you all. A TV station that shows real life snuf films considerably cheapens the value of life. In adition what does it say about a person who enjoys watching men die? COncenting or not, your enjoying slaughter.
>what happends when some canibels have a kid and he goes to school and gets concent from his 7 year old class mate to be killed and eaten? what if the parents agree? in fantasy thats, well, it's realy freaking weird but it's fictional it cant hurt anybody or couse any real harm. In reality, that kid is going to die and be consumed for no reason, go get a hamberger instead jeez!
>>Right now, a 7-year-old kid might want to drive an eighteen-wheeler and his dad might have no problem with it. But the DMV ain't gonna give the kid a license.
I was thinking that, if a person wanted to be eaten, for example, they would go register their decision and get paperwork for it. It'd be like a movie company getting police permission before staging a car chase or an explosion. You get the paperwork and it's like, "I made this decision for myself; do not prosecute the person who ate me."
thats a fair enough argument, and the DMV does have some good reason for not allowing a 7 year old to drive a semi truck XD mostly hes psyicly to small to drive it effectively not to mention theres a great deal of responsability there. it's not a tracter or a dirt bike. the point I was trying to make here was that some adults are allmost to stupid to deserve the right to concent to something odd or dangerous a child should never have that right unless it can be, irefutably proven they can handle that right. IN that event, if we treat children like adults, we have to try them like adults as well. this poses another problem, becouse we learn through example as well as through doeing. Kids steal shit all the time but they dont useualy go to jail for theft. If there mature enough to concent to beain eaten then there mature enough to deal with jail time. Perhaps in the case of minors concent to something like canibilsum should be reserved for the legaly emancipated. AS not even the parents should have the right to deside something like that for there child. it's a life or death choice.
>As to the hipocracy well, Forceing peoble to make it mandatory that relgion only reute adults is a violation of your right to faith and religion and this is comeing from ME and I HATE religion XD.
>>I don't understand your reasoning. The reason we don't allow minors to drive or vote or fuck is because they're not mentally ready for it. So why do we think they're mentally ready for concepts like Hell and the trinity and transubstantiation? I can't really do anything about parents teaching their kid religious bullshit, but I see no reason why it's wrong to treat a church like a bar: "What you sell is harmful to children, so children are not allowed inside." Children are hardwired to believe what their parents say, even if it's completely contradictory. Brainwashing them when they're still in single-digits is taking unfair advantage of that and robbing of them of the ability to make a choice later on in life if they want to believe in a religion or not. No child is ever born a Christian or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Republican or a Democrat or a Capitalist or a Socialist, etc.
My reasoning here stems from the way your treating relgion. let me go on record again by stateing I realy dont like religion it leaves a foul taste in my mouth more often then not. You cant treat it like it's alchohol though. You cannot prove or disprove there is a god, and all a cherch is is a gathering place to wership that god. you said it yourself, you cant stop parents from teaching there children that on the easter a magic jew zombie arose from the dead. I dont however see your right to restrict the parents desire to Expose there children to there belifes wich there going to do anyway. I grew up an Episcopalian.Thats damn near Catholic and I walked away from all of that the moment I was old enough to smell bull shit. Kids arnt useualy stupid be defalt. Regulate the cherches involvement in The affiars of socity government and education not the cherchs themselves.
>Lineing up the bush administration and subjecting them to humiliation and then imprisenment for just sucking major ass is allso far worse then the damage they coused while in power.
>>WRONG. Their administration committed cold-blooded MURDER. Nothing I could do to them would be worse than what they did to the people of Iraq and American soldiers and civilians.
I seriously doubt that bush called up the camanding officers in charge of thouse black actions and requested they be done. I hate to even have to mention this but amarican soldeirs or any soldeirs for that matter, have commited rape and murder in allmost every war ever fought in the history of man kind war brings out the very worst monsters in people. Bush was a fucking retard yes, but he wasent a murderer, no more then Eisinhower or any other president was. If you seek blame, blame the military directly for allowing that bull shit to happen. Bush probobly diddent even know about it untill after the fact and whats is any man suposed to do about it then? you cant bring the dead back. I would have liked to see a prompter investigation however.
>Back on the nature of sexual freedoms, I remain as open minded as possible but I allso have a right to live in a world were people dont fuck corpses,
>>Really? I wasn't aware you had that right. Please show me where you are guaranteed the right to live in a world free of necrophilia.
Technicly speaking you dont even have the right to freedom of speach, that right is a gift given to you by people who died for it. SO if you want to call me on dislikeing the idea of somebody doeing my dead aunt thats cool but if you want to cut it down to the nit and grit of things in the end, you aly have the rights you earn, or take. I dont like that, I want to belive that you ahve serten human rights but if the world ended tomarrow it would be every man for himself, anything goes. I guess both arguments are pointless here. when I made that statement I diddent directly reference concent, geting back to thouse suposid human freedoms that dont realy exist unless an ordered government says they do, the dead have a right to remain undefiled and the liveing have a right to the peace of mind of knowing nobodys useing there loved ones corpse as a toy. if concent some how enters into it thats a slightly different matter I supose and one that would have to be handled based on that is currently aceptible socialy at the time. in your proposed world order, it would be aceptable and while it would bug me if sombody I knew and loved wanted that after death so long as you proved the concent I would be in no position to argue I supose.
>but when proformed in reality become a horrific act and are dead give aways of saver mental illness.
>>Oh, like how, for hundreds of years it was common knowledge that homosexuality was nothing more than a sign of severe mental illness?
Not exactly, you can pick apart my points and break them down into easy targits if you like but Im not typeing all this to argue your morality or mine.the asumption that homosexuality is an illness was born of religion and it came and whent and came again with the times. It has even be social encuraged befor. Maybe it is An Illness, maybe it's not, it's absolutly harmless in every sence of the word so it's moot. Love between two people is powerfull enough to conqer allot of things. In some cases though it should allso mean a person excersizes restraint even when there lover doesent want them two in the best interests of preserveing that lovers health mental or otherwise. Homosexuality isent dangerous, it's just hated becouse a 2000 year old buck says it is. thats not valid. Im targiting darker stuff here then same sex relations but i have mentioned this before.
>Im not bashing these extream kinks but part of what MAKES these kinks atractive in fantasy is that it IS only fantasy. How do you draw the line?
>>I draw the line at anything nonconsensual or that harms people who are uninvolved. Beyond that, I support everything else, even things that personally disgust me.
I agree to that but a sane man doesent allways make sane choices and an insane man allmost never does. If a person is disturbed and you dont catch it, then they could do something realy sad and stupid and it would be legal. I realize heres allways cracks in any systum, but I do not were this conversation is headed, I feel like im defending my veiw points on the value of human life and I shouldent have to. SOme times, something can be concentual and still be wrong, im sorry but I cannot relent on that. I can agree to let you shoot me in the back of the head, it's still killing another sentient human being. I guess it doesent matter, this arguments to easy to debunk.
>were are the paramiters around things like concent espeshaly were children and the mentaly retarted are concerned?
>>As I'd said, the only way for someone who is declared unable to give consent (under our current law) to change that is if they take a bunch of aptitude tests and pass them. If they can demonstrate they have the mental capacity to consent, then they get an exception.
fare enough I cant argue this point that seems well thought out.
>CHildren mature at different rates, how do you determin they can realy agree to something like Sex let alone being hung on public tv for the dellight of the 24 hour snuff channel?
>>How do we determine if a child can consent to sex? By having child psychology experts develop a test that gauges how much the person taking it understands concepts like permanence, STDs, pregnancy, coercion, abuse, etc.
Well humans even chilren are sexual beings, so thats not so much of a streach realy, Im more concerned about the casual way people can die in this new world order and others can derive enjoyment from it. It just doesent feel right to me I guess.
>these acts are permanent, somebody just DIED even concentualy for the sexual gratifacation of another or to feed there morbid curiosity with death and dieing? This is just as wrong as if you lined up convicted criminals and made them participate.
>>No, it isn't. Because in the prisoner scenario they're being forced, and in the other scenario the participants aren't.
enjoying the death of another is wrong. Thats black and white, and I dislike dealing in black and white territory. Im sorry but no argument you can present will convince me any situation were the death of another can bring pleasure can be justafyed. It's allready dangerous enough territory with horror flicks, and even in thouse the majority of people are watching for shock value, to experience fear or adrenalin in a safe envirnment. Not becouse watching freddy carve up a teenager makes them hard.
>I respect you Alex and I realize this emperror of amarica post you made is just a flight of fancy and not reality so please dont take this post as agressive or anything I am replying in the context that this would be a real plane your proposeing and not just something for fun. Im doeing it that way to point out the bad spots.
>>I understand your objections, I just don't agree with them.
And that is one right I would die to let you keep. Objection is our greatist weapon and defense, it helps us find falt in our own opinions and in the opinions of others as well as gives birth to healthy debate.
>and while I dont belive we should remove all cencership I do agree that it should be tightly regulated so that pointless cencership is avoided.
>>I never said we should have no censorship, just that there should not be censorship unless it can be proved that something will cause real harm. (Like if a TV told lies about someone to ruin their career.)
true enough but some ferther regulation should be allowed. concentual or not a small child shouldent be exposed to the concept of a person dieing for pleasure for example. if they choice at a alter time to participate in that thats fine but seeing it in erly child hood might couse issues, if there to young to understand they might not get why pushing there sister down the stares was such a bad thing. I am a strong advocate of parental acountability but even the best parent cannot be watching everything there child does or sees all the time. It would be wise to inplament simple safe guards that give parents the tools to help raise there children in an open minded but safe enviornment. If the kid asks about sex, tell them, sex is natural, but some things should definatly be left for later levels of psyical and mental maturity like the aformentioned snuff.
>perhaps cencered and uncencered tv and radio stations. SO that parents with children that cant moniter them 24/7 dont have to worry about them turning into the cannibal corpse fucking hour on tv. =p
>>Not a bad idea. I'm not against ratings, just people deciding what I can and can't watch if I choose to.
I agree completly, allow the people subscribeing to the TV to place blocks on things they dont want to see or dont want there kids to see.
>Morality might need some redefinition but we shouldent do away with it all together. =p
>>I'm not suggesting that at all; I just want our morality to be based on what causes real harm and what doesn't.
Unfortunatly thats another tricky spot becouse as I said befor, just becouse it's concentual doesent mean it's right. Again this useualy circles back around to harmfull things. I draw my line in the sande one step erlyer then you do Alex and thats the only real difference between out opinions. you draw it at concent. I draw it at harm and concent.
>A strong seperation of church and state is good but requireing you to be of legal drinking age to wership a god in an orginized church is realy pushing things twords opressive.
>>Why? The kid can worship his ass off at home.
meny relgions actualy call for there follows to gather together in wership. It isent right for you to interfear in nonviolent religious practices. Hell I would like it all outlawed but that wouldent be just ether.
>Revokeing peoples right to marry based off being to stupid to lie to the new regime is out right Nazi like. XD
>>I hadn't thought of it that way, but you actually just helped my case. If they are either too stupid, or too proud of their bigotry, to just lie and say they didn't vote against gay marriage, then screw them. They think they have the right to decide whether or not gay people can get married, so why shouldn't I decided that they don't need to be married? I'm only following their own morality.
But you cant if you want to change things for the better. I can shoot you in the foot but that doesent mean you should shoot me in the foot, that just lowers you to my level. Teach the ignorent.
>Removeing a persons right to vote based off the fact that they places there faith in a politicle leader that you diddent like isent fair or just.
>>Yes it is. If you have a hot stove and your kid touches it, then most of the time they will learn, "That hurts!" and not do it again. If they intentionally do it twice however, then maybe the kid's too stupid to make the decision and you need to keep them out of the kitchen.
thats a good way to put it but think of it this way. our politicle structure has been and currently is, controlled by two major politicle partys that are both full of crap. we are fed, day in, day out, a stream of propaganda and bull shit designed to sway our votes. I blame the fucked up systum not the common man thats been wheened on soul milk. Educate and put more democratic responsability into the hands of the people who actualy want a say in how the nation is run, encurage responsable choices. If your child wants to touch the stove so damn badly, then teach them how to cook.
>>By 2004 there was no doubt at all about what kind of person Bush was. By then he had already started a war based on lies and was already responsible for thousands of deaths. Anyone who knew all this and nevertheless voted for him again showed such an utter lack of comprehension (or compassion) that they demonstrated they are unable to handle the responsibility of voting.
Again I site the above, we had the illution of choice presented to us when we realy only had an ultamatum. Bush or Carry and both were fucking terrible options. you can vote for the other guy or even yourslef but it doesent amount to jack shit becouse your vote doesent actualy carry any waight, enough people have to convince the members of the electoral collage (who are allmost all republican or democrat) to vote for sombody else and THEY have to have enough votes to win. our systum, fails. We fail becouse we do not try to change that.
>I hate to admit it but part of why our system works at all is because it's flawed.
>>I'm sorry; that statement just made my brain shit all over itself.
Why ever for? no systum can be perfect, perfection is a pretty little lie bad men tell to stupid people to make them walk into hell. A good systum works well dispite it's flaws, and good people and governments try to work around or fix the flaws when they can.
This is waaaaaay too fucking huge so I'mma try to cut it down as much as I can.
>I think you Misunderstood I never instended to imply interracial or gay marriage was Immoral, it's just wrong from a religious stand point, a standpoint I do not share.
Oh, I wasn't implying you were! I was just saying that I noticed you were objecting from a moral standpoint, but the opponents to those issues are arguing from personal morals too. Most of human morality is similar, but no two people will have exactly the same morals on every issue. That's why I think that we can't base our laws solely on morality. It has to be backed up by evidence. It can't be enough to say, "This should be illegal because it's wrong", there has to be evidence showing WHY it's wrong.
>if somebodys into the concentual rape and murder of young women, it's still wrong even though some people like to Role play girls online and participate in that. Concentual or not it's violant and murderous and cultavateing urges like thats not healthy. Fantasy is a safe outlet, reality is to far. thats all Im saying here.
I personally agree. However,how do we decide where that line is: what it is okay to act out and what isn't? You say that it's not right to enjoy watching someone die, even if the victim is consenting. And I totally understand why you feel that way.
But my position is that society causes more harm by trying to repress urges than by allowing them. It's been shown over and over: when the government tries to regulate human nature, it always fails and causes more harm in the long run. Prohibition is a good example and he 'war on drugs' is a better one. There's something like 300% more drug users now than when the war on drugs was started. The more strongly you try to stop people from doing something, the more interested they will become in it.
Now, I'm not saying everything should be legal. Just that we need to choose carefully what things we actually need to make laws against. It's good to have a law against murder, even though most human beings know murder is wrong. But like Dug Stanhope said; why have laws against prostitution, gambling and drugs when those activities carry their own punishment? He's got a good point there.
In the case of cannibalism/necrophilia, I don't think this really happens often enough that it'll make a huge difference, but I do think the law won't stop someone who's determined to do it. All the laws we have against pedophilia doesn't stop people from being pedophiles. If your fetish is strong enough, a law will not change your sexual orientation. So instead of making you a criminal, we should find ways for people with extreme fetishes to get their rocks off without hurting anyone.
Maybe you're right and we shouldn't allow consensual murder. I'm not sure. But I was inspired by the case of Armin Miewes and Bernd Jürgen Brandes. These two German guys agreed to meet up and for Miews to eat Brandes. From everything I've heard, it was fully consentual and they had a grand time, even cutting off Brandes' penis and eating it together. So, after Miewes ate his friend up, he got arrested and put in jail. I asked myself, 'What purpose does that serve?' It won't bring Brandes back, so it seems like it was just punishment for punishment's sake. Thinking about this case really made me ask myself, "Did this guy hurt anyone?" and evin if you argue that he should be in jail because he might eat someone else nonconsensually, that suggests that it should be okay to put people in jail if we think they MIGHT commit a crime. And that makes me really uncomfortable.
In general, I'd rather have far too much freedom than not enough. I don't think that a law can really stop human behavior. Most of the time, the law is just there to decide punishment. I don't think there would be much difference in the number of cannibals and necrophiles if those activities were legal. I'm just more uncomfortable with the idea of someone going to jail for an act that both participants enjoyed, and the idea of people getting their rocks off to stuff I don't like. Prison should be for people who are a true danger to society.
>if it's something that would require concent to do becouse it's on the edge or over it of what sanity would dictate is normal it should be very carefully considered befor legalizeing, so you know you can regulate and maintain a safe level of control over it so people are not hurt.
I'm not sure it's the government's place to regulate human behavior. I've seen enough evidence to believe that, left on their own, human beings are pretty good at policing themselves. I think that the government that concerns itself with enforcement and control is going to cause more misery than it prevents. I think that if you treat citzens like criminals, they are going to act like criminals. If you treat them like they're worthy of freedom and responsibility, they'll usually act that way. I agree: "The government that governs least, governs best."
>I dont like the idea of haveing people registure for anything as it reeks of thought control but I would rather know Martin and Lisa are Registered, checked out and legal to beat the tar out of each other befor haveing angry rape sex then half ass it with a video type. =p
Now that is where I think we can agree!! They make people go through a lot of waiting and tests to get gender reassignment surgery, so I don't see how this would be much different. If someone is really that dead set on having someone eat them or beat them, they ought to be willing to go through a pile of paperwork and a few psychiatric tests first. That'll also weed out the people who really only want to do it in fantasy.
But yeah, if someone is sane and completely devoted to dying or getting mutilated in some way, nothing is likely to stop them. So this would be a good way to make sure they know what they're getting into, plus the police would know they weren't attacked or something.
>some things like geting off to sliting a girls throught even concentualy, are just not right. I can honestly say thats unhealthy you should never derive pleasure from being victomized or drawing blood or ending life. Concentualy or otherwise. thats something I cannot relent on, Life is two importent.
I think this is the exact point where we diverge. I don't think that this is always a sign of mental illness. It can be. but from everything I've learned about fetishes, I'm certain that there are no inherently harmful or evil ones. It's what the person gets out of it. To be totally honest, I think I'd be very interested to see a snuff film with a completely willing 'victim'. Because, frankly, I'm very scared of death. And I think it would be fascinating and beautiful to see someone who was completely unafraid of it, and who would go into death peaceful and happy. I'd like reassurance that this thing that's going to happen to every single one of us someday, can be a positive thing if you choose for it to be.
Or maybe they're just fascinated with anatomy and want to take a person apart to see how they work. (In that case, I'd reccomend that guy getting a job as a coroner.)
Life is important, yes. But death is also inevitable. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to confront it and understand it, or choosing when you're ready to die. And if someone wants to share that moment with you, one of the most important moments of your life, why not?
>I have dificulty finding a counter argument to this statement so I'll do the best I can and state that obsession is unhealthy and thats a proven fact, I dont not personaly belive situations that would incurage dangerous levels of obsession resulting in a persons death should be allowed.
Okay, now that is a very good argument and one I can't disagree with. The human mind is dangerously prone to obsession, and obsession is dangerous. So, I think the best idea is to compromise with the idea you had about testing and registration. If someone wants to something dangerous for their kink, we have some talk to them to determine if they're going into this because they genuinely want to, or because they're crazy.
Or maybe just misguided as to what it'll be like. I'd have no problem with these people being told that fantasy is usually FAR more enjoyable than reality.
On the other hand, I remember reading a rather touching story from a woman who has a strong desire to lose both her legs. She says it's not because she hates herself, or even a fetish. She just sees herself in her mind as not having legs. Her body doesn't match her image of herself and it's frustrating. I think someone like that should be allowed to get the surgery she wants to make herself feel, ironically enough, whole.
>If you have some, horrific terminal illness and killing you now for your Liver will save your child or cousin your brother, thats allot different, thats a willing sacrafice. Not a sences throw away of your life becouse you were sad, or wanted to star in a snuff film.
I'll also agree there: People wouldn't be allowed to consent to suicide if it was determined they weree suffering from depression. I know myself that depression is like a man in your head telling you nothing but lies.
>If the idea of haveing your guts riped out on camera turns you on and makes you happy, perhaps we should stop and ask ourselves why? and is there another way that doesent involve death or permanent damage?
I've heard there's a hospital in some Scandinavian country that caters exclusively to surgery fetishists. Maybe some of these folks could go there, have their tummies opened, play with their insides a while, and that'd be enough for them. ;)
>It's still a waste, why not love this person in a lasting way instead of ending there life?
I actually agree with you there. Have you read Love Me Till My Heart Stops? It's about exactly this scenario, and early on I knew that it could not possibly end with him killing her. Even though their entire relationship was leading up to it, it still couldn't happen.
>Yes thats true but your allso giveing them ammo by suporting there slippery slop argument. IF we legalize this then why not that? and so on. Im not saying we should restrict people, but you cant just allow them to do anything they damn well please ether thats not law it's anarchy.
Right; that's why we also show them where the slippery slope stops. It stops as cruelty; anything that causes nonconsensual harm. We establish a simple but firm morality: if it hurts, it's bad, if it helps, it's good. We keep to that and we establish that the people whose opinions matter most in determining what does and doesn't cause harm, are the people directly involved.
A lot of this comes down to the fact that I HATE the idea that two people can be doing something together that they enjoy, and the government can step in and say, "We know better than you; you're not really enjoying that."
>I have been looking at sexuality for a long time and allot of things that are turned into a fetish have allmost nothing to do with sex. this is becouse the human mind is capable of forming obsessions or cunnections to objects and concepts as well as people.
Very true.
>You argue I have no right to say concentual murder is wrong? why not take it one step ferther. why not argue that nonconcentual murder can be an expression of true art, in the game of life and death between killer and victum and that there can be no more beatutiful expression of life, nor any greater value be placed on it, then that of the value the killer puts on that life befor takeing it away. Is that wrong? Fuck yes it's wrong, but in the mind of the killer it's justifyed.
That's a very good argument. I'd still say though that in my scenario, both parties agree to it, and in the other, only one does. So at the very least, can we agree that one is at least a degree more moral than the other?
>>A TV station that shows real life snuf films considerably cheapens the value of life. In adition what does it say about a person who enjoys watching men die? COncenting or not, your enjoying slaughter.
Right now, if you really wanna see someone die, it doesn't matter that it's not on TV; you can go to rotten.com or ogrish.com or other sites like that and see plenty of murder. Like I've said, I don't think a law will stop someone from wanting to see ghoulish things. But I think that, the more taboo we make it, the more interesting it will become. The harder we make it to see things like this, the harder they'll try.
I don't know for sure that it'll work, but maybe it'd be better if our attitude was just, "Here. You want it? Take it and get outta here." Give them an outlet. Probably a lot of them will be like, "This is it? Geez, I expected more." I've only seen a few videos of actual death (Not that I was intentionally looking!) but I know for sure that Hollywood deaths ALWAYS look better.
BTW, there seems to be some validity to the idea that the rise in population of the internet correlates to a decrease in rapes. I'm not 100% sure yet, but if it's true I think it makes a lot of sense.
>the point I was trying to make here was that some adults are allmost to stupid to deserve the right to concent to something odd or dangerous a child should never have that right unless it can be, irefutably proven they can handle that right. IN that event, if we treat children like adults, we have to try them like adults as well.
That's an EXCELLENT point. I think that, yes, if we give kids more rights, they should come with more responsibility. If a minor passes the aptitude tests and we allow him to drive, we should also say, "Because you're aware of the risks, if you do cause an accident, you'll be tried as an adult."
Most of the time, I don't think kids should be tried as adults. But I think there has to be something better than either locking them up for life, or just sending them to juvie for a few years.
>You cannot prove or disprove there is a god, and all a cherch is is a gathering place to wership that god.
But what can be proved is the effect that early religious brainwashing has on the child's later ability to reason and think critically. What if a well-documented scientific study could prove that church indoctrination is as damaging to a child's learning process as lead poisoning?
>Regulate the cherches involvement in The affiars of socity government and education not the cherchs themselves.
What about a compomise: Churches can choose to either pay taxes like any other business, or if they don't want to, then my government is allowed to regulate them any way I see fit.
>I seriously doubt that bush called up the camanding officers in charge of thouse black actions and requested they be done.
Actually, he did. There's quite a lot of proof that he intended to start the Iraq war even before 9/11 happened. He always planned to go to war with Saddam. No one is more responsible than him.
>>Really? I wasn't aware you had that right. Please show me where you are guaranteed the right to live in a world free of necrophilia.
>in your proposed world order, it would be aceptable and while it would bug me if sombody I knew and loved wanted that after death so long as you proved the concent I would be in no position to argue I supose.
And that's all I was trying to say. I meant that, nobody has the right to know that nowhere in the world are people doing things that they don't approve of. If it directly concerns you, then yes, you do have a right to say no. But if some dude in Hoboken wants his boyfriend to fuck him in the ass after he dies, then I don't think either of us has any right to say no to it, because we're not involved.
>Im targiting darker stuff here then same sex relations but i have mentioned this before.
Right; and I was just warning you that you were using the same tactics that people had also used against homosexuality. That doesn't mean you're wrong, just that you need stronger tactics. If an argument can be used to support good or evil things interchangably, then maybe it's not a solid argument.
>I feel like im defending my veiw points on the value of human life and I shouldent have to. SOme times, something can be concentual and still be wrong, im sorry but I cannot relent on that.
Okay, I accept that.
I guess it boils down to this; in my ideal world, I will give you the gift of never being forced to do what you don't want to do (unless it's for a valid reason) but the price tag for this gift is that you have to put up with the weird shit other people want to do, and you're not allowed to try to force them to stop (unless it's for a valid reason).
>And that is one right I would die to let you keep. Objection is our greatist weapon and defense, it helps us find falt in our own opinions and in the opinions of others as well as gives birth to healthy debate.
Beautifully said!! :)
>true enough but some ferther regulation should be allowed. concentual or not a small child shouldent be exposed to the concept of a person dieing for pleasure for example. if they choice at a alter time to participate in that thats fine but seeing it in erly child hood might couse issues, if there to young to understand they might not get why pushing there sister down the stares was such a bad thing. I am a strong advocate of parental acountability but even the best parent cannot be watching everything there child does or sees all the time.
Fair enough. Actually, a really good idea would be to give people the ability to buy cable channels ala carte. That way, people who like extreme stuff can buy their channels, and parents can pass on those.
>I agree completly, allow the people subscribeing to the TV to place blocks on things they dont want to see or dont want there kids to see.
Sure. Like, the parents could purchase a more adult channel, but have it set up so that channel can only be seen once they enter a password.
>meny relgions actualy call for there follows to gather together in wership. It isent right for you to interfear in nonviolent religious practices. Hell I would like it all outlawed but that wouldent be just ether.
If I wanted to be cheap, I could point out that, somewhere in Mark, Jesus unambiguously tells Christians to not pray in public like a bunch of frauds, but to go home and pray in a quiet, secluded area. ;)
>But you cant if you want to change things for the better. I can shoot you in the foot but that doesent mean you should shoot me in the foot, that just lowers you to my level. Teach the ignorent.
Some ignorant people refuse to be taught. I think that my phone survey would be a good way to weed out the most hardcore bigots. People who voted against gay marriage but have some doubts might not admit to it later. Other people who are against gay marriage might not have felt it was right to vote against it. But other people who are proud to say they did are admitting that they cast their vote to deny a basic right to other human beings based on nothing but bigotry. I don't think that kind of ignorance can be unlearned, at least not without a punishment designed to teach empathy. I'd certainly be willing to give these people back their marriage rights if they'd be willing to humble themselves and accept gay people getting married too.
>thats a good way to put it but think of it this way. our politicle structure has been and currently is, controlled by two major politicle partys that are both full of crap. we are fed, day in, day out, a stream of propaganda and bull shit designed to sway our votes. I blame the fucked up systum not the common man thats been wheened on soul milk. Educate and put more democratic responsability into the hands of the people who actualy want a say in how the nation is run, encurage responsable choices. If your child wants to touch the stove so damn badly, then teach them how to cook.
That's a good idea. But still, I'm going to have to defend my Bush phone survey. I've heard it said a lot of times that if you want real change, you have to wait until the old generation dies off and the younger generation, who will be more receptive to change, takes power. I don't think we have that kind of time. Taking people who voted for Bush twice will remove a big chunk of the most ignorant and hate-driven voters from the pool. It's a lot like when I use my block list here on FA. If someone's name goes in it, it's not because they disagreed with me, but because they were horribly rude. I don't feel bad about silencing that person. To this date, I have only ever removed one person from my block list because a later conversation proved they could be reasonable and respectful. That's one person out of a hundred or so. None of those other people have ever given me reason to believe they have anything to say that I need to hear.
>Why ever for? no systum can be perfect, perfection is a pretty little lie bad men tell to stupid people to make them walk into hell. A good systum works well dispite it's flaws, and good people and governments try to work around or fix the flaws when they can.
Okay, that makes much more sense now. I agree that perfection is impossible and chasing it is foolish. I thought you were arguing something totally different. <shrug>
>I think you Misunderstood I never instended to imply interracial or gay marriage was Immoral, it's just wrong from a religious stand point, a standpoint I do not share.
Oh, I wasn't implying you were! I was just saying that I noticed you were objecting from a moral standpoint, but the opponents to those issues are arguing from personal morals too. Most of human morality is similar, but no two people will have exactly the same morals on every issue. That's why I think that we can't base our laws solely on morality. It has to be backed up by evidence. It can't be enough to say, "This should be illegal because it's wrong", there has to be evidence showing WHY it's wrong.
>if somebodys into the concentual rape and murder of young women, it's still wrong even though some people like to Role play girls online and participate in that. Concentual or not it's violant and murderous and cultavateing urges like thats not healthy. Fantasy is a safe outlet, reality is to far. thats all Im saying here.
I personally agree. However,how do we decide where that line is: what it is okay to act out and what isn't? You say that it's not right to enjoy watching someone die, even if the victim is consenting. And I totally understand why you feel that way.
But my position is that society causes more harm by trying to repress urges than by allowing them. It's been shown over and over: when the government tries to regulate human nature, it always fails and causes more harm in the long run. Prohibition is a good example and he 'war on drugs' is a better one. There's something like 300% more drug users now than when the war on drugs was started. The more strongly you try to stop people from doing something, the more interested they will become in it.
Now, I'm not saying everything should be legal. Just that we need to choose carefully what things we actually need to make laws against. It's good to have a law against murder, even though most human beings know murder is wrong. But like Dug Stanhope said; why have laws against prostitution, gambling and drugs when those activities carry their own punishment? He's got a good point there.
In the case of cannibalism/necrophilia, I don't think this really happens often enough that it'll make a huge difference, but I do think the law won't stop someone who's determined to do it. All the laws we have against pedophilia doesn't stop people from being pedophiles. If your fetish is strong enough, a law will not change your sexual orientation. So instead of making you a criminal, we should find ways for people with extreme fetishes to get their rocks off without hurting anyone.
Maybe you're right and we shouldn't allow consensual murder. I'm not sure. But I was inspired by the case of Armin Miewes and Bernd Jürgen Brandes. These two German guys agreed to meet up and for Miews to eat Brandes. From everything I've heard, it was fully consentual and they had a grand time, even cutting off Brandes' penis and eating it together. So, after Miewes ate his friend up, he got arrested and put in jail. I asked myself, 'What purpose does that serve?' It won't bring Brandes back, so it seems like it was just punishment for punishment's sake. Thinking about this case really made me ask myself, "Did this guy hurt anyone?" and evin if you argue that he should be in jail because he might eat someone else nonconsensually, that suggests that it should be okay to put people in jail if we think they MIGHT commit a crime. And that makes me really uncomfortable.
In general, I'd rather have far too much freedom than not enough. I don't think that a law can really stop human behavior. Most of the time, the law is just there to decide punishment. I don't think there would be much difference in the number of cannibals and necrophiles if those activities were legal. I'm just more uncomfortable with the idea of someone going to jail for an act that both participants enjoyed, and the idea of people getting their rocks off to stuff I don't like. Prison should be for people who are a true danger to society.
>if it's something that would require concent to do becouse it's on the edge or over it of what sanity would dictate is normal it should be very carefully considered befor legalizeing, so you know you can regulate and maintain a safe level of control over it so people are not hurt.
I'm not sure it's the government's place to regulate human behavior. I've seen enough evidence to believe that, left on their own, human beings are pretty good at policing themselves. I think that the government that concerns itself with enforcement and control is going to cause more misery than it prevents. I think that if you treat citzens like criminals, they are going to act like criminals. If you treat them like they're worthy of freedom and responsibility, they'll usually act that way. I agree: "The government that governs least, governs best."
>I dont like the idea of haveing people registure for anything as it reeks of thought control but I would rather know Martin and Lisa are Registered, checked out and legal to beat the tar out of each other befor haveing angry rape sex then half ass it with a video type. =p
Now that is where I think we can agree!! They make people go through a lot of waiting and tests to get gender reassignment surgery, so I don't see how this would be much different. If someone is really that dead set on having someone eat them or beat them, they ought to be willing to go through a pile of paperwork and a few psychiatric tests first. That'll also weed out the people who really only want to do it in fantasy.
But yeah, if someone is sane and completely devoted to dying or getting mutilated in some way, nothing is likely to stop them. So this would be a good way to make sure they know what they're getting into, plus the police would know they weren't attacked or something.
>some things like geting off to sliting a girls throught even concentualy, are just not right. I can honestly say thats unhealthy you should never derive pleasure from being victomized or drawing blood or ending life. Concentualy or otherwise. thats something I cannot relent on, Life is two importent.
I think this is the exact point where we diverge. I don't think that this is always a sign of mental illness. It can be. but from everything I've learned about fetishes, I'm certain that there are no inherently harmful or evil ones. It's what the person gets out of it. To be totally honest, I think I'd be very interested to see a snuff film with a completely willing 'victim'. Because, frankly, I'm very scared of death. And I think it would be fascinating and beautiful to see someone who was completely unafraid of it, and who would go into death peaceful and happy. I'd like reassurance that this thing that's going to happen to every single one of us someday, can be a positive thing if you choose for it to be.
Or maybe they're just fascinated with anatomy and want to take a person apart to see how they work. (In that case, I'd reccomend that guy getting a job as a coroner.)
Life is important, yes. But death is also inevitable. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to confront it and understand it, or choosing when you're ready to die. And if someone wants to share that moment with you, one of the most important moments of your life, why not?
>I have dificulty finding a counter argument to this statement so I'll do the best I can and state that obsession is unhealthy and thats a proven fact, I dont not personaly belive situations that would incurage dangerous levels of obsession resulting in a persons death should be allowed.
Okay, now that is a very good argument and one I can't disagree with. The human mind is dangerously prone to obsession, and obsession is dangerous. So, I think the best idea is to compromise with the idea you had about testing and registration. If someone wants to something dangerous for their kink, we have some talk to them to determine if they're going into this because they genuinely want to, or because they're crazy.
Or maybe just misguided as to what it'll be like. I'd have no problem with these people being told that fantasy is usually FAR more enjoyable than reality.
On the other hand, I remember reading a rather touching story from a woman who has a strong desire to lose both her legs. She says it's not because she hates herself, or even a fetish. She just sees herself in her mind as not having legs. Her body doesn't match her image of herself and it's frustrating. I think someone like that should be allowed to get the surgery she wants to make herself feel, ironically enough, whole.
>If you have some, horrific terminal illness and killing you now for your Liver will save your child or cousin your brother, thats allot different, thats a willing sacrafice. Not a sences throw away of your life becouse you were sad, or wanted to star in a snuff film.
I'll also agree there: People wouldn't be allowed to consent to suicide if it was determined they weree suffering from depression. I know myself that depression is like a man in your head telling you nothing but lies.
>If the idea of haveing your guts riped out on camera turns you on and makes you happy, perhaps we should stop and ask ourselves why? and is there another way that doesent involve death or permanent damage?
I've heard there's a hospital in some Scandinavian country that caters exclusively to surgery fetishists. Maybe some of these folks could go there, have their tummies opened, play with their insides a while, and that'd be enough for them. ;)
>It's still a waste, why not love this person in a lasting way instead of ending there life?
I actually agree with you there. Have you read Love Me Till My Heart Stops? It's about exactly this scenario, and early on I knew that it could not possibly end with him killing her. Even though their entire relationship was leading up to it, it still couldn't happen.
>Yes thats true but your allso giveing them ammo by suporting there slippery slop argument. IF we legalize this then why not that? and so on. Im not saying we should restrict people, but you cant just allow them to do anything they damn well please ether thats not law it's anarchy.
Right; that's why we also show them where the slippery slope stops. It stops as cruelty; anything that causes nonconsensual harm. We establish a simple but firm morality: if it hurts, it's bad, if it helps, it's good. We keep to that and we establish that the people whose opinions matter most in determining what does and doesn't cause harm, are the people directly involved.
A lot of this comes down to the fact that I HATE the idea that two people can be doing something together that they enjoy, and the government can step in and say, "We know better than you; you're not really enjoying that."
>I have been looking at sexuality for a long time and allot of things that are turned into a fetish have allmost nothing to do with sex. this is becouse the human mind is capable of forming obsessions or cunnections to objects and concepts as well as people.
Very true.
>You argue I have no right to say concentual murder is wrong? why not take it one step ferther. why not argue that nonconcentual murder can be an expression of true art, in the game of life and death between killer and victum and that there can be no more beatutiful expression of life, nor any greater value be placed on it, then that of the value the killer puts on that life befor takeing it away. Is that wrong? Fuck yes it's wrong, but in the mind of the killer it's justifyed.
That's a very good argument. I'd still say though that in my scenario, both parties agree to it, and in the other, only one does. So at the very least, can we agree that one is at least a degree more moral than the other?
>>A TV station that shows real life snuf films considerably cheapens the value of life. In adition what does it say about a person who enjoys watching men die? COncenting or not, your enjoying slaughter.
Right now, if you really wanna see someone die, it doesn't matter that it's not on TV; you can go to rotten.com or ogrish.com or other sites like that and see plenty of murder. Like I've said, I don't think a law will stop someone from wanting to see ghoulish things. But I think that, the more taboo we make it, the more interesting it will become. The harder we make it to see things like this, the harder they'll try.
I don't know for sure that it'll work, but maybe it'd be better if our attitude was just, "Here. You want it? Take it and get outta here." Give them an outlet. Probably a lot of them will be like, "This is it? Geez, I expected more." I've only seen a few videos of actual death (Not that I was intentionally looking!) but I know for sure that Hollywood deaths ALWAYS look better.
BTW, there seems to be some validity to the idea that the rise in population of the internet correlates to a decrease in rapes. I'm not 100% sure yet, but if it's true I think it makes a lot of sense.
>the point I was trying to make here was that some adults are allmost to stupid to deserve the right to concent to something odd or dangerous a child should never have that right unless it can be, irefutably proven they can handle that right. IN that event, if we treat children like adults, we have to try them like adults as well.
That's an EXCELLENT point. I think that, yes, if we give kids more rights, they should come with more responsibility. If a minor passes the aptitude tests and we allow him to drive, we should also say, "Because you're aware of the risks, if you do cause an accident, you'll be tried as an adult."
Most of the time, I don't think kids should be tried as adults. But I think there has to be something better than either locking them up for life, or just sending them to juvie for a few years.
>You cannot prove or disprove there is a god, and all a cherch is is a gathering place to wership that god.
But what can be proved is the effect that early religious brainwashing has on the child's later ability to reason and think critically. What if a well-documented scientific study could prove that church indoctrination is as damaging to a child's learning process as lead poisoning?
>Regulate the cherches involvement in The affiars of socity government and education not the cherchs themselves.
What about a compomise: Churches can choose to either pay taxes like any other business, or if they don't want to, then my government is allowed to regulate them any way I see fit.
>I seriously doubt that bush called up the camanding officers in charge of thouse black actions and requested they be done.
Actually, he did. There's quite a lot of proof that he intended to start the Iraq war even before 9/11 happened. He always planned to go to war with Saddam. No one is more responsible than him.
>>Really? I wasn't aware you had that right. Please show me where you are guaranteed the right to live in a world free of necrophilia.
>in your proposed world order, it would be aceptable and while it would bug me if sombody I knew and loved wanted that after death so long as you proved the concent I would be in no position to argue I supose.
And that's all I was trying to say. I meant that, nobody has the right to know that nowhere in the world are people doing things that they don't approve of. If it directly concerns you, then yes, you do have a right to say no. But if some dude in Hoboken wants his boyfriend to fuck him in the ass after he dies, then I don't think either of us has any right to say no to it, because we're not involved.
>Im targiting darker stuff here then same sex relations but i have mentioned this before.
Right; and I was just warning you that you were using the same tactics that people had also used against homosexuality. That doesn't mean you're wrong, just that you need stronger tactics. If an argument can be used to support good or evil things interchangably, then maybe it's not a solid argument.
>I feel like im defending my veiw points on the value of human life and I shouldent have to. SOme times, something can be concentual and still be wrong, im sorry but I cannot relent on that.
Okay, I accept that.
I guess it boils down to this; in my ideal world, I will give you the gift of never being forced to do what you don't want to do (unless it's for a valid reason) but the price tag for this gift is that you have to put up with the weird shit other people want to do, and you're not allowed to try to force them to stop (unless it's for a valid reason).
>And that is one right I would die to let you keep. Objection is our greatist weapon and defense, it helps us find falt in our own opinions and in the opinions of others as well as gives birth to healthy debate.
Beautifully said!! :)
>true enough but some ferther regulation should be allowed. concentual or not a small child shouldent be exposed to the concept of a person dieing for pleasure for example. if they choice at a alter time to participate in that thats fine but seeing it in erly child hood might couse issues, if there to young to understand they might not get why pushing there sister down the stares was such a bad thing. I am a strong advocate of parental acountability but even the best parent cannot be watching everything there child does or sees all the time.
Fair enough. Actually, a really good idea would be to give people the ability to buy cable channels ala carte. That way, people who like extreme stuff can buy their channels, and parents can pass on those.
>I agree completly, allow the people subscribeing to the TV to place blocks on things they dont want to see or dont want there kids to see.
Sure. Like, the parents could purchase a more adult channel, but have it set up so that channel can only be seen once they enter a password.
>meny relgions actualy call for there follows to gather together in wership. It isent right for you to interfear in nonviolent religious practices. Hell I would like it all outlawed but that wouldent be just ether.
If I wanted to be cheap, I could point out that, somewhere in Mark, Jesus unambiguously tells Christians to not pray in public like a bunch of frauds, but to go home and pray in a quiet, secluded area. ;)
>But you cant if you want to change things for the better. I can shoot you in the foot but that doesent mean you should shoot me in the foot, that just lowers you to my level. Teach the ignorent.
Some ignorant people refuse to be taught. I think that my phone survey would be a good way to weed out the most hardcore bigots. People who voted against gay marriage but have some doubts might not admit to it later. Other people who are against gay marriage might not have felt it was right to vote against it. But other people who are proud to say they did are admitting that they cast their vote to deny a basic right to other human beings based on nothing but bigotry. I don't think that kind of ignorance can be unlearned, at least not without a punishment designed to teach empathy. I'd certainly be willing to give these people back their marriage rights if they'd be willing to humble themselves and accept gay people getting married too.
>thats a good way to put it but think of it this way. our politicle structure has been and currently is, controlled by two major politicle partys that are both full of crap. we are fed, day in, day out, a stream of propaganda and bull shit designed to sway our votes. I blame the fucked up systum not the common man thats been wheened on soul milk. Educate and put more democratic responsability into the hands of the people who actualy want a say in how the nation is run, encurage responsable choices. If your child wants to touch the stove so damn badly, then teach them how to cook.
That's a good idea. But still, I'm going to have to defend my Bush phone survey. I've heard it said a lot of times that if you want real change, you have to wait until the old generation dies off and the younger generation, who will be more receptive to change, takes power. I don't think we have that kind of time. Taking people who voted for Bush twice will remove a big chunk of the most ignorant and hate-driven voters from the pool. It's a lot like when I use my block list here on FA. If someone's name goes in it, it's not because they disagreed with me, but because they were horribly rude. I don't feel bad about silencing that person. To this date, I have only ever removed one person from my block list because a later conversation proved they could be reasonable and respectful. That's one person out of a hundred or so. None of those other people have ever given me reason to believe they have anything to say that I need to hear.
>Why ever for? no systum can be perfect, perfection is a pretty little lie bad men tell to stupid people to make them walk into hell. A good systum works well dispite it's flaws, and good people and governments try to work around or fix the flaws when they can.
Okay, that makes much more sense now. I agree that perfection is impossible and chasing it is foolish. I thought you were arguing something totally different. <shrug>
> Fair enough. Actually, a really good idea would be to give people the ability to buy cable channels ala carte. That way, people who like extreme stuff can buy their channels, and parents can pass on those.
> >I agree completly, allow the people subscribeing to the TV to place blocks on things they dont want to see or dont want there kids to see.
> Sure. Like, the parents could purchase a more adult channel, but have it set up so that channel can only be seen once they enter a password.
Supposedly, these measures are ALREADY IN PLACE in most major cable companies. They just aren't taken to the optimum level you're advocating, of a la carte channel purchase, because cable companies want to give people a gigantic block of inoffensive channels, most of which they'll never watch a complete program on, just so they can justify charging a little bit more for their "basic service plan" and thus have a little bit more profit at the next stockholders' meeting.
> >I agree completly, allow the people subscribeing to the TV to place blocks on things they dont want to see or dont want there kids to see.
> Sure. Like, the parents could purchase a more adult channel, but have it set up so that channel can only be seen once they enter a password.
Supposedly, these measures are ALREADY IN PLACE in most major cable companies. They just aren't taken to the optimum level you're advocating, of a la carte channel purchase, because cable companies want to give people a gigantic block of inoffensive channels, most of which they'll never watch a complete program on, just so they can justify charging a little bit more for their "basic service plan" and thus have a little bit more profit at the next stockholders' meeting.
Lots of Mythbusters episodes are getting onto YouTube nowadays. They're getting deleted "due to terms of service violations" but more keep coming back up.
Back when I worked at the cable company (I joked that I was a minion of Satan, but I was only doing it for the perks) my favorite channels were Discovery networks, The History Channel (that was before it became the Hitler channel) and SciFi. Now I get most of my tubage via YT or NetFlix. Once in a while I might watch something while I'm at someone else's place, but that's rare.
Television is like a steak: a medium rarely well done. I saw a sandwich shop offer a special, "The Basic Cable Sub: All the stuff you Don't want."
I heard that a small cable company had an interesting way of dealing with customers who didn't pay their bill on time, or were consistently behind. They took advantage of the remote reprogramming feature on the cable boxes, and set the deadbeats' boxes to receive nothing but C-SPAN.
Back when I worked at the cable company (I joked that I was a minion of Satan, but I was only doing it for the perks) my favorite channels were Discovery networks, The History Channel (that was before it became the Hitler channel) and SciFi. Now I get most of my tubage via YT or NetFlix. Once in a while I might watch something while I'm at someone else's place, but that's rare.
Television is like a steak: a medium rarely well done. I saw a sandwich shop offer a special, "The Basic Cable Sub: All the stuff you Don't want."
I heard that a small cable company had an interesting way of dealing with customers who didn't pay their bill on time, or were consistently behind. They took advantage of the remote reprogramming feature on the cable boxes, and set the deadbeats' boxes to receive nothing but C-SPAN.
One of many reasons I love the internet is that it has such potential to destroy the huge power structures big media companies have set up. The music industry, the film industry and the cable companies have set up systems favorable to themselves and convinced most of us that this is the only way things can be. But with the internet, if you want it, you can get it, when you want it, exactly the way you want it.
>I heard that a small cable company had an interesting way of dealing with customers who didn't pay their bill on time, or were consistently behind. They took advantage of the remote reprogramming feature on the cable boxes, and set the deadbeats' boxes to receive nothing but C-SPAN.
LOL!! That is quite ingenious. :)
>I heard that a small cable company had an interesting way of dealing with customers who didn't pay their bill on time, or were consistently behind. They took advantage of the remote reprogramming feature on the cable boxes, and set the deadbeats' boxes to receive nothing but C-SPAN.
LOL!! That is quite ingenious. :)
>>This is waaaaaay too fucking huge so I'mma try to cut it down as much as I can.
I agree, and to be truthfull I realy MISSED talking to you like this. it's damn near impossible to find an intalectual human being capable of sustaining a cival debate on extreamly controverstial issues without it devolveing into a bloody eyed argument let alone conduct it on such a herculean level.
>I think you Misunderstood I never instended to imply interracial or gay marriage was Immoral, it's just wrong from a religious stand point, a standpoint I do not share.
>>Oh, I wasn't implying you were! I was just saying that I noticed you were objecting from a moral standpoint, but the opponents to those issues are arguing from personal morals too. Most of human morality is similar, but no two people will have exactly the same morals on every issue. That's why I think that we can't base our laws solely on morality. It has to be backed up by evidence. It can't be enough to say, "This should be illegal because it's wrong", there has to be evidence showing WHY it's wrong.
I cannot agree more with you here. The only reason I leved an objection at all was that when your ruleing the world you have to ere on the side of cuation. we cant allways determin why something is wrong though for the sake of order and peace keeping Things that fall into that grey area should be heavaly analized befor being considereed for legalization, or just disallowed as polightly as possible becouse while concent is liberating and absolutly fantastic people, I hate to say it, often need to be protected from other people as well as themselves. I share you out look here but were I in your hipthetical world leader shoes I would still disallow serten acts based on morality, to ere on the side of cuation. Not becouse I dislike it personaly but becouse I dont want to take the Risk that it might prove to be well, evil. If a Hyper liberal socity prospers and does extreamly well then we could allow more and more freedoms then even befor. think of it like Adjusting fish to new water tempratures slowly instead of dumping them in all at once.
>if somebodys into the concentual rape and murder of young women, it's still wrong even though some people like to Role play girls online and participate in that. Concentual or not it's violant and murderous and cultavateing urges like thats not healthy. Fantasy is a safe outlet, reality is to far. thats all Im saying here.
>>I personally agree. However,how do we decide where that line is: what it is okay to act out and what isn't? You say that it's not right to enjoy watching someone die, even if the victim is consenting. And I totally understand why you feel that way.
But my position is that society causes more harm by trying to repress urges than by allowing them. It's been shown over and over: when the government tries to regulate human nature, it always fails and causes more harm in the long run. Prohibition is a good example and he 'war on drugs' is a better one. There's something like 300% more drug users now than when the war on drugs was started. The more strongly you try to stop people from doing something, the more interested they will become in it.
Now, I'm not saying everything should be legal. Just that we need to choose carefully what things we actually need to make laws against. It's good to have a law against murder, even though most human beings know murder is wrong. But like Dug Stanhope said; why have laws against prostitution, gambling and drugs when those activities carry their own punishment? He's got a good point there.
In the case of cannibalism/necrophilia, I don't think this really happens often enough that it'll make a huge difference, but I do think the law won't stop someone who's determined to do it. All the laws we have against pedophilia doesn't stop people from being pedophiles. If your fetish is strong enough, a law will not change your sexual orientation. So instead of making you a criminal, we should find ways for people with extreme fetishes to get their rocks off without hurting anyone.
Maybe you're right and we shouldn't allow consensual murder. I'm not sure. But I was inspired by the case of Armin Miewes and Bernd Jürgen Brandes. These two German guys agreed to meet up and for Miews to eat Brandes. From everything I've heard, it was fully consentual and they had a grand time, even cutting off Brandes' penis and eating it together. So, after Miewes ate his friend up, he got arrested and put in jail. I asked myself, 'What purpose does that serve?' It won't bring Brandes back, so it seems like it was just punishment for punishment's sake. Thinking about this case really made me ask myself, "Did this guy hurt anyone?" and evin if you argue that he should be in jail because he might eat someone else nonconsensually, that suggests that it should be okay to put people in jail if we think they MIGHT commit a crime. And that makes me really uncomfortable.
In general, I'd rather have far too much freedom than not enough. I don't think that a law can really stop human behavior. Most of the time, the law is just there to decide punishment. I don't think there would be much difference in the number of cannibals and necrophiles if those activities were legal. I'm just more uncomfortable with the idea of someone going to jail for an act that both participants enjoyed, and the idea of people getting their rocks off to stuff I don't like. Prison should be for people who are a true danger to society.
You make some fantastic points here Alex. to cut right to the chase and not leave another wall of text behind me, I'll simply state that it's very likely that the canible guy might have been takeing advantage of an illness the other man had. I could be wrong but I say this becouse the activity was pointless and served no function other then self distructive ones. I place myself in danger of being labeld a hipocrit here but some things, like eating your own penis, are so incredably disturbing it's hard not to to assume, in most cases correctly, that the indavidual is more then a few screws loose. However, you are correct if this truly was concentual then he diddent hurt anybody and if the "victum" was of completly sound mind it realy was less horrific then some might make it out to be. that being said, they still grossly violated the laws of there nation and it's only to be expected they paid the price. Absolute freedom is dangerous, wich is why no government allows it. I dont nessasaraly agree with that but if hre wanted to eat the guy so bad Im am sorry it turned out that way for him. I ahve to wonder exactly what was going on in both there heads though. Even totaly concentual it doesent feel right some how. Shit...I left a text block...
>if it's something that would require concent to do becouse it's on the edge or over it of what sanity would dictate is normal it should be very carefully considered befor legalizeing, so you know you can regulate and maintain a safe level of control over it so people are not hurt.
>>I'm not sure it's the government's place to regulate human behavior. I've seen enough evidence to believe that, left on their own, human beings are pretty good at policing themselves. I think that the government that concerns itself with enforcement and control is going to cause more misery than it prevents. I think that if you treat citzens like criminals, they are going to act like criminals. If you treat them like they're worthy of freedom and responsibility, they'll usually act that way. I agree: "The government that governs least, governs best."
I dont think the government should take a terribly active role in that kind of regulation no, but humanity is stupid and dangerous even more so in groups. If they dont exersize some level of restriction you cant have order. Finding a balance between sacraficeing liberty and freedom for safty and stability is hard and I dont envy any man who trys to fix the things that are wrong with this nation. it will not be easy, if possible at all. Of all the nations on earth though the UIS has done a fairly decent job i would say.
>I dont like the idea of haveing people registure for anything as it reeks of thought control but I would rather know Martin and Lisa are Registered, checked out and legal to beat the tar out of each other befor haveing angry rape sex then half ass it with a video type. =p
>>Now that is where I think we can agree!! They make people go through a lot of waiting and tests to get gender reassignment surgery, so I don't see how this would be much different. If someone is really that dead set on having someone eat them or beat them, they ought to be willing to go through a pile of paperwork and a few psychiatric tests first. That'll also weed out the people who really only want to do it in fantasy.
But yeah, if someone is sane and completely devoted to dying or getting mutilated in some way, nothing is likely to stop them. So this would be a good way to make sure they know what they're getting into, plus the police would know they weren't attacked or something.
the concept still disturbs me but your absolutely right, there going to go for it anyway, this protects everybody else and covers allot of nasty holes people who are not serious could slip through.
>some things like geting off to sliting a girls throught even concentualy, are just not right. I can honestly say thats unhealthy you should never derive pleasure from being victomized or drawing blood or ending life. Concentualy or otherwise. thats something I cannot relent on, Life is two importent.
>>I think this is the exact point where we diverge. I don't think that this is always a sign of mental illness. It can be. but from everything I've learned about fetishes, I'm certain that there are no inherently harmful or evil ones. It's what the person gets out of it. To be totally honest, I think I'd be very interested to see a snuff film with a completely willing 'victim'. Because, frankly, I'm very scared of death. And I think it would be fascinating and beautiful to see someone who was completely unafraid of it, and who would go into death peaceful and happy. I'd like reassurance that this thing that's going to happen to every single one of us someday, can be a positive thing if you choose for it to be.
Or maybe they're just fascinated with anatomy and want to take a person apart to see how they work. (In that case, I'd reccomend that guy getting a job as a coroner.)
Life is important, yes. But death is also inevitable. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to confront it and understand it, or choosing when you're ready to die. And if someone wants to share that moment with you, one of the most important moments of your life, why not?
there are plunty of fetishes that require a unwilling victum, these are Inrefutably evil. I dont like absolutes but this is one of them. I allso, try as I might, cannot See any posative force behind gaining pleasure from the suffering torture or death of another creature human or otherwise. I can agree that if you realy want to die it's not so wrong to be able to pick your death and when just violent acts of sadition that would be hanious and evil if not for a concentual victum cant seem to sit well with me. I can understand in some, bizaar way, why a person might want to be victumized but sombody who gains pleasure from couseing death ient healthy. A lack of remorse or the gaining of pleasure from murder means you have lost something very importent, a large peice of your humanity. Or perhaps im simply to compassionate.
>I have dificulty finding a counter argument to this statement so I'll do the best I can and state that obsession is unhealthy and thats a proven fact, I dont not personaly belive situations that would incurage dangerous levels of obsession resulting in a persons death should be allowed.
>>Okay, now that is a very good argument and one I can't disagree with. The human mind is dangerously prone to obsession, and obsession is dangerous. So, I think the best idea is to compromise with the idea you had about testing and registration. If someone wants to something dangerous for their kink, we have some talk to them to determine if they're going into this because they genuinely want to, or because they're crazy.
Or maybe just misguided as to what it'll be like. I'd have no problem with these people being told that fantasy is usually FAR more enjoyable than reality.
On the other hand, I remember reading a rather touching story from a woman who has a strong desire to lose both her legs. She says it's not because she hates herself, or even a fetish. She just sees herself in her mind as not having legs. Her body doesn't match her image of herself and it's frustrating. I think someone like that should be allowed to get the surgery she wants to make herself feel, ironically enough, whole.
hmmm....thats weird but I agree with it, one whould be allowed to control ones own image. I dont agree with her mutalateing herself but as long as she doesent want me to do the job it's not so bad. Not my place to say otherwise.
>If you have some, horrific terminal illness and killing you now for your Liver will save your child or cousin your brother, thats allot different, thats a willing sacrafice. Not a sences throw away of your life becouse you were sad, or wanted to star in a snuff film.
>>I'll also agree there: People wouldn't be allowed to consent to suicide if it was determined they weree suffering from depression. I know myself that depression is like a man in your head telling you nothing but lies.
I can also agree here.
>If the idea of haveing your guts riped out on camera turns you on and makes you happy, perhaps we should stop and ask ourselves why? and is there another way that doesent involve death or permanent damage?
>>I've heard there's a hospital in some Scandinavian country that caters exclusively to surgery fetishists. Maybe some of these folks could go there, have their tummies opened, play with their insides a while, and that'd be enough for them. ;)
Gives me the shivers, but it's far better then death, so more power two um.
>It's still a waste, why not love this person in a lasting way instead of ending there life?
>>I actually agree with you there. Have you read Love Me Till My Heart Stops? It's about exactly this scenario, and early on I knew that it could not possibly end with him killing her. Even though their entire relationship was leading up to it, it still couldn't happen.
It's not a concept thats touched on often but most of this snuffy stuff all been done befor for years. Hell even jack the Ripper was a Snuff fan though a total sick bastard to boot. Myabe it's mental illness but if true love blossumed from it, well, it kinda saved them diddent it.
>Yes thats true but your allso giveing them ammo by suporting there slippery slop argument. IF we legalize this then why not that? and so on. Im not saying we should restrict people, but you cant just allow them to do anything they damn well please ether thats not law it's anarchy.
>>Right; that's why we also show them where the slippery slope stops. It stops as cruelty; anything that causes nonconsensual harm. We establish a simple but firm morality: if it hurts, it's bad, if it helps, it's good. We keep to that and we establish that the people whose opinions matter most in determining what does and doesn't cause harm, are the people directly involved.
A lot of this comes down to the fact that I HATE the idea that two people can be doing something together that they enjoy, and the government can step in and say, "We know better than you; you're not really enjoying that."
Agreed about the enjoyment but some pleasures are so self destructive they need to be heavily regulated as mentioned by both of us above.
>I have been looking at sexuality for a long time and allot of things that are turned into a fetish have allmost nothing to do with sex. this is becouse the human mind is capable of forming obsessions or cunnections to objects and concepts as well as people.
Very true.
>You argue I have no right to say concentual murder is wrong? why not take it one step ferther. why not argue that nonconcentual murder can be an expression of true art, in the game of life and death between killer and victum and that there can be no more beatutiful expression of life, nor any greater value be placed on it, then that of the value the killer puts on that life befor takeing it away. Is that wrong? Fuck yes it's wrong, but in the mind of the killer it's justifyed.
>>That's a very good argument. I'd still say though that in my scenario, both parties agree to it, and in the other, only one does. So at the very least, can we agree that one is at least a degree more moral than the other?
Isent logic funny like that? =p were both right about it. This is why Philosophers have yet to figure out the realy importent stuff, like were my damn socks are going.
>>A TV station that shows real life snuf films considerably cheapens the value of life. In adition what does it say about a person who enjoys watching men die? COncenting or not, your enjoying slaughter.
>>Right now, if you really wanna see someone die, it doesn't matter that it's not on TV; you can go to rotten.com or ogrish.com or other sites like that and see plenty of murder. Like I've said, I don't think a law will stop someone from wanting to see ghoulish things. But I think that, the more taboo we make it, the more interesting it will become. The harder we make it to see things like this, the harder they'll try.
I don't know for sure that it'll work, but maybe it'd be better if our attitude was just, "Here. You want it? Take it and get outta here." Give them an outlet. Probably a lot of them will be like, "This is it? Geez, I expected more." I've only seen a few videos of actual death (Not that I was intentionally looking!) but I know for sure that Hollywood deaths ALWAYS look better.
BTW, there seems to be some validity to the idea that the rise in population of the internet correlates to a decrease in rapes. I'm not 100% sure yet, but if it's true I think it makes a lot of sense.
You might have something here...I keep forgiting that humanity can be pretty freaking creepy. Hell theres a TV show called 100 ways to die were they show you insanly stupid or silly deaths for entertainment. I cant watch the show. I veiwed a single episode and then kinda died a little inside when I realized amarica was loveing this dreck. If giveing it to them cures them of there morbid curiosity, fuck man then do it.
>the point I was trying to make here was that some adults are allmost to stupid to deserve the right to concent to something odd or dangerous a child should never have that right unless it can be, irefutably proven they can handle that right. IN that event, if we treat children like adults, we have to try them like adults as well.
>>That's an EXCELLENT point. I think that, yes, if we give kids more rights, they should come with more responsibility. If a minor passes the aptitude tests and we allow him to drive, we should also say, "Because you're aware of the risks, if you do cause an accident, you'll be tried as an adult."
Most of the time, I don't think kids should be tried as adults. But I think there has to be something better than either locking them up for life, or just sending them to juvie for a few years.
Yes, though on the issue of children...it's just to touchy to meny what iffs to meny vaeriables I think that if it can be proven something like sex can be done concentualy and without harm of any sort it could be legal but the heavy stuff like death related things should be baned. even if the child is legaly granted more rights then normal, untill such as time as they have had a chance to gain enough life experiance, these indaviduals are still growing and developing. what they mnight want to do now, mgiht not be what they want to do later. I think perhaps 30+ would be a good time to choose to die or be eaten. by that time your aproching middle age and have plunty of world experiance. think of it as a higher then normal drinking age.
>You cannot prove or disprove there is a god, and all a cherch is is a gathering place to wership that god.
>>But what can be proved is the effect that early religious brainwashing has on the child's later ability to reason and think critically. What if a well-documented scientific study could prove that church indoctrination is as damaging to a child's learning process as lead poisoning?
this is tricky. i agree with you, religion is so often a poison but it can be good. faith can do allot. I think allowing open wership in groups is fine but temper it by makeing it mandatory parents expose there children to BOTH fact and religious belifes, explain both and allow the child to short things out as time goes on instead of only showing them the faith side and later haveing a brainwashed advocate of creationisum.
>Regulate the cherches involvement in The affiars of socity government and education not the cherchs themselves.
>>What about a compomise: Churches can choose to either pay taxes like any other business, or if they don't want to, then my government is allowed to regulate them any way I see fit.
that could work but a cherch has to be doeing bussness to be a bussness. they acept donations and do charity work.
>I seriously doubt that bush called up the camanding officers in charge of thouse black actions and requested they be done.
>>Actually, he did. There's quite a lot of proof that he intended to start the Iraq war even before 9/11 happened. He always planned to go to war with Saddam. No one is more responsible than him.
that might be true but Saddam was a bastard and a truly evil man. we cought him on several ocations trying to stock pile weapons some of them biologicel in nature. if given the chance I would have put a bullit in him myself and delt with the guilt of killing a man later. He murdered his own people, even his own family members. I cant condone any illoegal actions taken by amarican soilders dering these conflicts but Saddams take down I agree with.
>>Really? I wasn't aware you had that right. Please show me where you are guaranteed the right to live in a world free of necrophilia.
>in your proposed world order, it would be aceptable and while it would bug me if sombody I knew and loved wanted that after death so long as you proved the concent I would be in no position to argue I supose.
And that's all I was trying to say. I meant that, nobody has the right to know that nowhere in the world are people doing things that they don't approve of. If it directly concerns you, then yes, you do have a right to say no. But if some dude in Hoboken wants his boyfriend to fuck him in the ass after he dies, then I don't think either of us has any right to say no to it, because we're not involved.
>Im targiting darker stuff here then same sex relations but i have mentioned this before.
>>Right; and I was just warning you that you were using the same tactics that people had also used against homosexuality. That doesn't mean you're wrong, just that you need stronger tactics. If an argument can be used to support good or evil things interchangably, then maybe it's not a solid argument.
I conceed this point to you sir. :3
>I feel like im defending my veiw points on the value of human life and I shouldent have to. SOme times, something can be concentual and still be wrong, im sorry but I cannot relent on that.
>>Okay, I accept that.
I guess it boils down to this; in my ideal world, I will give you the gift of never being forced to do what you don't want to do (unless it's for a valid reason) but the price tag for this gift is that you have to put up with the weird shit other people want to do, and you're not allowed to try to force them to stop (unless it's for a valid reason).
I am willing to accept thouse terms.
>And that is one right I would die to let you keep. Objection is our greatist weapon and defense, it helps us find falt in our own opinions and in the opinions of others as well as gives birth to healthy debate.
>>Beautifully said!! :)
thank you but im sure some of our founding fathers said the same thing in some way or another. Im sure the words are origenal but the concept is loveingly plagerized and i Know our founding fathers would be happy to donate it.
>true enough but some ferther regulation should be allowed. concentual or not a small child shouldent be exposed to the concept of a person dieing for pleasure for example. if they choice at a alter time to participate in that thats fine but seeing it in erly child hood might couse issues, if there to young to understand they might not get why pushing there sister down the stares was such a bad thing. I am a strong advocate of parental acountability but even the best parent cannot be watching everything there child does or sees all the time.
>>Fair enough. Actually, a really good idea would be to give people the ability to buy cable channels ala carte. That way, people who like extreme stuff can buy their channels, and parents can pass on those.
yes absolutly and if they aprents allow there children to veiw extreamly and grossly inaproprate materal then they are the ones acountable.
>I agree completly, allow the people subscribeing to the TV to place blocks on things they dont want to see or dont want there kids to see.
>>Sure. Like, the parents could purchase a more adult channel, but have it set up so that channel can only be seen once they enter a password.
again agreed.
>meny relgions actualy call for there follows to gather together in wership. It isent right for you to interfear in nonviolent religious practices. Hell I would like it all outlawed but that wouldent be just ether.
>>If I wanted to be cheap, I could point out that, somewhere in Mark, Jesus unambiguously tells Christians to not pray in public like a bunch of frauds, but to go home and pray in a quiet, secluded area. ;)
thats true but not for all relgious groups. you have estabilished that christains dont listen to there own god =p But we kinda allready knew that. Im giveing you brownie points anyway.
>But you cant if you want to change things for the better. I can shoot you in the foot but that doesent mean you should shoot me in the foot, that just lowers you to my level. Teach the ignorent.
>>Some ignorant people refuse to be taught. I think that my phone survey would be a good way to weed out the most hardcore bigots. People who voted against gay marriage but have some doubts might not admit to it later. Other people who are against gay marriage might not have felt it was right to vote against it. But other people who are proud to say they did are admitting that they cast their vote to deny a basic right to other human beings based on nothing but bigotry. I don't think that kind of ignorance can be unlearned, at least not without a punishment designed to teach empathy. I'd certainly be willing to give these people back their marriage rights if they'd be willing to humble themselves and accept gay people getting married too.
fair enough but I still belvie the very best way to counter idiots is to make sure you have more smart people around. they out number the fools and there for cancel out there votes. Education is the only weapon ageinst stupidity. Then again. calm reason, pateints and forgiveness are the only slaves that work on the burns idocy can couse.
>thats a good way to put it but think of it this way. our politicle structure has been and currently is, controlled by two major politicle partys that are both full of crap. we are fed, day in, day out, a stream of propaganda and bull shit designed to sway our votes. I blame the fucked up systum not the common man thats been wheened on soul milk. Educate and put more democratic responsability into the hands of the people who actualy want a say in how the nation is run, encurage responsable choices. If your child wants to touch the stove so damn badly, then teach them how to cook.
That's a good idea. But still, I'm going to have to defend my Bush phone survey. I've heard it said a lot of times that if you want real change, you have to wait until the old generation dies off and the younger generation, who will be more receptive to change, takes power. I don't think we have that kind of time. Taking people who voted for Bush twice will remove a big chunk of the most ignorant and hate-driven voters from the pool. It's a lot like when I use my block list here on FA. If someone's name goes in it, it's not because they disagreed with me, but because they were horribly rude. I don't feel bad about silencing that person. To this date, I have only ever removed one person from my block list because a later conversation proved they could be reasonable and respectful. That's one person out of a hundred or so. None of those other people have ever given me reason to believe they have anything to say that I need to hear.
>Why ever for? no systum can be perfect, perfection is a pretty little lie bad men tell to stupid people to make them walk into hell. A good systum works well dispite it's flaws, and good people and governments try to work around or fix the flaws when they can.
>>Okay, that makes much more sense now. I agree that perfection is impossible and chasing it is foolish. I thought you were arguing something totally different. <shrug>
thats perfectly cool, questions and query help us avoid misunderstandings. I wish more often things could be so easaly explained ferther or redefined. it might end allot of stupid fights befor they start.
DAMN that was stimulateing! I actualy was looking forword to that all day. thank you Alex for being such an fantastic intellectual companion and opponent, truly you are a worthly ally and adversary in the arena of logic, and a skilled master with the weapons of words and reason.
>DAMN that was stimulateing! I actualy was looking forword to that all day. thank you Alex for being such an fantastic intellectual companion and opponent, truly you are a worthly ally and adversary in the arena of logic, and a skilled master with the weapons of words and reason.
I've been over this and can't really think of any more to add, but I did wanna thank you sincerely for that last bit and say 'ditto'. It was a damn good debate. I think we went about as far as we could with it, finding out at what points it came down to personal morals and where we wouldn't budge at. But it's always nice when that can happen at all, where I'm talking to someone who's not only willing to consider my viewpoint and change their own, but gives me enough good arguments to make me change mine.
I've been over this and can't really think of any more to add, but I did wanna thank you sincerely for that last bit and say 'ditto'. It was a damn good debate. I think we went about as far as we could with it, finding out at what points it came down to personal morals and where we wouldn't budge at. But it's always nice when that can happen at all, where I'm talking to someone who's not only willing to consider my viewpoint and change their own, but gives me enough good arguments to make me change mine.
OH yes. It's to bad more poeple dont just talk seriously. If you and I each owned half the world, im pretty sure we would have a long lasting record of Little to no war at all. In fact were both willing to look at things from the others perspective and compromise were we can. If such diplomacy was allways so easy war would be obsolete.
> but I allso have a right to live in a world were people dont
End that sentence any way you like and you will still be wrong. The exact same wrong as the religious wackos who say "I have a right to live in a world without TEH HOMOZ marrying each other." Or (and I'm uncertain if this counts as argumentum ad hitlerum or not) similar to how the Nazis felt they had the right to live in a world they alone ruled.
End that sentence any way you like and you will still be wrong. The exact same wrong as the religious wackos who say "I have a right to live in a world without TEH HOMOZ marrying each other." Or (and I'm uncertain if this counts as argumentum ad hitlerum or not) similar to how the Nazis felt they had the right to live in a world they alone ruled.
You know, I ain't even halfway through this yet and I already love it. *cackles*
*Bows deeply* I respect you all the more for your flexible approach to the notion of "age restrictions." Recalls the discussion we had before.
This has received a ridiculous amount of comment-activity. Sheesh. I wanna say more, but I think I should wait until after dinner before I dig in. <3
*Bows deeply* I respect you all the more for your flexible approach to the notion of "age restrictions." Recalls the discussion we had before.
This has received a ridiculous amount of comment-activity. Sheesh. I wanna say more, but I think I should wait until after dinner before I dig in. <3
I actually, honestly, truly looked for something I could disagree about, but nothing is really there. Some of these ideas might be hard to implement, and god knows the public would scream their collective uneducated heads off...
If I was going to nitpick, I'd actually say that some of the restrictions of "porn" featuring "young subjects" might actually be a little over the top. In a culture where it was acceptable to be part of the production of such media, you'd expect kids to be aware that if they were abused or harmed during it, they could complain and swift retributive action taken. After all, these "young subjects" would have taken tests and been adequately educated on the matter.
So you wouldn't necessarily need the parents on set, nor would penetrative sex need to be totally banned.
>*It will be legal to slap, once, anyone who misuses an apostrophe.
I assume you mean once per hour, per offense?
Not a nitpick:
>Citizens may own any weapon or gear that police officers carry.
I think I officially love you now.
If I was going to nitpick, I'd actually say that some of the restrictions of "porn" featuring "young subjects" might actually be a little over the top. In a culture where it was acceptable to be part of the production of such media, you'd expect kids to be aware that if they were abused or harmed during it, they could complain and swift retributive action taken. After all, these "young subjects" would have taken tests and been adequately educated on the matter.
So you wouldn't necessarily need the parents on set, nor would penetrative sex need to be totally banned.
>*It will be legal to slap, once, anyone who misuses an apostrophe.
I assume you mean once per hour, per offense?
Not a nitpick:
>Citizens may own any weapon or gear that police officers carry.
I think I officially love you now.
>I respect you all the more for your flexible approach to the notion of "age restrictions." Recalls the discussion we had before.
Thanks. It just seems retarded to have rigid laws about something that's different for every single person.
>I actually, honestly, truly looked for something I could disagree about, but nothing is really there. Some of these ideas might be hard to implement, and god knows the public would scream their collective uneducated heads off...
I was thinking that maybe I have a huge army of robot soldiers to enforce my directives (like Gort from The Day The Earth Stood Still), either that or super-sexy genetically-engineered vixen troops. :)
>In a culture where it was acceptable to be part of the production of such media, you'd expect kids to be aware that if they were abused or harmed during it, they could complain and swift retributive action taken. After all, these "young subjects" would have taken tests and been adequately educated on the matter.
So you wouldn't necessarily need the parents on set, nor would penetrative sex need to be totally banned.
You just answered your own question: "In a culture where it was acceptable" It's NOT acceptable in our culture yet. So we'd need those provisions now until the culture cools on the idea. I should have made it clear, but it can be assumed that every single one of my ideas will only be enforced as long as they are needed and no longer.
>I assume you mean once per hour, per offense?
But of course. ;)
>>Citizens may own any weapon or gear that police officers carry.
>I think I officially love you now.
Hee hee. Thanks. If the police are doing their job right and not making the citizens terrified of them, then this shouldn't be a problem (except for the occasional nutball). People seem to forget that the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to make damn sure citizens can fight back if a police-state rises up to take away their freedoms.
Thanks. It just seems retarded to have rigid laws about something that's different for every single person.
>I actually, honestly, truly looked for something I could disagree about, but nothing is really there. Some of these ideas might be hard to implement, and god knows the public would scream their collective uneducated heads off...
I was thinking that maybe I have a huge army of robot soldiers to enforce my directives (like Gort from The Day The Earth Stood Still), either that or super-sexy genetically-engineered vixen troops. :)
>In a culture where it was acceptable to be part of the production of such media, you'd expect kids to be aware that if they were abused or harmed during it, they could complain and swift retributive action taken. After all, these "young subjects" would have taken tests and been adequately educated on the matter.
So you wouldn't necessarily need the parents on set, nor would penetrative sex need to be totally banned.
You just answered your own question: "In a culture where it was acceptable" It's NOT acceptable in our culture yet. So we'd need those provisions now until the culture cools on the idea. I should have made it clear, but it can be assumed that every single one of my ideas will only be enforced as long as they are needed and no longer.
>I assume you mean once per hour, per offense?
But of course. ;)
>>Citizens may own any weapon or gear that police officers carry.
>I think I officially love you now.
Hee hee. Thanks. If the police are doing their job right and not making the citizens terrified of them, then this shouldn't be a problem (except for the occasional nutball). People seem to forget that the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to make damn sure citizens can fight back if a police-state rises up to take away their freedoms.
>I was thinking that maybe I have a huge army of robot soldiers to enforce my directives (like Gort from The Day The Earth Stood Still), either that or super-sexy genetically-engineered vixen troops. :)
I'm for the second idea. Maybe they can do some other types of work on the sidelines. *cough*
>You just answered your own question: "In a culture where it was acceptable" It's NOT acceptable in our culture yet. So we'd need those provisions now until the culture cools on the idea. I should have made it clear, but it can be assumed that every single one of my ideas will only be enforced as long as they are needed and no longer.
Ahhh, I getcha. Fair enough! So you'd be a dictator that rules with an iron fist... but at least you were considerate enough to let everyone get used to the idea first. *giggle!*
>People seem to forget that the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to make damn sure citizens can fight back if a police-state rises up to take away their freedoms.
Yeah that seals the deal. I love you. XD
The amount of fuckwits I've endured that skew or misinterpret the 2nd amendment has just frayed my patience into nonexistence. Urgh. Then again, I never had much patience in the first place. *cough*
I'm for the second idea. Maybe they can do some other types of work on the sidelines. *cough*
>You just answered your own question: "In a culture where it was acceptable" It's NOT acceptable in our culture yet. So we'd need those provisions now until the culture cools on the idea. I should have made it clear, but it can be assumed that every single one of my ideas will only be enforced as long as they are needed and no longer.
Ahhh, I getcha. Fair enough! So you'd be a dictator that rules with an iron fist... but at least you were considerate enough to let everyone get used to the idea first. *giggle!*
>People seem to forget that the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to make damn sure citizens can fight back if a police-state rises up to take away their freedoms.
Yeah that seals the deal. I love you. XD
The amount of fuckwits I've endured that skew or misinterpret the 2nd amendment has just frayed my patience into nonexistence. Urgh. Then again, I never had much patience in the first place. *cough*
>I'm for the second idea. Maybe they can do some other types of work on the sidelines. *cough*
Other work? You mean of the sexy variety? I think that can be arranged... ;)
>Ahhh, I getcha. Fair enough! So you'd be a dictator that rules with an iron fist... but at least you were considerate enough to let everyone get used to the idea first. *giggle!*
Pretty much! :3
>The amount of fuckwits I've endured that skew or misinterpret the 2nd amendment has just frayed my patience into nonexistence. Urgh. Then again, I never had much patience in the first place. *cough*
Virtually every gun-lover I have ever talked to has been very passionate about government and the constitution and the law ...but only as they relate to gun. They're collectors, nothing more. Yet they feel a bizarre need to justify their hobby by clouding it with all this yakking about how it's for 'freedom'. I collect stuffed animals because I like 'em, and I don't feel any need to pretend it's for a greater good.
Other work? You mean of the sexy variety? I think that can be arranged... ;)
>Ahhh, I getcha. Fair enough! So you'd be a dictator that rules with an iron fist... but at least you were considerate enough to let everyone get used to the idea first. *giggle!*
Pretty much! :3
>The amount of fuckwits I've endured that skew or misinterpret the 2nd amendment has just frayed my patience into nonexistence. Urgh. Then again, I never had much patience in the first place. *cough*
Virtually every gun-lover I have ever talked to has been very passionate about government and the constitution and the law ...but only as they relate to gun. They're collectors, nothing more. Yet they feel a bizarre need to justify their hobby by clouding it with all this yakking about how it's for 'freedom'. I collect stuffed animals because I like 'em, and I don't feel any need to pretend it's for a greater good.
I already put that in there!
...
Okay, that's bizarre. I distinctly remember adding that, but when I checked it wasn't there. Weird.
Anyway, it's in there now: Massive amounts of money will also be used for the development of genetically-modified food, stem cell research, alternative energy sources and other worthy scientific endeavors. This will naturally include research into turning humans into real-life furries.
...
Okay, that's bizarre. I distinctly remember adding that, but when I checked it wasn't there. Weird.
Anyway, it's in there now: Massive amounts of money will also be used for the development of genetically-modified food, stem cell research, alternative energy sources and other worthy scientific endeavors. This will naturally include research into turning humans into real-life furries.
Wow. Some of those ideas I have toyed with myself. Like making a test before you can be an "adult" ^^ (I bet we'd see a lot of people failing the test till their are of old age ^^)
And the Rescue Rangers DVD ^^. Hehe I'd even go further and force them to make (good) new shows of those lovely cartoons (Freakazoid, Animaniacs, Rescue Rangers, etc...)
And the Rescue Rangers DVD ^^. Hehe I'd even go further and force them to make (good) new shows of those lovely cartoons (Freakazoid, Animaniacs, Rescue Rangers, etc...)
Amendments:
==========
>>>While owning a fur garment or pelt will not be illegal, American stores will not be allowed to sell fur. Fur stores will be shut down and owners will face steep fines for profiting off animal cruelty. Fur farms will also be shut down. The animals in these farms will be given medical treatment and released over a wide enough area to ensure there will be no natural habitat imbalance. Employees and owners of fur farms will be jailed, with sentences determined by number of animals caged and killed. Most will face life imprisonment.
...unless a worker can prove that he/she had no other logical alternative way to earn a salary.
---
An "Apostrophe Licence" will be required.
>>>It will be legal to slap, once, anyone who misuses an apostrophe.
...unless they have not reached a certain point in education. In order for students to pass this part of school and earn their Apostrophe Licence, they must pass an grammar exam, much like a driver's licence test, with at least 90% correct.
---
>>>I will personally show up at the homes of various internet trolls and do unspeakably inhuman things to them.
...on video.
==========
>>>While owning a fur garment or pelt will not be illegal, American stores will not be allowed to sell fur. Fur stores will be shut down and owners will face steep fines for profiting off animal cruelty. Fur farms will also be shut down. The animals in these farms will be given medical treatment and released over a wide enough area to ensure there will be no natural habitat imbalance. Employees and owners of fur farms will be jailed, with sentences determined by number of animals caged and killed. Most will face life imprisonment.
...unless a worker can prove that he/she had no other logical alternative way to earn a salary.
---
An "Apostrophe Licence" will be required.
>>>It will be legal to slap, once, anyone who misuses an apostrophe.
...unless they have not reached a certain point in education. In order for students to pass this part of school and earn their Apostrophe Licence, they must pass an grammar exam, much like a driver's licence test, with at least 90% correct.
---
>>>I will personally show up at the homes of various internet trolls and do unspeakably inhuman things to them.
...on video.
>...unless a worker can prove that he/she had no other logical alternative way to earn a salary.
There's always an alternative. Heck, you could suck a bunch of dick for cash.
>...unless they have not reached a certain point in education. In order for students to pass this part of school and earn their Apostrophe Licence, they must pass an grammar exam, much like a driver's licence test, with at least 90% correct.
Actually, there should be a provision that this rule only goes into effect once someone reaches high school. Dammit, toddlers don't know apostrophes yet!!
>...on video.
>--The victim of the "Lingual Attack" may legally slap the offender once, and say, "The 'U' adds flair!"
Hee hee. Possibly. I admit, I much prefer the spelling of 'grey' to 'gray'. Dunno why!
There's always an alternative. Heck, you could suck a bunch of dick for cash.
>...unless they have not reached a certain point in education. In order for students to pass this part of school and earn their Apostrophe Licence, they must pass an grammar exam, much like a driver's licence test, with at least 90% correct.
Actually, there should be a provision that this rule only goes into effect once someone reaches high school. Dammit, toddlers don't know apostrophes yet!!
>...on video.
>--The victim of the "Lingual Attack" may legally slap the offender once, and say, "The 'U' adds flair!"
Hee hee. Possibly. I admit, I much prefer the spelling of 'grey' to 'gray'. Dunno why!
>I love how some of them are quite serious, while others (especially the ending) are petty and unimportant. You'd make an awesome dictator.
Well, I had to abuse my power at least a little bit! :3
>Also: Voting rights will be revoked for Bush voters, yet you are the emperor. How's that work?
Well, I don't plan to be emperor forever. I imagine it'd be pretty tiring. Once things seem to be working smoothly, America can have its government back. But my army of laser robots will continue to make sure my decrees are carried out. ;)
Well, I had to abuse my power at least a little bit! :3
>Also: Voting rights will be revoked for Bush voters, yet you are the emperor. How's that work?
Well, I don't plan to be emperor forever. I imagine it'd be pretty tiring. Once things seem to be working smoothly, America can have its government back. But my army of laser robots will continue to make sure my decrees are carried out. ;)
You're not a dick; you're just on your period.
OW! OKAY! OW! I ADMIT IT! BAD PUN! OW! BAD PUN! OW! OW!
-- .- -.--
..
--. . -
.-
- .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - .. --- .-
.--. .-.. . .- ... . ..--..
-- -.--
.- .-.. .--. .... .- -... . -
.... .- ...
-.. --- - ...
.- -. -..
-.. .- ... .... . ...
.-.-.-
... -... ... -...
OW! OKAY! OW! I ADMIT IT! BAD PUN! OW! BAD PUN! OW! OW!
-- .- -.--
..
--. . -
.-
- .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - .. --- .-
.--. .-.. . .- ... . ..--..
-- -.--
.- .-.. .--. .... .- -... . -
.... .- ...
-.. --- - ...
.- -. -..
-.. .- ... .... . ...
.-.-.-
... -... ... -...
Personal Favourites <<< the "U" adds flair, biatch!
===============================================
>>>All police cars and police interrogation rooms must have tamper-proof cameras that clearly record audio and video. Confessions will not be admissible in court unless the video shows there was no coercion. A citizen cannot be charged with resisting arrest unless it is in connection with another crime. Citizens may own any weapon or gear that police officers carry. Any police officer, city attorney, judge, or public official found guilty of a crime will face double the normal punishment for betraying the trust the public has placed in them.
we really do need to have harsher penalties for those who break laws that THEY are paid to protect.
---
>>>Circumcising infants of either gender will be illegal. It will be considered a form of child abuse like any other, with the same legal penalties.
we need this. NAO.
---
*Parents who have been convicted of extreme child abuse will be forcibly and permanently sterilized.
...BEST...CHILD ABUSE...SOLUTION...EVARRRRR!
---
>>>Teachers' salaries will become enormous.
or better yet: teacher's salaries will be switched with that of athletes.
---
>>>Massive amounts of money will also be used for the development of genetically-modified food, stem cell research, alternative energy sources and other worthy scientific endeavors. This will naturally include research into turning humans into real-life furries.
...and scalies and avians, too.
===============================================
>>>All police cars and police interrogation rooms must have tamper-proof cameras that clearly record audio and video. Confessions will not be admissible in court unless the video shows there was no coercion. A citizen cannot be charged with resisting arrest unless it is in connection with another crime. Citizens may own any weapon or gear that police officers carry. Any police officer, city attorney, judge, or public official found guilty of a crime will face double the normal punishment for betraying the trust the public has placed in them.
we really do need to have harsher penalties for those who break laws that THEY are paid to protect.
---
>>>Circumcising infants of either gender will be illegal. It will be considered a form of child abuse like any other, with the same legal penalties.
we need this. NAO.
---
*Parents who have been convicted of extreme child abuse will be forcibly and permanently sterilized.
...BEST...CHILD ABUSE...SOLUTION...EVARRRRR!
---
>>>Teachers' salaries will become enormous.
or better yet: teacher's salaries will be switched with that of athletes.
---
>>>Massive amounts of money will also be used for the development of genetically-modified food, stem cell research, alternative energy sources and other worthy scientific endeavors. This will naturally include research into turning humans into real-life furries.
...and scalies and avians, too.
>we really do need to have harsher penalties for those who break laws that THEY are paid to protect.
Absolutely. Just recently, police all-out raided a house in Detroit looking for a muder suspect, and in the process, they shot a seven year old girl to death. The police claim there was an altercation with her grandmother and the gun went off. The family's lawyer says there is video showing the gun was fired from outside the house and no altercation took place. One thing's for sure: nobody trusts the police to review the case objectively.
>...BEST...CHILD ABUSE...SOLUTION...EVARRRRR!
Thank you! Why is it we accept that there should be reasonable restrictions on all other rights, but as soon as you bring up the possibility of restricting people's reproductive rights, people treat you like you're Hitler?
>or better yet: teacher's salaries will be switched with that of athletes.
THAT REMINDS ME! There was one I'd been meaning to add forever and I totally forgot it until now:
*New rule for professional sports teams: If a team loses six games in row, no one gets paid until they win again.
>...and scalies and avians, too.
Goes without saying, amigo. ;)
Absolutely. Just recently, police all-out raided a house in Detroit looking for a muder suspect, and in the process, they shot a seven year old girl to death. The police claim there was an altercation with her grandmother and the gun went off. The family's lawyer says there is video showing the gun was fired from outside the house and no altercation took place. One thing's for sure: nobody trusts the police to review the case objectively.
>...BEST...CHILD ABUSE...SOLUTION...EVARRRRR!
Thank you! Why is it we accept that there should be reasonable restrictions on all other rights, but as soon as you bring up the possibility of restricting people's reproductive rights, people treat you like you're Hitler?
>or better yet: teacher's salaries will be switched with that of athletes.
THAT REMINDS ME! There was one I'd been meaning to add forever and I totally forgot it until now:
*New rule for professional sports teams: If a team loses six games in row, no one gets paid until they win again.
>...and scalies and avians, too.
Goes without saying, amigo. ;)
Wow, lots of good debatable stuff here. Picking and choosing:
*Prostitution will be decriminalized completely.
YEE HA!
...now I need to change my underwear.
*Cannibalism will be legal, so long as the meat donor provides video documentation of consent.
So we can't just have the boss for dinner? Darn.
*Marijuana and natural hallucinogens will be legalized. Then an objective review will be conducted on other drugs and whether it causes more harm than good to have them remain illegal.
*Alcohol will not be banned, but drunk driving laws will be made much, much harsher. Cars will be seized on the first offense, with punishments getting exponentially tougher for each following offense. Tobacco will not be banned, but its use in public indoor areas will be...
Might I also suggest that No Indoor Smoking extend to include smoking marijuana indoors. Smokeless products (chewing tobacco, Alice B. Toklas Brownies, Psilocybe pizzas) are no problem, as only the user is affected by those. Also, drunk driving laws will have to be expanded to cover driving while stoned.
*Chinese-style show trials will be held on the White House lawn for key members of the Bush administration, followed by mock-executions, a few weeks in the stocks, then life imprisonment.
Why stop with the Bush administration? Clinton, the other Bush, hell, I'd take this all the way back to Ford and Carter. Any administration leaving office will be subjected to the same kind of trial for their failures.
*Laws relating to lobbying, taxes, and political corruption will be rewritten by groups of experienced individuals with no financial ties to politicians, the IRS, banks or big business.
A good place to start would be simplifying the tax code!
*Swearing and nudity will be allowed on television. ... No media of any kind will ever be censored unless it can be proven with evidence that it causes direct physical or financial harm.
FUCK YES.
*Public nudity will be legalized. Also public sex, so long as it does not cause a hazard (spreading germs, blocking traffic, etc.).
*The sex offender registry will be erased. Anyone who had been put on the list for nonviolent or consensual offenses will be compensated by the government for cruel and unusual punishment.
If public nudity and public sex are no longer crimes, then a large chunk of the entries on the sex offender registry will be moot - many of them are charged with "indecent exposure", i.e. a guy takes a leak in the bushes and gets slapped on the registry.
*Scientology will be ordered to officially apologize for calling itself a religion. Their lawyers will be ignored.
Can't we just shoot... oh. Waste of ammo too.
*Parents who have been convicted of extreme child abuse will be forcibly and permanently sterilized.
Without benefit of anesthetics.
*The driving age and age of consent will be standardized nationwide, like the voting age. Various tests will be designed to determine knowledge and reasoning capacity. A minor of any age can take these tests. Those who pass will receive a permit to legally drive, vote or fuck.
Might I also suggest sterilization/license revocation/voter suspension for the people who fail any part of this triumvirate an outrageous number of times (e.g. 25)?
*A telephone poll will call every home in America and ask if anyone who lives there voted for George W. Bush...
Does an answer of "No" cover "Anyone but Bush"? IIRC, the Libertarian and Green parties made a pretty good showing in '04.
*Teachers' salaries will become enormous.
Bigger than my penis?
Seriously, my sausage isn't that impressive, but sadly it's larger than most teachers' current salaries!
*NASA's budget will also be halved. Incentives will be given to come up with new ideas, instead of simply throwing more money at old ones.
Well, that's one reason the shuttles are being retired. Their budget has been cut again. And again.
It's way past time to offer some incentives to private industry for launching their own spacecraft.
*False accusations of rape will carry the same punishment as an actual rape (but only if the accusation is proven false by physical evidence).
Um, Clarify? Is the accuser the one being punished?
*Physically assaulting a papparazi will be legal, so long as it does not cause permanent physical damage.
WHAT? Papparazzi aren't an appetizer anymore?
*Driving while texting will be made illegal and will carry as harsh a punishment as driving drunk. The same will be true for driving while talking on a cell phone (except in cases of emergency), using a laptop, reading, eating or applying makeup.
I think this issue needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and reviewed by technology type. If it requires that the user's eyes (e.g. reading text messages or doing makeup) be off the road for more than one or two seconds, then I agree. Voice communications are a little more complex.
May I suggest that the drivers license tests include operating a vehicle while carrying on a telephone conversation. If the driver can't do both at the same time, s/he is limited to a class D license (passenger cars), and if the driver is caught talking on the telephone while driving, their telephone is disconnected and/or destroyed on the scene, along with a license suspension for minimum 90 days.
Ugh. I've read too much legalese...
Tests for Commercial Drivers' Licenses will include telephone and radio operation while driving. They really have to do that as part of their jobs.
Going off the deep end of this issue, I came across a mention of an article from the late 1960s or early 1970s. A ham radio operator bolted a straight key to the steering column of his car. Yes, he was SENDING MORSE CODE while driving!
*All laws currently in existence will be objectively reviewed to determine if they are doing more good than harm. The public will be encouraged to recommend which laws they most want to see changed or scrapped. However, recommendations will be judged on reasonableness, plausibility and grammar.
Crowdsourcing the Judicial branch. Okay.
*It will be legal to slap, once, anyone who misuses an apostrophe.
Just once, or once per offense?
Prior to this being covered in grade school, children will be exempted from the slapping. However, after it's been covered, let the slapping begin. Kids really do need to learn how to use their apostrophe's correctly.
Ow! Hey! That was OW! deliberate! Hypocritical OW! humor! OW! STOP IT! OW!
*I will personally show up at the homes of various internet trolls and do unspeakably inhuman things to them.
May I come? I'll bring popcorn.
*Needless to say, if any of these decrees turn out to have unintended bad consequences, they will be swiftly reversed. They will also be retracted once they have served their purpose and become unnecessary.
THIS NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN EVERY NATION'S CONSTITUTION!!
*Prostitution will be decriminalized completely.
YEE HA!
...now I need to change my underwear.
*Cannibalism will be legal, so long as the meat donor provides video documentation of consent.
So we can't just have the boss for dinner? Darn.
*Marijuana and natural hallucinogens will be legalized. Then an objective review will be conducted on other drugs and whether it causes more harm than good to have them remain illegal.
*Alcohol will not be banned, but drunk driving laws will be made much, much harsher. Cars will be seized on the first offense, with punishments getting exponentially tougher for each following offense. Tobacco will not be banned, but its use in public indoor areas will be...
Might I also suggest that No Indoor Smoking extend to include smoking marijuana indoors. Smokeless products (chewing tobacco, Alice B. Toklas Brownies, Psilocybe pizzas) are no problem, as only the user is affected by those. Also, drunk driving laws will have to be expanded to cover driving while stoned.
*Chinese-style show trials will be held on the White House lawn for key members of the Bush administration, followed by mock-executions, a few weeks in the stocks, then life imprisonment.
Why stop with the Bush administration? Clinton, the other Bush, hell, I'd take this all the way back to Ford and Carter. Any administration leaving office will be subjected to the same kind of trial for their failures.
*Laws relating to lobbying, taxes, and political corruption will be rewritten by groups of experienced individuals with no financial ties to politicians, the IRS, banks or big business.
A good place to start would be simplifying the tax code!
*Swearing and nudity will be allowed on television. ... No media of any kind will ever be censored unless it can be proven with evidence that it causes direct physical or financial harm.
FUCK YES.
*Public nudity will be legalized. Also public sex, so long as it does not cause a hazard (spreading germs, blocking traffic, etc.).
*The sex offender registry will be erased. Anyone who had been put on the list for nonviolent or consensual offenses will be compensated by the government for cruel and unusual punishment.
If public nudity and public sex are no longer crimes, then a large chunk of the entries on the sex offender registry will be moot - many of them are charged with "indecent exposure", i.e. a guy takes a leak in the bushes and gets slapped on the registry.
*Scientology will be ordered to officially apologize for calling itself a religion. Their lawyers will be ignored.
Can't we just shoot... oh. Waste of ammo too.
*Parents who have been convicted of extreme child abuse will be forcibly and permanently sterilized.
Without benefit of anesthetics.
*The driving age and age of consent will be standardized nationwide, like the voting age. Various tests will be designed to determine knowledge and reasoning capacity. A minor of any age can take these tests. Those who pass will receive a permit to legally drive, vote or fuck.
Might I also suggest sterilization/license revocation/voter suspension for the people who fail any part of this triumvirate an outrageous number of times (e.g. 25)?
*A telephone poll will call every home in America and ask if anyone who lives there voted for George W. Bush...
Does an answer of "No" cover "Anyone but Bush"? IIRC, the Libertarian and Green parties made a pretty good showing in '04.
*Teachers' salaries will become enormous.
Bigger than my penis?
Seriously, my sausage isn't that impressive, but sadly it's larger than most teachers' current salaries!
*NASA's budget will also be halved. Incentives will be given to come up with new ideas, instead of simply throwing more money at old ones.
Well, that's one reason the shuttles are being retired. Their budget has been cut again. And again.
It's way past time to offer some incentives to private industry for launching their own spacecraft.
*False accusations of rape will carry the same punishment as an actual rape (but only if the accusation is proven false by physical evidence).
Um, Clarify? Is the accuser the one being punished?
*Physically assaulting a papparazi will be legal, so long as it does not cause permanent physical damage.
WHAT? Papparazzi aren't an appetizer anymore?
*Driving while texting will be made illegal and will carry as harsh a punishment as driving drunk. The same will be true for driving while talking on a cell phone (except in cases of emergency), using a laptop, reading, eating or applying makeup.
I think this issue needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and reviewed by technology type. If it requires that the user's eyes (e.g. reading text messages or doing makeup) be off the road for more than one or two seconds, then I agree. Voice communications are a little more complex.
May I suggest that the drivers license tests include operating a vehicle while carrying on a telephone conversation. If the driver can't do both at the same time, s/he is limited to a class D license (passenger cars), and if the driver is caught talking on the telephone while driving, their telephone is disconnected and/or destroyed on the scene, along with a license suspension for minimum 90 days.
Ugh. I've read too much legalese...
Tests for Commercial Drivers' Licenses will include telephone and radio operation while driving. They really have to do that as part of their jobs.
Going off the deep end of this issue, I came across a mention of an article from the late 1960s or early 1970s. A ham radio operator bolted a straight key to the steering column of his car. Yes, he was SENDING MORSE CODE while driving!
*All laws currently in existence will be objectively reviewed to determine if they are doing more good than harm. The public will be encouraged to recommend which laws they most want to see changed or scrapped. However, recommendations will be judged on reasonableness, plausibility and grammar.
Crowdsourcing the Judicial branch. Okay.
*It will be legal to slap, once, anyone who misuses an apostrophe.
Just once, or once per offense?
Prior to this being covered in grade school, children will be exempted from the slapping. However, after it's been covered, let the slapping begin. Kids really do need to learn how to use their apostrophe's correctly.
Ow! Hey! That was OW! deliberate! Hypocritical OW! humor! OW! STOP IT! OW!
*I will personally show up at the homes of various internet trolls and do unspeakably inhuman things to them.
May I come? I'll bring popcorn.
*Needless to say, if any of these decrees turn out to have unintended bad consequences, they will be swiftly reversed. They will also be retracted once they have served their purpose and become unnecessary.
THIS NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN EVERY NATION'S CONSTITUTION!!
> Also, drunk driving laws will have to be expanded to cover driving while stoned.
Why stop there? All we need are stiff penalties for operating any dangerous vehicle or tool (car, gun, heavy construction equipment, etc.) while under the influence of any chemical that negatively impacts your ability to safely operate said equipment. If you're on prescription medication, there are often warning labels saying not to drive or operate heavy machinery with them--the exact same warnings should apply to recreational drugs.
Matter of fact, I think recreational drugs should be in the over-the-counter section of drugstores, with certain harder ones in the back section available with special permission (so you know what you're getting into). If nothing else, it'd be interesting to see bottles of fine scotch and packs of marijuana joints sitting on shelves alongside the cough medicine and dandruff shampoo...
Why stop there? All we need are stiff penalties for operating any dangerous vehicle or tool (car, gun, heavy construction equipment, etc.) while under the influence of any chemical that negatively impacts your ability to safely operate said equipment. If you're on prescription medication, there are often warning labels saying not to drive or operate heavy machinery with them--the exact same warnings should apply to recreational drugs.
Matter of fact, I think recreational drugs should be in the over-the-counter section of drugstores, with certain harder ones in the back section available with special permission (so you know what you're getting into). If nothing else, it'd be interesting to see bottles of fine scotch and packs of marijuana joints sitting on shelves alongside the cough medicine and dandruff shampoo...
That's why I used the careful wording "negatively impacts your ability to safely operate said equipment". If you don't take so much caffeine that your muscles start twitching and shaking involuntarily, it can POSITIVELY impact your ability to safely operate equipment by ensuring you don't fall asleep or lose focus on the task at hand. There may be other chemicals out there with positive productivity effects that could be used by workers who want to make their jobs easier. Unlike athletes, whose use of such chemical enhancements is frowned upon because it compromises fair competition, people whose only job responsibilities involve cooperative activity could greatly benefit, as much or more than caffeine already does.
>Might I also suggest that No Indoor Smoking extend to include smoking marijuana indoors. Smokeless products (chewing tobacco, Alice B. Toklas Brownies, Psilocybe pizzas) are no problem, as only the user is affected by those. Also, drunk driving laws will have to be expanded to cover driving while stoned.
Both good ideas, and ones so basic I hadn't even thought of them. But of course, if you had no desire to do drugs, it would infringe upon your rights to be in a restaurant and have a nearby pothead give you contact buzz.
>Why stop with the Bush administration? Clinton, the other Bush, hell, I'd take this all the way back to Ford and Carter. Any administration leaving office will be subjected to the same kind of trial for their failures.
I regard Bush as a special case for the dozens of thousands his war killed. But yeah, if I could find evidence of similar crimes from past presidents they'd get the same treatment. I'm certain there's skeletons in his dad's closet.
>A good place to start would be simplifying the tax code!
FUCK YES. There is no doubt that it is designed to make it nearly-impossible not to break it in some way, meaning the government can get you for 'tax fraud' if they happen to not like you for some reason.
>If public nudity and public sex are no longer crimes, then a large chunk of the entries on the sex offender registry will be moot - many of them are charged with "indecent exposure", i.e. a guy takes a leak in the bushes and gets slapped on the registry.
That's absolutely what I'm thinking of, and also statutory rape. If both participants are willing and happy, then it's an obscenity to just automatically throw one of them in jail.
>Without benefit of anesthetics.
Wicked. ;)
>Might I also suggest sterilization/license revocation/voter suspension for the people who fail any part of this triumvirate an outrageous number of times (e.g. 25)?
Not a bad idea. If you demonstrate that completely how irresponsible you are, you're probably never gonna get it.
>Does an answer of "No" cover "Anyone but Bush"? IIRC, the Libertarian and Green parties made a pretty good showing in '04.
Sure; I'm only talking about people who watched what he did in his first term and then said, "I want more of that!!"
>Well, that's one reason the shuttles are being retired. Their budget has been cut again. And again.
>It's way past time to offer some incentives to private industry for launching their own spacecraft.
A lot of people have been giving me grief over the NASA one. I agree that space exploration is a great, worthy idea. But NASA is a bloated government beuracracy that seems to only be sending shuttles up anymore to justify their budget. They can have full funding once they get their act together and start earning it.
>Um, Clarify? Is the accuser the one being punished?
Oh, of course! I'd thought that would be obvious, but two people have already asked so I'll revise it.
>May I suggest that the drivers license tests include operating a vehicle while carrying on a telephone conversation. If the driver can't do both at the same time, s/he is limited to a class D license (passenger cars), and if the driver is caught talking on the telephone while driving, their telephone is disconnected and/or destroyed on the scene, along with a license suspension for minimum 90 days.
Sounds like a good idea to me!
>Tests for Commercial Drivers' Licenses will include telephone and radio operation while driving. They really have to do that as part of their jobs.
Allrighty; that's fair.
>Going off the deep end of this issue, I came across a mention of an article from the late 1960s or early 1970s. A ham radio operator bolted a straight key to the steering column of his car. Yes, he was SENDING MORSE CODE while driving!
Wow. There is officially no human activity that someone has not done while driving.
>Crowdsourcing the Judicial branch. Okay.
Well, that's kinda like what I'm doing now; posting my decrees and letting people debate 'em.
>Just once, or once per offense?
Per offense. ;)
>Prior to this being covered in grade school, children will be exempted from the slapping. However, after it's been covered, let the slapping begin. Kids really do need to learn how to use their apostrophe's correctly.
Yes: agreed. Law only goes into effect once you enter high schoo'l.
>May I come? I'll bring popcorn.
I will post the vido on YouTube. :)
>THIS NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN EVERY NATION'S CONSTITUTION!!
Agreed. Unfortunately, we humans tend to be rather addicted to tradition. We do things because 'we've always done them'. Which is one of the worst rationalizations posible.
Both good ideas, and ones so basic I hadn't even thought of them. But of course, if you had no desire to do drugs, it would infringe upon your rights to be in a restaurant and have a nearby pothead give you contact buzz.
>Why stop with the Bush administration? Clinton, the other Bush, hell, I'd take this all the way back to Ford and Carter. Any administration leaving office will be subjected to the same kind of trial for their failures.
I regard Bush as a special case for the dozens of thousands his war killed. But yeah, if I could find evidence of similar crimes from past presidents they'd get the same treatment. I'm certain there's skeletons in his dad's closet.
>A good place to start would be simplifying the tax code!
FUCK YES. There is no doubt that it is designed to make it nearly-impossible not to break it in some way, meaning the government can get you for 'tax fraud' if they happen to not like you for some reason.
>If public nudity and public sex are no longer crimes, then a large chunk of the entries on the sex offender registry will be moot - many of them are charged with "indecent exposure", i.e. a guy takes a leak in the bushes and gets slapped on the registry.
That's absolutely what I'm thinking of, and also statutory rape. If both participants are willing and happy, then it's an obscenity to just automatically throw one of them in jail.
>Without benefit of anesthetics.
Wicked. ;)
>Might I also suggest sterilization/license revocation/voter suspension for the people who fail any part of this triumvirate an outrageous number of times (e.g. 25)?
Not a bad idea. If you demonstrate that completely how irresponsible you are, you're probably never gonna get it.
>Does an answer of "No" cover "Anyone but Bush"? IIRC, the Libertarian and Green parties made a pretty good showing in '04.
Sure; I'm only talking about people who watched what he did in his first term and then said, "I want more of that!!"
>Well, that's one reason the shuttles are being retired. Their budget has been cut again. And again.
>It's way past time to offer some incentives to private industry for launching their own spacecraft.
A lot of people have been giving me grief over the NASA one. I agree that space exploration is a great, worthy idea. But NASA is a bloated government beuracracy that seems to only be sending shuttles up anymore to justify their budget. They can have full funding once they get their act together and start earning it.
>Um, Clarify? Is the accuser the one being punished?
Oh, of course! I'd thought that would be obvious, but two people have already asked so I'll revise it.
>May I suggest that the drivers license tests include operating a vehicle while carrying on a telephone conversation. If the driver can't do both at the same time, s/he is limited to a class D license (passenger cars), and if the driver is caught talking on the telephone while driving, their telephone is disconnected and/or destroyed on the scene, along with a license suspension for minimum 90 days.
Sounds like a good idea to me!
>Tests for Commercial Drivers' Licenses will include telephone and radio operation while driving. They really have to do that as part of their jobs.
Allrighty; that's fair.
>Going off the deep end of this issue, I came across a mention of an article from the late 1960s or early 1970s. A ham radio operator bolted a straight key to the steering column of his car. Yes, he was SENDING MORSE CODE while driving!
Wow. There is officially no human activity that someone has not done while driving.
>Crowdsourcing the Judicial branch. Okay.
Well, that's kinda like what I'm doing now; posting my decrees and letting people debate 'em.
>Just once, or once per offense?
Per offense. ;)
>Prior to this being covered in grade school, children will be exempted from the slapping. However, after it's been covered, let the slapping begin. Kids really do need to learn how to use their apostrophe's correctly.
Yes: agreed. Law only goes into effect once you enter high schoo'l.
>May I come? I'll bring popcorn.
I will post the vido on YouTube. :)
>THIS NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN EVERY NATION'S CONSTITUTION!!
Agreed. Unfortunately, we humans tend to be rather addicted to tradition. We do things because 'we've always done them'. Which is one of the worst rationalizations posible.
>>sterilization/license revocation/voter suspension for failing an outrageous number of times (e.g. 25)?
>Not a bad idea. If you demonstrate that completely how irresponsible you are, you're probably never gonna get it.
Irresponsible or CLUELESS!
>>SENDING MORSE CODE while driving!
>Wow. There is officially no human activity that someone has not done while driving.
Save possibly "paying attention to the road?"
>>> (Laws repealed if they don't work)
>>THIS NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN EVERY NATION'S CONSTITUTION!!
>Agreed. Unfortunately, we humans tend to be rather addicted to tradition. ...
On second review, this goes right in hand with Crowdsourcing the Judicial branch.
>Not a bad idea. If you demonstrate that completely how irresponsible you are, you're probably never gonna get it.
Irresponsible or CLUELESS!
>>SENDING MORSE CODE while driving!
>Wow. There is officially no human activity that someone has not done while driving.
Save possibly "paying attention to the road?"
>>> (Laws repealed if they don't work)
>>THIS NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN EVERY NATION'S CONSTITUTION!!
>Agreed. Unfortunately, we humans tend to be rather addicted to tradition. ...
On second review, this goes right in hand with Crowdsourcing the Judicial branch.
It's refreshing to see someone suggesting a set of basic rules that doesn’t feel the need to support the traditions of their society.
“It will be made illegal for any institution to indoctrinate a minor into any religion. Churches will have strict age-limit enforcement similar to bars and casinos. Private religious schools will be forced to either become secular or close their doors.”
From this and some of your responses it seems you feel that parents shouldn’t have the right to teach children their religion. I’d like to know your opinion of the best way to prevent restrictive ideologies form infecting humans before they have a chance to form their own opinions given the pervasiveness of these ideologies.
“It will be made illegal for any institution to indoctrinate a minor into any religion. Churches will have strict age-limit enforcement similar to bars and casinos. Private religious schools will be forced to either become secular or close their doors.”
From this and some of your responses it seems you feel that parents shouldn’t have the right to teach children their religion. I’d like to know your opinion of the best way to prevent restrictive ideologies form infecting humans before they have a chance to form their own opinions given the pervasiveness of these ideologies.
>It's refreshing to see someone suggesting a set of basic rules that doesn’t feel the need to support the traditions of their society.
Thank you. I realized a while ago that a ton of our morality is based on tradition. 'We do it this way because we've always done it this way'. That's terrible reasoning. We'd be a lot better off with a morality based on 'How much harm does this actually cause?'
>From this and some of your responses it seems you feel that parents shouldn’t have the right to teach children their religion.
I can't help but admit that they have a right to, but that still doesn't make it right. Kids are hardwired by evolution to uncritically believe what their parents say. To fill a child's head with religion before they're old enough to be able to consider for themselves whether it's true or not is, I think, child abuse.
>I’d like to know your opinion of the best way to prevent restrictive ideologies form infecting humans before they have a chance to form their own opinions given the pervasiveness of these ideologies.
I don't know. The only thing that comes to mind would be undermining the power of organized religion and encouraging criticism of it. If we can make these organizations look foolish and bigoted and archaic, there's a better chance the next generation will look at it and go, "I smell bullshit". Fred Phelps is probably a bigger help to rational thinkers than he could ever realize.
Thank you. I realized a while ago that a ton of our morality is based on tradition. 'We do it this way because we've always done it this way'. That's terrible reasoning. We'd be a lot better off with a morality based on 'How much harm does this actually cause?'
>From this and some of your responses it seems you feel that parents shouldn’t have the right to teach children their religion.
I can't help but admit that they have a right to, but that still doesn't make it right. Kids are hardwired by evolution to uncritically believe what their parents say. To fill a child's head with religion before they're old enough to be able to consider for themselves whether it's true or not is, I think, child abuse.
>I’d like to know your opinion of the best way to prevent restrictive ideologies form infecting humans before they have a chance to form their own opinions given the pervasiveness of these ideologies.
I don't know. The only thing that comes to mind would be undermining the power of organized religion and encouraging criticism of it. If we can make these organizations look foolish and bigoted and archaic, there's a better chance the next generation will look at it and go, "I smell bullshit". Fred Phelps is probably a bigger help to rational thinkers than he could ever realize.
I don't think I quite agree on the child porn thing. Why would parents be allowed to subject their children to such things and yet they can't circumcise their kid (though I agree it is mutilation and should be stopped)? I guess what I mean is that it seems somewhat contradictory. Unless of course you mean Ephebophilia/Hebephilia and not Pedophilia. In the case of the former, they would be sexually pubescent and also able to choose for themselves. :P
I think there would still need to be consideration given for the Age of Reason.
I think there would still need to be consideration given for the Age of Reason.
>Why would parents be allowed to subject their children to such things and yet they can't circumcise their kid
Because one is permanent, painful and unnatural, and the other isn't.
BTW, you're assuming that the parents would be making the kids do it. People don't want to face the fact that aversion to sex is an learned behavior. No baby is born with this kind of 'sex is a sin' church morality. Children don't have it until it is drilled into their heads by adults. I'm absolutely not saying kids crave dick, but I sure as heck remember when I was a kid, wanting to run around in my underpants all the time and loving every bit of physical affection I could get. Kids like to be the center of attention and they like to be touched. All mammals need physical affection. All the moral hysteria in the world isn't going to change our biology.
Oh, and kids who grow up in nudist colonies have healthier self-images than 'normal' kids. (Do we ever think about the message we give kids by forcing them to cover themselves all the time? Like maybe that their bodies are ugly and shameful?)
(BTW, before anyone objects to me saying it's not unnatural, the book Biological Exuberance gives examples of sexual behavior between adults and cubs in pretty much any mammal you can think of. There is literally no behavior humans exhibit that is unique to only us. We get every single one of our traits from our evolution.)
>In the case of the former, they would be sexually pubescent and also able to choose for themselves.
Why would you assume that a child younger than that doesn't know what feels good and what doesn't? That is a serious question. I really do want you to think about why you believe that. Again, I speak from personal appearance: Even though there was virtually none of this rampant 'protect the children!!' hysteria there is now when I was a kid, I still got a record/coloring book combo that talked about strangers and bad touches. Yet when I saw some of the examples of 'bad touches', I thought to myself, 'That doesn't look like it would feel bad. It doesn't hurt when I touch myself there. Is it supposed to feel bad? Is there something wrong with me?' It really fucked with my head. I was expected to believe something that directly contradicted what i knew about my own body, and as you can guess, that moment has really stayed with me.
Because one is permanent, painful and unnatural, and the other isn't.
BTW, you're assuming that the parents would be making the kids do it. People don't want to face the fact that aversion to sex is an learned behavior. No baby is born with this kind of 'sex is a sin' church morality. Children don't have it until it is drilled into their heads by adults. I'm absolutely not saying kids crave dick, but I sure as heck remember when I was a kid, wanting to run around in my underpants all the time and loving every bit of physical affection I could get. Kids like to be the center of attention and they like to be touched. All mammals need physical affection. All the moral hysteria in the world isn't going to change our biology.
Oh, and kids who grow up in nudist colonies have healthier self-images than 'normal' kids. (Do we ever think about the message we give kids by forcing them to cover themselves all the time? Like maybe that their bodies are ugly and shameful?)
(BTW, before anyone objects to me saying it's not unnatural, the book Biological Exuberance gives examples of sexual behavior between adults and cubs in pretty much any mammal you can think of. There is literally no behavior humans exhibit that is unique to only us. We get every single one of our traits from our evolution.)
>In the case of the former, they would be sexually pubescent and also able to choose for themselves.
Why would you assume that a child younger than that doesn't know what feels good and what doesn't? That is a serious question. I really do want you to think about why you believe that. Again, I speak from personal appearance: Even though there was virtually none of this rampant 'protect the children!!' hysteria there is now when I was a kid, I still got a record/coloring book combo that talked about strangers and bad touches. Yet when I saw some of the examples of 'bad touches', I thought to myself, 'That doesn't look like it would feel bad. It doesn't hurt when I touch myself there. Is it supposed to feel bad? Is there something wrong with me?' It really fucked with my head. I was expected to believe something that directly contradicted what i knew about my own body, and as you can guess, that moment has really stayed with me.
> ...got a record/coloring book combo that talked about strangers and bad touches. ...It really fucked with my head.
I had a moment like that in sixth grade. I had told a teacher when another student was breaking a rule. I forget my reason why; likely possibilities I can think of now include a) the other kid was teasing me by breaking a mostly-harmless rule when he knew I wouldn't, b) the kid had bullied me before and this was an attempt at revenge, c) some weird sixth-grade logic I can't remember now.
Anyways, whatever the rule was, breaking it wasn't really hurting anybody, so after the other kid got a stern warning, they sent me to the library with a picture book and cassette tape on...
...How Not To Be A Tattletale.
The entire premise of the book was that, if someone's breaking a rule in a way that doesn't hurt anybody, it's wrong to go and tell an authority like a teacher about it just to get them in trouble. An admirable concept in and of itself, but I simply could not wrap my head around the HYPOCRISY of this instruction being given to me by the VERY SAME administration that laid down those rules in the first place and orders me to follow them.
I ended up doing my level best to listen, read, and fill out the mini-exam at the end that was supposed to prove I'd read and listened to the whole thing, and yet not let it affect me. I guess it worked because I can't remember much else about the event. XD Kind of sticks out as it's the one time I can remember that I went out of my way to NOT learn something.
I had a moment like that in sixth grade. I had told a teacher when another student was breaking a rule. I forget my reason why; likely possibilities I can think of now include a) the other kid was teasing me by breaking a mostly-harmless rule when he knew I wouldn't, b) the kid had bullied me before and this was an attempt at revenge, c) some weird sixth-grade logic I can't remember now.
Anyways, whatever the rule was, breaking it wasn't really hurting anybody, so after the other kid got a stern warning, they sent me to the library with a picture book and cassette tape on...
...How Not To Be A Tattletale.
The entire premise of the book was that, if someone's breaking a rule in a way that doesn't hurt anybody, it's wrong to go and tell an authority like a teacher about it just to get them in trouble. An admirable concept in and of itself, but I simply could not wrap my head around the HYPOCRISY of this instruction being given to me by the VERY SAME administration that laid down those rules in the first place and orders me to follow them.
I ended up doing my level best to listen, read, and fill out the mini-exam at the end that was supposed to prove I'd read and listened to the whole thing, and yet not let it affect me. I guess it worked because I can't remember much else about the event. XD Kind of sticks out as it's the one time I can remember that I went out of my way to NOT learn something.
Why would you assume that a child younger than that doesn't know what feels good and what doesn't?
Just as you use your own personal experience as a guide, I do mine as well; I know for a fact I would not have wanted to be subjected to sexual situations. I never wanted to be the focus of attention, nor did I ever like the idea of running around naked, etc. I didn't masturbate until I was 13, and the penis to me was for the excretion of urine only. :P The household I was raised in was secular, basically I was literally told to 'choose for myself'. And I like to think I was raised with ample affection, care and love. Sexuality wasn't openly discussed (until I was a little older at least), but it wasn't shunned like some strict catholic family might. There was no mention of 'bad touching', no birds and the bees - no mention of anything, we were left to learn for ourselves as we all eventually do anyway. I was left to my own accords and as such sexuality to me was non-existent until I began to develop pubescence. Obviously thats just my persoanl development, not an example for everyone elses, but it worked well enough for me.
Currently we live in a society of sexually repressed individuals. If your propositions and argument are about negating that, then I can see why such sexual freedom is welcome. But I just have this nagging thought that encouraging open physical sexuality to prepubescent children seems to me like it could create a sexually obsessed society. Probably not, it's not like we'll be slaves to our urges or anything, we can choose what we want and don't want to do. But I like to see myself as sexually open-minded, and I never had to be subjected to any form or notions of sexuality at a young age to think as I do now. I'm just a proponent of the leave 'em alone and let 'em think for themselves ideology when it comes to sex. Not getting involved to show them it's bad or to show them it's good seems logical enough to me.
And, my apologies to you for your experiences, and my dredging them up, was not my intent. But that sounds like an utterly ridiculous thing to give to a child as some sort of learning tool. Ugh, people.
Just as you use your own personal experience as a guide, I do mine as well; I know for a fact I would not have wanted to be subjected to sexual situations. I never wanted to be the focus of attention, nor did I ever like the idea of running around naked, etc. I didn't masturbate until I was 13, and the penis to me was for the excretion of urine only. :P The household I was raised in was secular, basically I was literally told to 'choose for myself'. And I like to think I was raised with ample affection, care and love. Sexuality wasn't openly discussed (until I was a little older at least), but it wasn't shunned like some strict catholic family might. There was no mention of 'bad touching', no birds and the bees - no mention of anything, we were left to learn for ourselves as we all eventually do anyway. I was left to my own accords and as such sexuality to me was non-existent until I began to develop pubescence. Obviously thats just my persoanl development, not an example for everyone elses, but it worked well enough for me.
Currently we live in a society of sexually repressed individuals. If your propositions and argument are about negating that, then I can see why such sexual freedom is welcome. But I just have this nagging thought that encouraging open physical sexuality to prepubescent children seems to me like it could create a sexually obsessed society. Probably not, it's not like we'll be slaves to our urges or anything, we can choose what we want and don't want to do. But I like to see myself as sexually open-minded, and I never had to be subjected to any form or notions of sexuality at a young age to think as I do now. I'm just a proponent of the leave 'em alone and let 'em think for themselves ideology when it comes to sex. Not getting involved to show them it's bad or to show them it's good seems logical enough to me.
And, my apologies to you for your experiences, and my dredging them up, was not my intent. But that sounds like an utterly ridiculous thing to give to a child as some sort of learning tool. Ugh, people.
>we were left to learn for ourselves as we all eventually do anyway. I was left to my own accords and as such sexuality to me was non-existent until I began to develop pubescence. Obviously thats just my persoanl development, not an example for everyone elses, but it worked well enough for me.
And that's totally fine. My idea of how sex should be handled is; if you don't want to, no one should force you, but if you do want to, no one should force you not to. When it comes to sex (among other things) a lot of people aren't content with just disliking something, they can't stand the very idea that someone's doing something they don't like somewhere. I know that attitude will never go away, but I think it'd be healthier for us as a society if we stopped legitimizing it. Basically, our society rewards the people who throw the biggest tantrums.
>Currently we live in a society of sexually repressed individuals. If your propositions and argument are about negating that, then I can see why such sexual freedom is welcome.
Absolutely. Most of this emperor stuff is about getting rid of our old system of morality, which is based mostly on tradition, and trying to jumpstart a new morality based on what causes real harm and what doesn't.
>But I just have this nagging thought that encouraging open physical sexuality to prepubescent children seems to me like it could create a sexually obsessed society.
And I can understand why you'd worry about that. Hell, even I feel this twinge of real fear when I write about this subject, because I'm going against one of the most deeply-rooted ideas in our culture: 'SEX WITH CHILDREN IS ALWAYS EVIL AND HARMFUL!!!' And the only reason I've come to the conclusion that, 'Hey, maybe it's not' is because that's what the evidence points to. I believe in accepting the reality of things even when it's difficult or it makes you uncomfortable. On this subject, the more research I look at, the more that our traditional view starts resembling all the bizarre stuff we used to 'know' about masturbation and homosexuality, based on church teachings. (Masturbation causes blindness, it's impossible for gays to feel real love, lesbians don't exists, etc.)
Also, we need to reevaluate what we think of as 'sexual'. It's not a definition everyone can agree on. For instance, a man in Brazil was arrested for kissing a little girl on the mouth. It turned out they were father and daughter, and the daughter didn't mind a bit, but everyone was too swept up in the idea of 'He did something sexual with a child!!' to think rationally. A kiss is not always sexual. Neither is hugging or cuddling or bathing or plenty of other things. (I remember a friend of mine freaking out at a scene in My Neighbor Totoro where two girls bathe with their father.) And it's worth looking into what it says about us, what's been done to our minds, when we see an adult touch a child and our first thought isn't 'that's probably parent and child', but 'I'm seeing something sexual'.
>I'm just a proponent of the leave 'em alone and let 'em think for themselves ideology when it comes to sex. Not getting involved to show them it's bad or to show them it's good seems logical enough to me.
That sounds like a damn good idea. I think there are a variety of areas where parents ought to leave their kids the hell alone and let the kids think and decide and learn for themselves. You said you wouldn't want to, and that's fine. But I was totally comfortable with nudity as a kid, and interested in anatomy, and I liked cuddling, and I would have been totally fine with plenty of things that are currently considered evil and immoral and illegal. So I think that if kids want to explore, they should be allowed to. And if they don't want to, that's fine too. But in any kind of sexual matter, the most important opinion belongs to the person most directly involved. In this case, the child. We're making policy based not on what's best for children, but on how uncomfortable religious people are thinking about any kind of sex.
BTW, sorry for yammering on about this so much. I'm not trying to convert you. It's just that I've done a lot of thinking on this issue since the last time I had a big discussion about it, and I'm writing so much partly for my own benefit, to try to solidify some of my new ideas.
>And, my apologies to you for your experiences, and my dredging them up, was not my intent. But that sounds like an utterly ridiculous thing to give to a child as some sort of learning tool. Ugh, people.
Oh, no worries! Compared to other stuff I've seen, that record/coloring book was pretty benign. It was the idea itself that messed with me so much.
And it's not like a horrible, horrible memory for me, it's just that this is a subject that people can get REALLY emotional about, and a lot of times it's not very convincing to just say, "Well, this study says bal bla bla..." I think arguing from personal experience is more likely to get people to consider what I'm saying.
And that's totally fine. My idea of how sex should be handled is; if you don't want to, no one should force you, but if you do want to, no one should force you not to. When it comes to sex (among other things) a lot of people aren't content with just disliking something, they can't stand the very idea that someone's doing something they don't like somewhere. I know that attitude will never go away, but I think it'd be healthier for us as a society if we stopped legitimizing it. Basically, our society rewards the people who throw the biggest tantrums.
>Currently we live in a society of sexually repressed individuals. If your propositions and argument are about negating that, then I can see why such sexual freedom is welcome.
Absolutely. Most of this emperor stuff is about getting rid of our old system of morality, which is based mostly on tradition, and trying to jumpstart a new morality based on what causes real harm and what doesn't.
>But I just have this nagging thought that encouraging open physical sexuality to prepubescent children seems to me like it could create a sexually obsessed society.
And I can understand why you'd worry about that. Hell, even I feel this twinge of real fear when I write about this subject, because I'm going against one of the most deeply-rooted ideas in our culture: 'SEX WITH CHILDREN IS ALWAYS EVIL AND HARMFUL!!!' And the only reason I've come to the conclusion that, 'Hey, maybe it's not' is because that's what the evidence points to. I believe in accepting the reality of things even when it's difficult or it makes you uncomfortable. On this subject, the more research I look at, the more that our traditional view starts resembling all the bizarre stuff we used to 'know' about masturbation and homosexuality, based on church teachings. (Masturbation causes blindness, it's impossible for gays to feel real love, lesbians don't exists, etc.)
Also, we need to reevaluate what we think of as 'sexual'. It's not a definition everyone can agree on. For instance, a man in Brazil was arrested for kissing a little girl on the mouth. It turned out they were father and daughter, and the daughter didn't mind a bit, but everyone was too swept up in the idea of 'He did something sexual with a child!!' to think rationally. A kiss is not always sexual. Neither is hugging or cuddling or bathing or plenty of other things. (I remember a friend of mine freaking out at a scene in My Neighbor Totoro where two girls bathe with their father.) And it's worth looking into what it says about us, what's been done to our minds, when we see an adult touch a child and our first thought isn't 'that's probably parent and child', but 'I'm seeing something sexual'.
>I'm just a proponent of the leave 'em alone and let 'em think for themselves ideology when it comes to sex. Not getting involved to show them it's bad or to show them it's good seems logical enough to me.
That sounds like a damn good idea. I think there are a variety of areas where parents ought to leave their kids the hell alone and let the kids think and decide and learn for themselves. You said you wouldn't want to, and that's fine. But I was totally comfortable with nudity as a kid, and interested in anatomy, and I liked cuddling, and I would have been totally fine with plenty of things that are currently considered evil and immoral and illegal. So I think that if kids want to explore, they should be allowed to. And if they don't want to, that's fine too. But in any kind of sexual matter, the most important opinion belongs to the person most directly involved. In this case, the child. We're making policy based not on what's best for children, but on how uncomfortable religious people are thinking about any kind of sex.
BTW, sorry for yammering on about this so much. I'm not trying to convert you. It's just that I've done a lot of thinking on this issue since the last time I had a big discussion about it, and I'm writing so much partly for my own benefit, to try to solidify some of my new ideas.
>And, my apologies to you for your experiences, and my dredging them up, was not my intent. But that sounds like an utterly ridiculous thing to give to a child as some sort of learning tool. Ugh, people.
Oh, no worries! Compared to other stuff I've seen, that record/coloring book was pretty benign. It was the idea itself that messed with me so much.
And it's not like a horrible, horrible memory for me, it's just that this is a subject that people can get REALLY emotional about, and a lot of times it's not very convincing to just say, "Well, this study says bal bla bla..." I think arguing from personal experience is more likely to get people to consider what I'm saying.
I pretty well agree with much of what you say as you cleared it up for me here:
My idea of how sex should be handled is; if you don't want to, no one should force you
See in your initial postings on the submission itself I thought you meant the parent had the right to parade their child on camera and have non-penetrative sex with or without the child's consent. XD I thought to myself "Wait a second, parents can do that but if they abuse their kids they get castrated?" Perhaps I misread though, it's quite obvious I must have in fact. As that would seem most contradictory to your many other points.
BTW, sorry for yammering on about this so much. I'm not trying to convert you.
No need for apologies, I have been known to get quite long winded myself. It's fun watching trolls squirm at the proposition of having to read coherent, well thought out paragraphs. :D And nah no conversion needed, we all have our own ideals afterall. Though I must say I agree with much of yours. In fact the degree of points we have both conceded to one another suggests we concur on much. Just a bit of a misunderstanding on my part.
My idea of how sex should be handled is; if you don't want to, no one should force you
See in your initial postings on the submission itself I thought you meant the parent had the right to parade their child on camera and have non-penetrative sex with or without the child's consent. XD I thought to myself "Wait a second, parents can do that but if they abuse their kids they get castrated?" Perhaps I misread though, it's quite obvious I must have in fact. As that would seem most contradictory to your many other points.
BTW, sorry for yammering on about this so much. I'm not trying to convert you.
No need for apologies, I have been known to get quite long winded myself. It's fun watching trolls squirm at the proposition of having to read coherent, well thought out paragraphs. :D And nah no conversion needed, we all have our own ideals afterall. Though I must say I agree with much of yours. In fact the degree of points we have both conceded to one another suggests we concur on much. Just a bit of a misunderstanding on my part.
>See in your initial postings on the submission itself I thought you meant the parent had the right to parade their child on camera and have non-penetrative sex with or without the child's consent. XD
Sweet lord no! Yikes! XD Yes, that would definitely not be something I'm advocating.
From what I know of adult photo shoots, but from what I can tell, the model comes in, takes her clothes off, maybe tries on different outfits, strikes some sexy poses, they take a lot of pictures and everyone gets paid and goes home. I also know that plenty of department store ads have pictures of smiling kids wearing all sortsa stuff, including underwear, swimsuits and pajamas. I've seen some of those ads that made my eyebrows go up and think, 'Is this any different from kiddie porn?' But then I thought more and asked myself, 'Is kiddie porn any different from this?' Basically, if a kid likes being the center of attention and likes to show off for the camera, is there a substantial difference if they're naked or if they're modeling Calvin Klein products? (I still don't have a very firm stance on this idea, since I've seen only a little bit of research.)
I did read an article though that suggested that most commercially-made child porn is pinup stuff, but that the extreme videos of rape and suffering come from parents competing with each other online to see who can do the worst stuff to their kids. Which is horrifing of course, but also totally expected from everything else I've read.
>No need for apologies, I have been known to get quite long winded myself.
Cool. I just realized that you might have gotten the idea I was hurling huge paragraphs at you in anger. Naw. ;)
>It's fun watching trolls squirm at the proposition of having to read coherent, well thought out paragraphs. :D
Hee hee hee! I like that!
>And nah no conversion needed, we all have our own ideals afterall. Though I must say I agree with much of yours. In fact the degree of points we have both conceded to one another suggests we concur on much. Just a bit of a misunderstanding on my part.
I really do have to thank you. It's so rare I can talk about this issue with someone who knows how to disagree respectfully. I've had other experiences with people flying in screaming like a banshee, saying I'm doomed to hell for my immoral child-lusting ways, and if I can manage to crack through their anger a bit and get a word in, I find that we're not actually disagreeing on much. And i have to waste all that time getting them to calm the fuck down and stop condemning me long enough for us to discuss things! ;)
But you've been awesome. Few things make me happier than someone replying with questions that make me think harder about my own position. :)
Sweet lord no! Yikes! XD Yes, that would definitely not be something I'm advocating.
From what I know of adult photo shoots, but from what I can tell, the model comes in, takes her clothes off, maybe tries on different outfits, strikes some sexy poses, they take a lot of pictures and everyone gets paid and goes home. I also know that plenty of department store ads have pictures of smiling kids wearing all sortsa stuff, including underwear, swimsuits and pajamas. I've seen some of those ads that made my eyebrows go up and think, 'Is this any different from kiddie porn?' But then I thought more and asked myself, 'Is kiddie porn any different from this?' Basically, if a kid likes being the center of attention and likes to show off for the camera, is there a substantial difference if they're naked or if they're modeling Calvin Klein products? (I still don't have a very firm stance on this idea, since I've seen only a little bit of research.)
I did read an article though that suggested that most commercially-made child porn is pinup stuff, but that the extreme videos of rape and suffering come from parents competing with each other online to see who can do the worst stuff to their kids. Which is horrifing of course, but also totally expected from everything else I've read.
>No need for apologies, I have been known to get quite long winded myself.
Cool. I just realized that you might have gotten the idea I was hurling huge paragraphs at you in anger. Naw. ;)
>It's fun watching trolls squirm at the proposition of having to read coherent, well thought out paragraphs. :D
Hee hee hee! I like that!
>And nah no conversion needed, we all have our own ideals afterall. Though I must say I agree with much of yours. In fact the degree of points we have both conceded to one another suggests we concur on much. Just a bit of a misunderstanding on my part.
I really do have to thank you. It's so rare I can talk about this issue with someone who knows how to disagree respectfully. I've had other experiences with people flying in screaming like a banshee, saying I'm doomed to hell for my immoral child-lusting ways, and if I can manage to crack through their anger a bit and get a word in, I find that we're not actually disagreeing on much. And i have to waste all that time getting them to calm the fuck down and stop condemning me long enough for us to discuss things! ;)
But you've been awesome. Few things make me happier than someone replying with questions that make me think harder about my own position. :)
From what I know of adult photo shoots, but from what I can tell, the model comes in, takes her clothes off, maybe tries on different outfits, strikes some sexy poses, they take a lot of pictures and everyone gets paid and goes home. I also know that plenty of department store ads have pictures of smiling kids wearing all sortsa stuff, including underwear, swimsuits and pajamas. I've seen some of those ads that made my eyebrows go up and think, 'Is this any different from kiddie porn?' But then I thought more and asked myself, 'Is kiddie porn any different from this?' Basically, if a kid likes being the center of attention and likes to show off for the camera, is there a substantial difference if they're naked or if they're modeling Calvin Klein products? (I still don't have a very firm stance on this idea, since I've seen only a little bit of research.)
Ahhhh yes that explains it very well. I see no harm in that. And of course I make the distinction between simple pedophilia and child molester (something most people don't seem to). The majority of pedophiles will not delve into the perverse and twisted act of raping a child, but there are a few who sit on the brink and perhaps that pinup porn and whatnot is all that's keeping their urges to actually commit the despicable acts down. Although that doesn't mean it will stop all such crimes. There will always be extremes and all we can do is limit the number of such fringe individuals in society before they make that jump.
I've had other experiences with people flying in screaming like a banshee, saying I'm doomed to hell for my immoral child-lusting ways
I have a bit of a pet peeve for people who use the words moral and immoral. Morality is one of the most subjective ideals there is. Everyone has their own version of it and their own rationalization for what they do and their judgemental perceptions of what others do. The fact so many people derive this judgement from superstitious bronze age social elitists who had no other way to explain most natural phenomena other then attributing it to an unprovable divine authority figure with omnipotence and omniscience. Just bafflingly ridiculous. But I digress, my apologies!
But you've been awesome. Few things make me happier than someone replying with questions that make me think harder about my own position. :)
Ditto. I find the most important aspect of debate is to get the perspective of others and then weigh it to your own. Makes us all a little wiser in the end. Of course it's such a breath of fresh air when you can discuss a contentious subject with civility and open minded discourse. I sometimes hesitate to reply to people online without checking what else they've posted, gauging whether or not they can discuss rationally or just fly off the handle and misinterpret everything I say (Youtube commenters = intellectual cesspit). But you have been very amicable and explanatory, so I too give my gratitude. :3
On a side note you really seem to get into extraordinarily lengthy posts with others. Just from looking in the comments here I can tell, but I believe I've seen you elsewhere on a journal or submission arguing with some dolt and it was far longer then I could follow also. XD Respects for that.
Ahhhh yes that explains it very well. I see no harm in that. And of course I make the distinction between simple pedophilia and child molester (something most people don't seem to). The majority of pedophiles will not delve into the perverse and twisted act of raping a child, but there are a few who sit on the brink and perhaps that pinup porn and whatnot is all that's keeping their urges to actually commit the despicable acts down. Although that doesn't mean it will stop all such crimes. There will always be extremes and all we can do is limit the number of such fringe individuals in society before they make that jump.
I've had other experiences with people flying in screaming like a banshee, saying I'm doomed to hell for my immoral child-lusting ways
I have a bit of a pet peeve for people who use the words moral and immoral. Morality is one of the most subjective ideals there is. Everyone has their own version of it and their own rationalization for what they do and their judgemental perceptions of what others do. The fact so many people derive this judgement from superstitious bronze age social elitists who had no other way to explain most natural phenomena other then attributing it to an unprovable divine authority figure with omnipotence and omniscience. Just bafflingly ridiculous. But I digress, my apologies!
But you've been awesome. Few things make me happier than someone replying with questions that make me think harder about my own position. :)
Ditto. I find the most important aspect of debate is to get the perspective of others and then weigh it to your own. Makes us all a little wiser in the end. Of course it's such a breath of fresh air when you can discuss a contentious subject with civility and open minded discourse. I sometimes hesitate to reply to people online without checking what else they've posted, gauging whether or not they can discuss rationally or just fly off the handle and misinterpret everything I say (Youtube commenters = intellectual cesspit). But you have been very amicable and explanatory, so I too give my gratitude. :3
On a side note you really seem to get into extraordinarily lengthy posts with others. Just from looking in the comments here I can tell, but I believe I've seen you elsewhere on a journal or submission arguing with some dolt and it was far longer then I could follow also. XD Respects for that.
>And of course I make the distinction between simple pedophilia and child molester
THANK YOU!!!
>(something most people don't seem to).
TELL ME ABOUT IT!!! ;)
>The majority of pedophiles will not delve into the perverse and twisted act of raping a child, but there are a few who sit on the brink and perhaps that pinup porn and whatnot is all that's keeping their urges to actually commit the despicable acts down. Although that doesn't mean it will stop all such crimes. There will always be extremes and all we can do is limit the number of such fringe individuals in society before they make that jump.
When you think about it, it's kind of ridiculous. Ask any random person if they want to rape every attractive person they look at, and 99% of the time they'll answer no. Yet they have no problem thinking that being a pedophile means you're consumed with the desire to rape children all the time. As if you lack the basic morality, common to damn near all human beings, that says rape is wrong. Then again, it could be part of seeing pedophiles as somehow not human, which is the first step to legitimizing hatred against any group.
>I have a bit of a pet peeve for people who use the words moral and immoral. Morality is one of the most subjective ideals there is. Everyone has their own version of it and their own rationalization for what they do and their judgemental perceptions of what others do. The fact so many people derive this judgement from superstitious bronze age social elitists who had no other way to explain most natural phenomena other then attributing it to an unprovable divine authority figure with omnipotence and omniscience. Just bafflingly ridiculous. But I digress, my apologies!
No problem! And while some morality is subjective, yes, there's a big chunk that's common to nearly all human beings. A study gave a bunch of religious people and a bunch of atheists a series of ethical dilemmas, and the results for both groups was about 90-94% similar. While some of our mythology does come from old myths and books, some of it is pure instinct. Murder is wrong. Helping others is good. Stealing is bad. Etc. These are concepts shared by every society that's ever existed.
>Youtube commenters = intellectual cesspit
LOL! True! I am not sure why, but I think YouTube comments contain some of the dumbest and most bigoted things I've ever read.
>But you have been very amicable and explanatory, so I too give my gratitude. :3
Glee. Thanks. ^__^
>On a side note you really seem to get into extraordinarily lengthy posts with others. Just from looking in the comments here I can tell, but I believe I've seen you elsewhere on a journal or submission arguing with some dolt and it was far longer then I could follow also. XD Respects for that.
Ha! Thanks again! I love it when trolls try to insult me using that. That I'm too wordy. That I just bla bla bla and they can't possibly read all that. Well, that says less about me than it does them, doesn't it? I'm terribly sorry these people are illiterate, but I wish they'd just let the adults talk without feeling the need to butt in. ;)
One of the best ever was: "In typical furfag manner, he will attempt to sound intelligent in his lengthy and logical arguments against anyone that disagrees with things he likes." They're admitting my arguments are logical. But of course, I'm still wrong because I'm a 'furfag'. Pardon my LOLs. ;)
THANK YOU!!!
>(something most people don't seem to).
TELL ME ABOUT IT!!! ;)
>The majority of pedophiles will not delve into the perverse and twisted act of raping a child, but there are a few who sit on the brink and perhaps that pinup porn and whatnot is all that's keeping their urges to actually commit the despicable acts down. Although that doesn't mean it will stop all such crimes. There will always be extremes and all we can do is limit the number of such fringe individuals in society before they make that jump.
When you think about it, it's kind of ridiculous. Ask any random person if they want to rape every attractive person they look at, and 99% of the time they'll answer no. Yet they have no problem thinking that being a pedophile means you're consumed with the desire to rape children all the time. As if you lack the basic morality, common to damn near all human beings, that says rape is wrong. Then again, it could be part of seeing pedophiles as somehow not human, which is the first step to legitimizing hatred against any group.
>I have a bit of a pet peeve for people who use the words moral and immoral. Morality is one of the most subjective ideals there is. Everyone has their own version of it and their own rationalization for what they do and their judgemental perceptions of what others do. The fact so many people derive this judgement from superstitious bronze age social elitists who had no other way to explain most natural phenomena other then attributing it to an unprovable divine authority figure with omnipotence and omniscience. Just bafflingly ridiculous. But I digress, my apologies!
No problem! And while some morality is subjective, yes, there's a big chunk that's common to nearly all human beings. A study gave a bunch of religious people and a bunch of atheists a series of ethical dilemmas, and the results for both groups was about 90-94% similar. While some of our mythology does come from old myths and books, some of it is pure instinct. Murder is wrong. Helping others is good. Stealing is bad. Etc. These are concepts shared by every society that's ever existed.
>Youtube commenters = intellectual cesspit
LOL! True! I am not sure why, but I think YouTube comments contain some of the dumbest and most bigoted things I've ever read.
>But you have been very amicable and explanatory, so I too give my gratitude. :3
Glee. Thanks. ^__^
>On a side note you really seem to get into extraordinarily lengthy posts with others. Just from looking in the comments here I can tell, but I believe I've seen you elsewhere on a journal or submission arguing with some dolt and it was far longer then I could follow also. XD Respects for that.
Ha! Thanks again! I love it when trolls try to insult me using that. That I'm too wordy. That I just bla bla bla and they can't possibly read all that. Well, that says less about me than it does them, doesn't it? I'm terribly sorry these people are illiterate, but I wish they'd just let the adults talk without feeling the need to butt in. ;)
One of the best ever was: "In typical furfag manner, he will attempt to sound intelligent in his lengthy and logical arguments against anyone that disagrees with things he likes." They're admitting my arguments are logical. But of course, I'm still wrong because I'm a 'furfag'. Pardon my LOLs. ;)
No problem! And while some morality is subjective, yes, there's a big chunk that's common to nearly all human beings. A study gave a bunch of religious people and a bunch of atheists a series of ethical dilemmas, and the results for both groups was about 90-94% similar. While some of our mythology does come from old myths and books, some of it is pure instinct. Murder is wrong. Helping others is good. Stealing is bad. Etc. These are concepts shared by every society that's ever existed.
Oh of course, I didn't really differentiate it but when I said morals, I meant hot button topics, things dealing with homosexuality or abortion, etc. The kinda stuff you and I will burn in hell for because we've the gall to disagree on a topic that is anything but morally black and white. :P
LOL! True! I am not sure why, but I think YouTube comments contain some of the dumbest and most bigoted things I've ever read.
Nor can I place why. It's just another typical large internet community, except with a focus on visual media. That doesn't seem to be reason enough for such a concentration of brainlessness and bigotry in all the comments though. XD
One of the best ever was: "In typical furfag manner, he will attempt to sound intelligent in his lengthy and logical arguments against anyone that disagrees with things he likes." They're admitting my arguments are logical. But of course, I'm still wrong because I'm a 'furfag'. Pardon my LOLs. ;)
Anti-intellectualism is valid as long as it's directed at a furfag! :D
Oh of course, I didn't really differentiate it but when I said morals, I meant hot button topics, things dealing with homosexuality or abortion, etc. The kinda stuff you and I will burn in hell for because we've the gall to disagree on a topic that is anything but morally black and white. :P
LOL! True! I am not sure why, but I think YouTube comments contain some of the dumbest and most bigoted things I've ever read.
Nor can I place why. It's just another typical large internet community, except with a focus on visual media. That doesn't seem to be reason enough for such a concentration of brainlessness and bigotry in all the comments though. XD
One of the best ever was: "In typical furfag manner, he will attempt to sound intelligent in his lengthy and logical arguments against anyone that disagrees with things he likes." They're admitting my arguments are logical. But of course, I'm still wrong because I'm a 'furfag'. Pardon my LOLs. ;)
Anti-intellectualism is valid as long as it's directed at a furfag! :D
>Oh of course, I didn't really differentiate it but when I said morals, I meant hot button topics, things dealing with homosexuality or abortion, etc. The kinda stuff you and I will burn in hell for because we've the gall to disagree on a topic that is anything but morally black and white. :P
I kinda figured. I just thought it was an interesting tidbit. (I'm always dubious of people who really do claim that all morality is subjective.)
And isn't it interesting how the people who shout the loudest about being guided by their moral principles are the ones who tend to treat their fellow humans with the most rudeness and contempt? ;)
>Nor can I place why. It's just another typical large internet community, except with a focus on visual media. That doesn't seem to be reason enough for such a concentration of brainlessness and bigotry in all the comments though. XD
Maybe because it's visually-based, we're getting to see the thoughts of the average TV-watcher?
>Anti-intellectualism is valid as long as it's directed at a furfag! :D
LOL!! Sounds about right. :)
I kinda figured. I just thought it was an interesting tidbit. (I'm always dubious of people who really do claim that all morality is subjective.)
And isn't it interesting how the people who shout the loudest about being guided by their moral principles are the ones who tend to treat their fellow humans with the most rudeness and contempt? ;)
>Nor can I place why. It's just another typical large internet community, except with a focus on visual media. That doesn't seem to be reason enough for such a concentration of brainlessness and bigotry in all the comments though. XD
Maybe because it's visually-based, we're getting to see the thoughts of the average TV-watcher?
>Anti-intellectualism is valid as long as it's directed at a furfag! :D
LOL!! Sounds about right. :)
And isn't it interesting how the people who shout the loudest about being guided by their moral principles are the ones who tend to treat their fellow humans with the most rudeness and contempt? ;)
For many people, hypocrisy is a way of life. :P It's funny how many bible thumpers don't even follow that oft-misused quote from their own sacred text, the judge not lest ye be judged shpeel. The whole point of that is about warning people from hypocritically focusing on the sins of others over their own misdeeds. Never going to stop the self-righteous from being self-righteous I guess.
Maybe because it's visually-based, we're getting to see the thoughts of the average TV-watcher?
Haha! That seems a reasonable deduction.
For many people, hypocrisy is a way of life. :P It's funny how many bible thumpers don't even follow that oft-misused quote from their own sacred text, the judge not lest ye be judged shpeel. The whole point of that is about warning people from hypocritically focusing on the sins of others over their own misdeeds. Never going to stop the self-righteous from being self-righteous I guess.
Maybe because it's visually-based, we're getting to see the thoughts of the average TV-watcher?
Haha! That seems a reasonable deduction.
>For many people, hypocrisy is a way of life. :P It's funny how many bible thumpers don't even follow that oft-misused quote from their own sacred text, the judge not lest ye be judged shpeel. The whole point of that is about warning people from hypocritically focusing on the sins of others over their own misdeeds. Never going to stop the self-righteous from being self-righteous I guess.
I'm beginning to notice that there's a small but noticeable percentage of people who do not see any connection whatsoever between their words and their actions. They can accuse other people of supposed sins all day long, and never have any idea that they're engaging in exactly what they're accusing. The word 'hypocritical' doesn't even seem to fit, since wouldn't it only be true hypocrisy if the person knew they were contradicting themselves? These folks are so completely right all the time and everyone else so completely wrong, it's gotta go beyond character flaw to mental illness. (Sarah Palin is a shining example of this type.)
I'm beginning to notice that there's a small but noticeable percentage of people who do not see any connection whatsoever between their words and their actions. They can accuse other people of supposed sins all day long, and never have any idea that they're engaging in exactly what they're accusing. The word 'hypocritical' doesn't even seem to fit, since wouldn't it only be true hypocrisy if the person knew they were contradicting themselves? These folks are so completely right all the time and everyone else so completely wrong, it's gotta go beyond character flaw to mental illness. (Sarah Palin is a shining example of this type.)
*The following individuals will be arrested for crimes against truth and human decency: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps. Anyone else who it can be proven has risen to fame and fortune through a pattern of deception, viciousness and a willful disregard for facts may face similar punishment.
One of the funny things, their polar opposites are guilty of the same exact things.
To be fair, they all should be punished.
One of the funny things, their polar opposites are guilty of the same exact things.
To be fair, they all should be punished.
Okay then, give me names and examples.
And by that I mean examples comparable to Bill O'Reiley defending a Nazi war crime against American soldiers rather than admit to being wrong. Or Ann Coulter saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote and that all democrats are guilty of treason. Or Fred Phelps saying that it's a good thing when soldiers die because we are a nation of 'fag enablers'. Stuff like that.
And by that I mean examples comparable to Bill O'Reiley defending a Nazi war crime against American soldiers rather than admit to being wrong. Or Ann Coulter saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote and that all democrats are guilty of treason. Or Fred Phelps saying that it's a good thing when soldiers die because we are a nation of 'fag enablers'. Stuff like that.
>*Gay marriage will be legalized nationwide. Polygamy too. Divorce will be made significantly easier and attempts will be made to destigmatize it.
I think a polygamy license should require a little financial check. If your income would not be enough to house and feed them all properly you would get suggestions for you and for them how to raise your income.
>*Prostitution will be decriminalized completely.
Full agreement. As long as you criminalize the pimps as far as they criminally exploit their girls.
>*Cannibalism will be legal, so long as the meat doner provides video documentation of consent.
A bit extreme but I see the sense in it. Should require a documentaion of sanity first. Such things, also when it is just an amputation, need to be based on a reasonable decision, except it is just about what their corpse is used for if they die at something else.
Someone who wants to die that way needs psychological counseling, less for the way but for their death wish. Guess the same things can also be experienced in hypnosis or under safe conditions (aka the blood circuit of their brain hooked up to a machine instead of their body so they can survive whatever happens to the body and you can built a new one with tissue engineering or regeneration (given the science budget you assign it becomes an option) they can even flatline if their is a safe way to bring them back) Death is a waste of potential and is deserting your own destiny. So it should be avoided at any cost except wasting others.
>*Marijuana and natural hallucinogens will be legalized. Then an objective review will be conducted on other drugs and whether it causes more harm than good to have them remain illegal.
Good idea, but combine that with a kind of credit account. When it is empty you are no longer allowed to be sold drugs. Simply to prevent addiction. The allowed dose for each drug will be determined by medical tests when you try the drug the first time. You pay the test yourself. Drugs which they had not tested their tolerance on can not be legally sold to them. Charges for illegal drug trade remain the same.
>*Alcohol will not be banned, but drunk driving laws will be made much, much harsher. Cars will be seized on the first offense, with punishments getting exponentially tougher for each following offense. Tobacco will not be banned, but its use in public indoor areas will be. Business owners who wish to opt out of the ban can do so, provided they pay a tax approximately equal to the future burden on America's health care system from their average amount of smoking patrons. Also, addictive or poisonous cigarette additives will be banned. Tobacco companies will no longer be allowed to make amends for their crimes in the form of self-serving 'anti'-smoking commercials. Instead, they will directly pay for smokers' medical expenses. (To qualify for the money though, smokers will have to quit.)
Agreed, and same laws, considering their dose, for all other legal drugs.
>*Chinese-style show trials will be held on the White House lawn for key members of the Bush administration, followed by mock-executions, a few weeks in the stocks, then life imprisonment.
Good Idea. Maybe give them a taste of Guantanmo Bay and Abu Graib first. And give them a chance for parole if they change.
>*Laws relating to lobbying, taxes, and political corruption will be rewritten by groups of experienced individuals with no financial ties to politicians, the IRS, banks or big business.
Full agreement.
>*Individuals may still own guns but, just like automobiles, they must have training and a license before they can operate one. Allowing a child to operate a gun without proper training will be considered child endangerment. Guns may not be sold at gun shows. People will be able to anonymously report unlicensed guns and receive a large tax-free cash reward.
I agree, except that imo as long as you have a license for them you should also be able to buy them at gun shows. On the other hand everybody selling a gun illegally should also be charged for all crimes committed with it afterwards. Maybe two thirds of whatever sentence the gun user gets.
>*The death penalty will not be removed entirely, but laws will be changed so that it can only be considered in cases where an additional burden of proof must be met. Cases must be proved not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt (meaning there must be hard audio/visual or medical evidence). Also, all measures possible will be taken to reduce the racist imbalance in death penalty sentencing.
Fully agreed.
>*In all criminal cases where DNA testing can be performed, it must be performed. This must be done retroactively as well, to free as many innocent prisoners as possible. Eyewitness testimony alone will no longer be enough for a conviction.
Definitely.
>*State governors will no longer have the power to overturn a prison review board's recommendation of a prisoner's parole.
My full agreement.
>*All police cars and police interrogation rooms must have tamper-proof cameras that clearly record audio and video. Confessions will not be admissible in court unless the video shows there was no coercion. A citizen cannot be charged with resisting arrest unless it is in connection with another crime. Citizens may own any weapon or gear that police officers carry. Any police officer, city attorney, judge, or public official found guilty of a crime will face double the normal punishment for betraying the trust the public has placed in them.
Fully agreed.
>*Investigations will be made into how to reduce the anti-male bias in family and divorce laws.
No opinon on that since I do not know how biased the American laws are here.
>*Independent groups will monitor television news networks. If any news report is found to be distorted, grossly oversensationalized, indistinguishable from propaganda, or outright false, the station will face heavy fines. News shows that air unedited and uncredited press releases created by corporations or government agencies will also be punished.
Full agreement. The punishment should also include a big story about it on the news - and not only the can report about it, also the offenders themselves have to report about it in the news, including naming themselves as the offenders.
>*Swearing and nudity will be allowed on television. The FCC and MPAA will no longer be allowed to censor what the public sees. Movie ratings will be decided by the filmmakers themselves and NC-17 films will be allowed in mainstream theaters. No media of any kind will ever be censored unless it can be proven with evidence that it causes direct physical or financial harm.
You forgot the psychic harm and warping effects on ethics (note that I refer to ethics and not morals). I see that the media watchdogs are too prude about it, in some areas.
I think the psychological, scientific, artistic and ethic value of something should decide wether or not it should be sent, more precisely that all media have to at least to fill a quota of high-value programs each day and are not allowed to get under minimum value. Of course even a high-value work can theoretically contain nudity and swearing.
>*Public nudity will be legalized. Also public sex, so long as it does not cause a hazard (spreading germs, blocking traffic, etc.).
I do not fully agree on it, but it is more of a personal opinion. Could lead to too much desensiblisation and jading and make life actually a bit more boring.
>*People will be allowed to have anything they want done to their bodies after death, so long as it does not harm others or cause a health risk. Willing one's body to necrophila will be legal (although organ donation will still be encouraged).
You can donate the organs and will the rest.
>*All organized religions will be taxed based on income. Individual churches will be taxed based on seating capacity.
As long as they can set off charity expenses against tax liability I agree.
>*Scientology will be ordered to officially apologize for calling itself a religion. Their lawyers will be ignored.
Good idea. Their lawyers should have to officially apologize as well, for defending the untruth.
>*The Catholic church will be declared a criminal organization and the Pope will be barred from entering the U.S. indefinitely.
I disagree with outlawing them. Just charge them for all their recent crimes, also on the level of charging each person who knew and looked away. After all an organisation consists of people, and people can be replaced.
>*It will be made illegal for any institution to indoctrinate a minor into any religion. Churches will have strict age-limit enforcement similar to bars and casinos. Private religious schools will be forced to either become secular or close their doors.
Indoctrination of any kind should be illegal, for the brainwashing it is.
>*Circumcising infants of either gender will be illegal. It will be considered a form of child abuse like any other, with the same legal penalties.
Full agreement.
>*Parents who have been convicted of extreme child abuse will be forcibly and permanently sterilized.
Agreed. Without anesthesia. Depending on how extreme the abuse also removing more, in an appropriately painful way.
>*There will be no restrictions on where sex shops, titty bars or adult bookstores can be located (beyond normal zoning laws). There will be only one restriction on what can be sold: material depicting cruelty to living beings. This will be taken literally. Allowable will be snuff films with willing participants and bestiality where the animals are not forced. Child pornography will also be allowed, so long as there are no penetrative sex acts between children and adults, the children are not coerced in any way, and their parents are present on set. Obviously, possession of child pornography will no longer be a criminal offense (but will be allowable as evidence in child abuse trials).
I agree on the shops but disagree with some of the rest, mainly the snuff. Someone who wants to die that way needs psychological counseling, less for the way but for their death wish. Guess the same things can also be experienced in hypnosis or under safe conditions. Same as with cannibalism. Yor reasoning on child pornography sounds reasonable. I still disagree to some degree but that are my concerns about the psychological hazard in general.
>*It will also no longer be allowable for policemen to pose as children/teens online for entrapment stings. Parents should be encouraged to teach their children about being careful online, but any minor who willingly makes a date with someone on the internet will be considered responsible for whatever comes of it.
I disagree. Given the other alterations of the law you suggest it will in most cases no longer have a legal base anyway. But in the remaining, criminal cases it shouls still be allowed.
>*There will be a legal distinction made between people who are sexually attracted to infants, attracted to children and attracted to teenagers. The public will have this drilled into their skulls until they finally understand it. There must also be a more pronounceable term for ephebophiles.
Full agreement.
>*The driving age and age of consent will be standardized nationwide, like the voting age. Various tests will be designed to determine knowledge and reasoning capacity. A minor of any age can take these tests. Those who pass will receive a permit to legally drive, vote or fuck.
Fully agreed. Though I think these could be made mandatory to sort the immature adults out and give them time to mature before they cause harm.
>*A telephone poll will call every home in America and ask if anyone who lives there voted for George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. The purpose of this poll will not be made public until all the results are in. Anyone who admitted to voting for Bush twice will have their voting rights permanently terminated. (Those who did vote for him twice but refuse to admit it are assumed to have at least minimal common sense.)
xD Let's let them make the voting license test before.
>*A seperate telephone poll will also call every home in every state that has ever voted on the issue of gay marriage. Those called will be asked whether they voted for or against. Those who voted against will have their right to marriage revoked. Those who are already married will have their marriages legally annulled.
As long as you give them a chance to earn their rights back.
>*The following individuals will be arrested for crimes against truth and human decency: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps. Anyone else who it can be proven has risen to fame and fortune through a pattern of deception, viciousness and a willful disregard for facts may face similar punishment.
No opinion since I do not know who half of these people are.
>*Teachers' salaries will become enormous.
Fully agreed. Teachers are some of the most important persons in society. They not only teach knowledge but also have a good chance to influence our perspective on learning and research itself.
>*The military's budget will be cut at least in half. The money saved will be put into education, health care and infrastructure. It will be up to the military to become financially responsible and make the most of what they now get. It will be heavily reccomended that they begin by reviewing which large corporations are recieving military money due to inside connections, and are producing shoddy results.
I agree to clear and dust it, but then you need truly independent experts to decide about further cuts. Some of the money should also be put into foregin aid. Fighting poverty prevents wars, fighting the poor is one causes them.
>*NASA's budget will also be halved. Incentives will be given to come up with new ideas, instead of simply throwing more money at old ones.
Good idea.
>*Mental health care will be given the same level of funding as physical health care. More if needed.
Fully agreed.
>*Universal health care will become a reality. The profits of health insurance companies will be seized to pay for the startup costs of the new system, as punishment for defrauding the American public and causing uncountable needless deaths. Non-management employees of these now-bankrupt companies will be helped by the government to find new jobs.
Full agreement.
>*Corporations who have not paid taxes in years or decades will be forced to pay up, or their upper employees will face jail time. Corporate welfare will no longer be tolerated.
Full agreement.
>*A massive program to clear out American jails will take place (in preparation for the incoming business criminals). All prisoners will be set free immediately if their only offenses were simple drug possession or victimless sex crimes. All other cases of prisoners jailed for non-violent offenses will be reviewed. In the future, community service, rehab, psychiatric treatment and house arrest will be strongly recommended whenever possible.
Very good idea.
>*In all rape cases, statutory included, prosecution will _not_ be allowed if the 'victim' insists no crime occurred. However, if a 'victim' wishes to deny prosecution in the face of evidence, they must first have a short session with two separate, independent rape trauma experts to determine if they are refusing prosecution out of fear of retribution or from mental impairment. Both experts must file separate reports, and only if they come to the same conclusion of coercion or damaged capacity will the victim's request be denied.
A bit too dangerous imo. Better check all "victims" buy at least one psychologue to be sure not to overlook a victim.
>*Making a false rape accusation will carry the same punishment as an actual rape (but only if the accusation is proven false by physical evidence).
A bit extreme but I see the sense in it.
>*The sex offender registry will be erased. Anyone who had been put on the list for nonviolent or consensual offenses will be compensated by the government for cruel and unusual punishment.
I would keep the ones listed who were listed for violent or nonconsensual offenses.
>*There will be a massive effort to bring high-speed trains to America, like in Europe and Japan. This will hopefully ease some of the burden on airlines, making extensive reforms possible in that industry. The passenger's bill of rights will be expanded.
Good idea.
>*Physically assaulting a papparazi will be legal, so long as it does not cause permanent physical damage.
Solves the problem.
>*While owning a fur garment or pelt will not be illegal, American stores will not be allowed to sell fur. Fur stores will be shut down and owners will face steep fines for profiting off animal cruelty. Fur farms will also be shut down. The animals in these farms will be given medical treatment and released over a wide enough area to ensure there will be no natural habitat imbalance. Employees and owners of fur farms will be jailed, with sentences determined by number of animals caged and killed. Most will face life imprisonment.
Life imprisonment is a bit much, and undoes none of the damage. Put them to work for international animal rights organisations for the next decades, maybe at a minimum wage.
>*The meat industry will be overhauled top to bottom. Veal and pate will no longer be produced in the U.S. The owners of farms will be ordered to increase the quality of life for the animals by all plausible means. At the same time, abundant money and resources will be given to scientists to genetically engineer cows/chickens/pigs/etc. that are incapable of thought and incapable of feeling pain. Once this is accomplished, it will be made illegal for stores to sell any kind of meat other than from these kinds of animals.
Interesting idea. They currently work at growing meat in the lab with tissue engineering btw.
>*Massive amounts of money will also be used for the development of genetically-modified food, stem cell research, alternative energy sources and other worthy scientific endeavors. This will naturally include research into turning humans into real-life furries.
Fully agreed.
>*Sport hunting will only be legal with a blood alcohol level above the current limit for driving. Orange vests and hats will not be allowed.
Force them to use spears or clubs instead of guns. And no protective clothing at all.
>*Driving while texting will be made illegal and will carry as harsh a punishment as driving drunk. The same will be true for driving while talking on a cell phone (except in cases of emergency), using a laptop, reading, eating or applying makeup.
Good idea.
>*New rule for professional sports teams: If a team loses six games in row, no one gets paid until they win again.
Quite a bit of motivation.
>*Any movie theater that advertises a movie at a given time, and does not start that film at the stated time because of commercials shown before the movie (other than movie previews), will be fined an amount of money equal to double whatever revenue they gained from the commercials.
Rather simply force them to list both times per movie when the advertisements start and when the movie starts.
>*It will be legal to slap, once, anyone who misuses an apostrophe.
Apostrophe allergy: The hidden danger. One can get slapped anytime. xD
>*Since a DVD or CD costs approx. $5 to make and can cost approx. $15-25 to buy, media companies will be ordered to indicate the total production cost of any audio/visual media (including video games) on the media itself. Once this is in practice, the file-sharing laws will change so that if a movie, album or game is making a profit 150+ percent greater than its production cost, it will be completely legal to download it off the internet.
Making the film and all also costs much. I see your point but do not agree.
>*All laws currently in existence will be objectively reviewed to determine if they are doing more good than harm. Those that are found to be harmful will be changed as necessary or scrapped entirely. The public will be encouraged to recommend which laws they most want to see changed or scrapped. However, recommendations will be judged on reasonableness, plausibility and grammar.
I fully agree!
>*I get veto power over any upcoming movie projects I happen to hear about.
Certain directors could look for another job.
>*The Disney Corporation will be ordered to release a complete high quality DVD box set of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers, which will be given free to anyone who bought the other incomplete, shitty box sets. Box sets of other Disney Afternoon shows must follow. Also, they must give double refunds to anyone who bought the 'Most Wanted' Robin Hood DVD (where they cropped the top and bottom to make a fake widescreen edition). They must agree to let Pixar do whatever they want without interference. Also, they must make a sequel to The Great Mouse Detective.
I agree with the one on pixar. Concering the rest, releasing the missing episodes online for free would be fairer to those who ahve already bought the rest.
>*Similarly, Warner Brothers will be ordered to release complete box sets of Tiny Toon Adventures, Animaniacs, Road Rovers, etc. Plus they must manufacture Fifi plushies designed by furries.
Bet the plushies have a hole.
>*Michael Bay will be restricted from making movies for the rest of his life.
Putting a warning sign on his movies would be funnier.
>*The profits from Stephanie Meyer's Twilight books will be siezed to fund illiteracy prevention programs.
I would spend them to fund courses on good writing.
I think a polygamy license should require a little financial check. If your income would not be enough to house and feed them all properly you would get suggestions for you and for them how to raise your income.
>*Prostitution will be decriminalized completely.
Full agreement. As long as you criminalize the pimps as far as they criminally exploit their girls.
>*Cannibalism will be legal, so long as the meat doner provides video documentation of consent.
A bit extreme but I see the sense in it. Should require a documentaion of sanity first. Such things, also when it is just an amputation, need to be based on a reasonable decision, except it is just about what their corpse is used for if they die at something else.
Someone who wants to die that way needs psychological counseling, less for the way but for their death wish. Guess the same things can also be experienced in hypnosis or under safe conditions (aka the blood circuit of their brain hooked up to a machine instead of their body so they can survive whatever happens to the body and you can built a new one with tissue engineering or regeneration (given the science budget you assign it becomes an option) they can even flatline if their is a safe way to bring them back) Death is a waste of potential and is deserting your own destiny. So it should be avoided at any cost except wasting others.
>*Marijuana and natural hallucinogens will be legalized. Then an objective review will be conducted on other drugs and whether it causes more harm than good to have them remain illegal.
Good idea, but combine that with a kind of credit account. When it is empty you are no longer allowed to be sold drugs. Simply to prevent addiction. The allowed dose for each drug will be determined by medical tests when you try the drug the first time. You pay the test yourself. Drugs which they had not tested their tolerance on can not be legally sold to them. Charges for illegal drug trade remain the same.
>*Alcohol will not be banned, but drunk driving laws will be made much, much harsher. Cars will be seized on the first offense, with punishments getting exponentially tougher for each following offense. Tobacco will not be banned, but its use in public indoor areas will be. Business owners who wish to opt out of the ban can do so, provided they pay a tax approximately equal to the future burden on America's health care system from their average amount of smoking patrons. Also, addictive or poisonous cigarette additives will be banned. Tobacco companies will no longer be allowed to make amends for their crimes in the form of self-serving 'anti'-smoking commercials. Instead, they will directly pay for smokers' medical expenses. (To qualify for the money though, smokers will have to quit.)
Agreed, and same laws, considering their dose, for all other legal drugs.
>*Chinese-style show trials will be held on the White House lawn for key members of the Bush administration, followed by mock-executions, a few weeks in the stocks, then life imprisonment.
Good Idea. Maybe give them a taste of Guantanmo Bay and Abu Graib first. And give them a chance for parole if they change.
>*Laws relating to lobbying, taxes, and political corruption will be rewritten by groups of experienced individuals with no financial ties to politicians, the IRS, banks or big business.
Full agreement.
>*Individuals may still own guns but, just like automobiles, they must have training and a license before they can operate one. Allowing a child to operate a gun without proper training will be considered child endangerment. Guns may not be sold at gun shows. People will be able to anonymously report unlicensed guns and receive a large tax-free cash reward.
I agree, except that imo as long as you have a license for them you should also be able to buy them at gun shows. On the other hand everybody selling a gun illegally should also be charged for all crimes committed with it afterwards. Maybe two thirds of whatever sentence the gun user gets.
>*The death penalty will not be removed entirely, but laws will be changed so that it can only be considered in cases where an additional burden of proof must be met. Cases must be proved not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt (meaning there must be hard audio/visual or medical evidence). Also, all measures possible will be taken to reduce the racist imbalance in death penalty sentencing.
Fully agreed.
>*In all criminal cases where DNA testing can be performed, it must be performed. This must be done retroactively as well, to free as many innocent prisoners as possible. Eyewitness testimony alone will no longer be enough for a conviction.
Definitely.
>*State governors will no longer have the power to overturn a prison review board's recommendation of a prisoner's parole.
My full agreement.
>*All police cars and police interrogation rooms must have tamper-proof cameras that clearly record audio and video. Confessions will not be admissible in court unless the video shows there was no coercion. A citizen cannot be charged with resisting arrest unless it is in connection with another crime. Citizens may own any weapon or gear that police officers carry. Any police officer, city attorney, judge, or public official found guilty of a crime will face double the normal punishment for betraying the trust the public has placed in them.
Fully agreed.
>*Investigations will be made into how to reduce the anti-male bias in family and divorce laws.
No opinon on that since I do not know how biased the American laws are here.
>*Independent groups will monitor television news networks. If any news report is found to be distorted, grossly oversensationalized, indistinguishable from propaganda, or outright false, the station will face heavy fines. News shows that air unedited and uncredited press releases created by corporations or government agencies will also be punished.
Full agreement. The punishment should also include a big story about it on the news - and not only the can report about it, also the offenders themselves have to report about it in the news, including naming themselves as the offenders.
>*Swearing and nudity will be allowed on television. The FCC and MPAA will no longer be allowed to censor what the public sees. Movie ratings will be decided by the filmmakers themselves and NC-17 films will be allowed in mainstream theaters. No media of any kind will ever be censored unless it can be proven with evidence that it causes direct physical or financial harm.
You forgot the psychic harm and warping effects on ethics (note that I refer to ethics and not morals). I see that the media watchdogs are too prude about it, in some areas.
I think the psychological, scientific, artistic and ethic value of something should decide wether or not it should be sent, more precisely that all media have to at least to fill a quota of high-value programs each day and are not allowed to get under minimum value. Of course even a high-value work can theoretically contain nudity and swearing.
>*Public nudity will be legalized. Also public sex, so long as it does not cause a hazard (spreading germs, blocking traffic, etc.).
I do not fully agree on it, but it is more of a personal opinion. Could lead to too much desensiblisation and jading and make life actually a bit more boring.
>*People will be allowed to have anything they want done to their bodies after death, so long as it does not harm others or cause a health risk. Willing one's body to necrophila will be legal (although organ donation will still be encouraged).
You can donate the organs and will the rest.
>*All organized religions will be taxed based on income. Individual churches will be taxed based on seating capacity.
As long as they can set off charity expenses against tax liability I agree.
>*Scientology will be ordered to officially apologize for calling itself a religion. Their lawyers will be ignored.
Good idea. Their lawyers should have to officially apologize as well, for defending the untruth.
>*The Catholic church will be declared a criminal organization and the Pope will be barred from entering the U.S. indefinitely.
I disagree with outlawing them. Just charge them for all their recent crimes, also on the level of charging each person who knew and looked away. After all an organisation consists of people, and people can be replaced.
>*It will be made illegal for any institution to indoctrinate a minor into any religion. Churches will have strict age-limit enforcement similar to bars and casinos. Private religious schools will be forced to either become secular or close their doors.
Indoctrination of any kind should be illegal, for the brainwashing it is.
>*Circumcising infants of either gender will be illegal. It will be considered a form of child abuse like any other, with the same legal penalties.
Full agreement.
>*Parents who have been convicted of extreme child abuse will be forcibly and permanently sterilized.
Agreed. Without anesthesia. Depending on how extreme the abuse also removing more, in an appropriately painful way.
>*There will be no restrictions on where sex shops, titty bars or adult bookstores can be located (beyond normal zoning laws). There will be only one restriction on what can be sold: material depicting cruelty to living beings. This will be taken literally. Allowable will be snuff films with willing participants and bestiality where the animals are not forced. Child pornography will also be allowed, so long as there are no penetrative sex acts between children and adults, the children are not coerced in any way, and their parents are present on set. Obviously, possession of child pornography will no longer be a criminal offense (but will be allowable as evidence in child abuse trials).
I agree on the shops but disagree with some of the rest, mainly the snuff. Someone who wants to die that way needs psychological counseling, less for the way but for their death wish. Guess the same things can also be experienced in hypnosis or under safe conditions. Same as with cannibalism. Yor reasoning on child pornography sounds reasonable. I still disagree to some degree but that are my concerns about the psychological hazard in general.
>*It will also no longer be allowable for policemen to pose as children/teens online for entrapment stings. Parents should be encouraged to teach their children about being careful online, but any minor who willingly makes a date with someone on the internet will be considered responsible for whatever comes of it.
I disagree. Given the other alterations of the law you suggest it will in most cases no longer have a legal base anyway. But in the remaining, criminal cases it shouls still be allowed.
>*There will be a legal distinction made between people who are sexually attracted to infants, attracted to children and attracted to teenagers. The public will have this drilled into their skulls until they finally understand it. There must also be a more pronounceable term for ephebophiles.
Full agreement.
>*The driving age and age of consent will be standardized nationwide, like the voting age. Various tests will be designed to determine knowledge and reasoning capacity. A minor of any age can take these tests. Those who pass will receive a permit to legally drive, vote or fuck.
Fully agreed. Though I think these could be made mandatory to sort the immature adults out and give them time to mature before they cause harm.
>*A telephone poll will call every home in America and ask if anyone who lives there voted for George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. The purpose of this poll will not be made public until all the results are in. Anyone who admitted to voting for Bush twice will have their voting rights permanently terminated. (Those who did vote for him twice but refuse to admit it are assumed to have at least minimal common sense.)
xD Let's let them make the voting license test before.
>*A seperate telephone poll will also call every home in every state that has ever voted on the issue of gay marriage. Those called will be asked whether they voted for or against. Those who voted against will have their right to marriage revoked. Those who are already married will have their marriages legally annulled.
As long as you give them a chance to earn their rights back.
>*The following individuals will be arrested for crimes against truth and human decency: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps. Anyone else who it can be proven has risen to fame and fortune through a pattern of deception, viciousness and a willful disregard for facts may face similar punishment.
No opinion since I do not know who half of these people are.
>*Teachers' salaries will become enormous.
Fully agreed. Teachers are some of the most important persons in society. They not only teach knowledge but also have a good chance to influence our perspective on learning and research itself.
>*The military's budget will be cut at least in half. The money saved will be put into education, health care and infrastructure. It will be up to the military to become financially responsible and make the most of what they now get. It will be heavily reccomended that they begin by reviewing which large corporations are recieving military money due to inside connections, and are producing shoddy results.
I agree to clear and dust it, but then you need truly independent experts to decide about further cuts. Some of the money should also be put into foregin aid. Fighting poverty prevents wars, fighting the poor is one causes them.
>*NASA's budget will also be halved. Incentives will be given to come up with new ideas, instead of simply throwing more money at old ones.
Good idea.
>*Mental health care will be given the same level of funding as physical health care. More if needed.
Fully agreed.
>*Universal health care will become a reality. The profits of health insurance companies will be seized to pay for the startup costs of the new system, as punishment for defrauding the American public and causing uncountable needless deaths. Non-management employees of these now-bankrupt companies will be helped by the government to find new jobs.
Full agreement.
>*Corporations who have not paid taxes in years or decades will be forced to pay up, or their upper employees will face jail time. Corporate welfare will no longer be tolerated.
Full agreement.
>*A massive program to clear out American jails will take place (in preparation for the incoming business criminals). All prisoners will be set free immediately if their only offenses were simple drug possession or victimless sex crimes. All other cases of prisoners jailed for non-violent offenses will be reviewed. In the future, community service, rehab, psychiatric treatment and house arrest will be strongly recommended whenever possible.
Very good idea.
>*In all rape cases, statutory included, prosecution will _not_ be allowed if the 'victim' insists no crime occurred. However, if a 'victim' wishes to deny prosecution in the face of evidence, they must first have a short session with two separate, independent rape trauma experts to determine if they are refusing prosecution out of fear of retribution or from mental impairment. Both experts must file separate reports, and only if they come to the same conclusion of coercion or damaged capacity will the victim's request be denied.
A bit too dangerous imo. Better check all "victims" buy at least one psychologue to be sure not to overlook a victim.
>*Making a false rape accusation will carry the same punishment as an actual rape (but only if the accusation is proven false by physical evidence).
A bit extreme but I see the sense in it.
>*The sex offender registry will be erased. Anyone who had been put on the list for nonviolent or consensual offenses will be compensated by the government for cruel and unusual punishment.
I would keep the ones listed who were listed for violent or nonconsensual offenses.
>*There will be a massive effort to bring high-speed trains to America, like in Europe and Japan. This will hopefully ease some of the burden on airlines, making extensive reforms possible in that industry. The passenger's bill of rights will be expanded.
Good idea.
>*Physically assaulting a papparazi will be legal, so long as it does not cause permanent physical damage.
Solves the problem.
>*While owning a fur garment or pelt will not be illegal, American stores will not be allowed to sell fur. Fur stores will be shut down and owners will face steep fines for profiting off animal cruelty. Fur farms will also be shut down. The animals in these farms will be given medical treatment and released over a wide enough area to ensure there will be no natural habitat imbalance. Employees and owners of fur farms will be jailed, with sentences determined by number of animals caged and killed. Most will face life imprisonment.
Life imprisonment is a bit much, and undoes none of the damage. Put them to work for international animal rights organisations for the next decades, maybe at a minimum wage.
>*The meat industry will be overhauled top to bottom. Veal and pate will no longer be produced in the U.S. The owners of farms will be ordered to increase the quality of life for the animals by all plausible means. At the same time, abundant money and resources will be given to scientists to genetically engineer cows/chickens/pigs/etc. that are incapable of thought and incapable of feeling pain. Once this is accomplished, it will be made illegal for stores to sell any kind of meat other than from these kinds of animals.
Interesting idea. They currently work at growing meat in the lab with tissue engineering btw.
>*Massive amounts of money will also be used for the development of genetically-modified food, stem cell research, alternative energy sources and other worthy scientific endeavors. This will naturally include research into turning humans into real-life furries.
Fully agreed.
>*Sport hunting will only be legal with a blood alcohol level above the current limit for driving. Orange vests and hats will not be allowed.
Force them to use spears or clubs instead of guns. And no protective clothing at all.
>*Driving while texting will be made illegal and will carry as harsh a punishment as driving drunk. The same will be true for driving while talking on a cell phone (except in cases of emergency), using a laptop, reading, eating or applying makeup.
Good idea.
>*New rule for professional sports teams: If a team loses six games in row, no one gets paid until they win again.
Quite a bit of motivation.
>*Any movie theater that advertises a movie at a given time, and does not start that film at the stated time because of commercials shown before the movie (other than movie previews), will be fined an amount of money equal to double whatever revenue they gained from the commercials.
Rather simply force them to list both times per movie when the advertisements start and when the movie starts.
>*It will be legal to slap, once, anyone who misuses an apostrophe.
Apostrophe allergy: The hidden danger. One can get slapped anytime. xD
>*Since a DVD or CD costs approx. $5 to make and can cost approx. $15-25 to buy, media companies will be ordered to indicate the total production cost of any audio/visual media (including video games) on the media itself. Once this is in practice, the file-sharing laws will change so that if a movie, album or game is making a profit 150+ percent greater than its production cost, it will be completely legal to download it off the internet.
Making the film and all also costs much. I see your point but do not agree.
>*All laws currently in existence will be objectively reviewed to determine if they are doing more good than harm. Those that are found to be harmful will be changed as necessary or scrapped entirely. The public will be encouraged to recommend which laws they most want to see changed or scrapped. However, recommendations will be judged on reasonableness, plausibility and grammar.
I fully agree!
>*I get veto power over any upcoming movie projects I happen to hear about.
Certain directors could look for another job.
>*The Disney Corporation will be ordered to release a complete high quality DVD box set of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers, which will be given free to anyone who bought the other incomplete, shitty box sets. Box sets of other Disney Afternoon shows must follow. Also, they must give double refunds to anyone who bought the 'Most Wanted' Robin Hood DVD (where they cropped the top and bottom to make a fake widescreen edition). They must agree to let Pixar do whatever they want without interference. Also, they must make a sequel to The Great Mouse Detective.
I agree with the one on pixar. Concering the rest, releasing the missing episodes online for free would be fairer to those who ahve already bought the rest.
>*Similarly, Warner Brothers will be ordered to release complete box sets of Tiny Toon Adventures, Animaniacs, Road Rovers, etc. Plus they must manufacture Fifi plushies designed by furries.
Bet the plushies have a hole.
>*Michael Bay will be restricted from making movies for the rest of his life.
Putting a warning sign on his movies would be funnier.
>*The profits from Stephanie Meyer's Twilight books will be siezed to fund illiteracy prevention programs.
I would spend them to fund courses on good writing.
> >*Gay marriage will be legalized nationwide. Polygamy too. Divorce will be made significantly easier and attempts will be made to destigmatize it.
> I think a polygamy license should require a little financial check. If your income would not be enough to house and feed them all properly you would get suggestions for you and for them how to raise your income.
You're assuming there's going to be just one income in a polyamorous household?
> I think a polygamy license should require a little financial check. If your income would not be enough to house and feed them all properly you would get suggestions for you and for them how to raise your income.
You're assuming there's going to be just one income in a polyamorous household?
>I think a polygamy license should require a little financial check. If your income would not be enough to house and feed them all properly you would get suggestions for you and for them how to raise your income.
I'm very nervous about this. This could easily lead to demands that the same financial check be applied to all marriages. I don't want people to be denied the right to marry because they're poor. Poopr people get shit on enough.
>Full agreement. As long as you criminalize the pimps as far as they criminally exploit their girls.
I like it!
>Someone who wants to die that way needs psychological counseling, less for the way but for their death wish.
>Death is a waste of potential and is deserting your own destiny. So it should be avoided at any cost except wasting others.
First of all, I don't believe in destiny. I believe our lives belong to us. And personally, I care far more about a good life than a long one. What if, several decades down the line, I've done everything I want with my life? What if I choose to die, and I want it to be exciting? I think boredom is a perfectly acceptable reason for suicide, or for pleasure.
>Good idea, but combine that with a kind of credit account. When it is empty you are no longer allowed to be sold drugs. Simply to prevent addiction. The allowed dose for each drug will be determined by medical tests when you try the drug the first time. You pay the test yourself. Drugs which they had not tested their tolerance on can not be legally sold to them.
I dunno. This seems awfully complicated, and I really doubt it would deter an addict. It would probably end up creating the black market all over again.
Sometimes people do stupid things. Getting addicted to drugs is one of them. Trying to stop that by cutting off the supply of drugs is not going to stop them from using them; they'll just find another supply. There is no perfect solution, but I think overall it's preferable to allow people the choice to get addicted and destroy themselves, because the alternative is the violence caused by the illegal drug trade.
>Agreed, and same laws, considering their dose, for all other legal drugs.
Absolutely.
>Good Idea. Maybe give them a taste of Guantanmo Bay and Abu Graib first. And give them a chance for parole if they change.
Ooh! I like the Abu Graib idea!!
>On the other hand everybody selling a gun illegally should also be charged for all crimes committed with it afterwards. Maybe two thirds of whatever sentence the gun user gets.
I'm not sure if i wanna go that far, but there is definitely potential here. I can see how making the sellers too scared to sell would very likely reduce the number of unregistered guns.
>You forgot the psychic harm and warping effects on ethics (note that I refer to ethics and not morals). I see that the media watchdogs are too prude about it, in some areas.
I'm not sure I believe in the psychological waring idea. I think that our society causes the levels of violence and obscenity in our entertainment, not the other way around.
>I do not fully agree on it, but it is more of a personal opinion. Could lead to too much desensiblisation and jading and make life actually a bit more boring.
I'll take life becoming a bit boring over people being jailed for victimless sex crimes and having to register as a sex offender.
>Good idea. Their lawyers should have to officially apologize as well, for defending the untruth.
I dunno. That could open the door for other lawyers being sued for defending clients they knew were guilty. The organization's the problem; the lawyers are just doing what they're paid to do.
>I disagree with outlawing them. Just charge them for all their recent crimes, also on the level of charging each person who knew and looked away. After all an organisation consists of people, and people can be replaced.
Look at it this way: If a large corporation was found guilty of a long history of child rape, and management at all levels of the company had participated in covering it up, that corporation would be shut down overnight. The Catholic Church is getting off light with me just not allowing their boss into the country. As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason Catholics can't worship all they want without there needing to be one massive Vatican-based organization. Other religions get along just fine with individual churches.
>Yor reasoning on child pornography sounds reasonable. I still disagree to some degree but that are my concerns about the psychological hazard in general.
I wouldn't be arguing this if the evidence and the research all pointed to the conclusion that sexual behavior is not traumatic: coercion, secrecy, threats, lying and abuse are. And it just makes sense from a biological perspective. No child is ever born thinking sex is a sin. In fact, kids are born naked. Sex is natural; clothing and church morality aren't.
>I disagree. Given the other alterations of the law you suggest it will in most cases no longer have a legal base anyway. But in the remaining, criminal cases it shouls still be allowed.
Look at it this way: If someone is asking to come over to someone's house for consensual sex, are they really that much of a threat to society? Instead of these cops sitting around pretending to be little girls, I'd rather they be using their resources to catch rapists and carjackers, etc..
>Fully agreed. Though I think these could be made mandatory to sort the immature adults out and give them time to mature before they cause harm.
That's a possibility...
>As long as you give them a chance to earn their rights back.
Oh, absolutely. I'm all about people learning from their mistakes and being rewarded when they learn.
>I agree to clear and dust it, but then you need truly independent experts to decide about further cuts. Some of the money should also be put into foregin aid. Fighting poverty prevents wars, fighting the poor is one causes them.
Foreign aid is good when it's asked for. In general, I'd like to see america move away from the 'World's Policeman' attitude. It makes us arrogant and contemptuous. And when there are places in the U.S. where conditions are as bad as a third world country, I'd like to see us make our own poor more of a priority. Lead by example.
>A bit too dangerous imo. Better check all "victims" buy at least one psychologue to be sure not to overlook a victim.
I'm not sure what a psychologue is. Also, this is mostly about cases where the boyfriend's 18, the girlfriend's 16, the mother finds out and has a hissy fit, then the boy goes to jail for statutory rape and the girl is completely ignored. That's an obscenity. This is about forcing the judges and prosecutors to understand that the 'victim's opinion is more important than theirs.
>A bit extreme but I see the sense in it.
Mostly because, with our paranoia about sex crimes, it's the easiest thing in the world to accuse a man of rape and literally ruin his life forever, even if he's found innocent. A steeper punishment probably won't prevent it, but it'll at least show people that the crime of making a false rape accusation is serious.
>I would keep the ones listed who were listed for violent or nonconsensual offenses.
Either we have a registry for all violent offenders, or we have no registry. I can't see the sense in having a registry for rapists, but not one for murderers.
>Life imprisonment is a bit much, and undoes none of the damage. Put them to work for international animal rights organisations for the next decades, maybe at a minimum wage.
I LIKE THIS IDEA.
>Force them to use spears or clubs instead of guns. And no protective clothing at all.
I LIKE THIS ONE TOO. Dammit, that's way better than my idea! If they wanna hunt, then the risk should be equal for both predator and prey. Maybe they can wear underpants and that's it.
>Rather simply force them to list both times per movie when the advertisements start and when the movie starts.
Actually, yeah; if they'll just be honest about it there's no problem.
>Making the film and all also costs much. I see your point but do not agree.
A lot of people have disagreed with that one. Price-fixing for digital media iis definitely a problem, but I can't think of a really good solution.
>I agree with the one on pixar. Concering the rest, releasing the missing episodes online for free would be fairer to those who ahve already bought the rest.
Still, it'd be nice to have a decently put-together box set, with better transfers and interesting extras.
>Bet the plushies have a hole.
Hee hee hee.
>Putting a warning sign on his movies would be funnier.
Nah. Bad Boys 2 is one of the most morally offensive movies I have ever seen, and don't even get me started on Transformers. He's simply banned forever.
>I would spend them to fund courses on good writing.
Nah, it'd be better to teach kids to understand the difference between shit writing and decent writing.
BTW, it'd be fun to see J.K. Rowling beating the hell out of Stephanie Meyer with her thickest Harry Potter book. ;)
I'm very nervous about this. This could easily lead to demands that the same financial check be applied to all marriages. I don't want people to be denied the right to marry because they're poor. Poopr people get shit on enough.
>Full agreement. As long as you criminalize the pimps as far as they criminally exploit their girls.
I like it!
>Someone who wants to die that way needs psychological counseling, less for the way but for their death wish.
>Death is a waste of potential and is deserting your own destiny. So it should be avoided at any cost except wasting others.
First of all, I don't believe in destiny. I believe our lives belong to us. And personally, I care far more about a good life than a long one. What if, several decades down the line, I've done everything I want with my life? What if I choose to die, and I want it to be exciting? I think boredom is a perfectly acceptable reason for suicide, or for pleasure.
>Good idea, but combine that with a kind of credit account. When it is empty you are no longer allowed to be sold drugs. Simply to prevent addiction. The allowed dose for each drug will be determined by medical tests when you try the drug the first time. You pay the test yourself. Drugs which they had not tested their tolerance on can not be legally sold to them.
I dunno. This seems awfully complicated, and I really doubt it would deter an addict. It would probably end up creating the black market all over again.
Sometimes people do stupid things. Getting addicted to drugs is one of them. Trying to stop that by cutting off the supply of drugs is not going to stop them from using them; they'll just find another supply. There is no perfect solution, but I think overall it's preferable to allow people the choice to get addicted and destroy themselves, because the alternative is the violence caused by the illegal drug trade.
>Agreed, and same laws, considering their dose, for all other legal drugs.
Absolutely.
>Good Idea. Maybe give them a taste of Guantanmo Bay and Abu Graib first. And give them a chance for parole if they change.
Ooh! I like the Abu Graib idea!!
>On the other hand everybody selling a gun illegally should also be charged for all crimes committed with it afterwards. Maybe two thirds of whatever sentence the gun user gets.
I'm not sure if i wanna go that far, but there is definitely potential here. I can see how making the sellers too scared to sell would very likely reduce the number of unregistered guns.
>You forgot the psychic harm and warping effects on ethics (note that I refer to ethics and not morals). I see that the media watchdogs are too prude about it, in some areas.
I'm not sure I believe in the psychological waring idea. I think that our society causes the levels of violence and obscenity in our entertainment, not the other way around.
>I do not fully agree on it, but it is more of a personal opinion. Could lead to too much desensiblisation and jading and make life actually a bit more boring.
I'll take life becoming a bit boring over people being jailed for victimless sex crimes and having to register as a sex offender.
>Good idea. Their lawyers should have to officially apologize as well, for defending the untruth.
I dunno. That could open the door for other lawyers being sued for defending clients they knew were guilty. The organization's the problem; the lawyers are just doing what they're paid to do.
>I disagree with outlawing them. Just charge them for all their recent crimes, also on the level of charging each person who knew and looked away. After all an organisation consists of people, and people can be replaced.
Look at it this way: If a large corporation was found guilty of a long history of child rape, and management at all levels of the company had participated in covering it up, that corporation would be shut down overnight. The Catholic Church is getting off light with me just not allowing their boss into the country. As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason Catholics can't worship all they want without there needing to be one massive Vatican-based organization. Other religions get along just fine with individual churches.
>Yor reasoning on child pornography sounds reasonable. I still disagree to some degree but that are my concerns about the psychological hazard in general.
I wouldn't be arguing this if the evidence and the research all pointed to the conclusion that sexual behavior is not traumatic: coercion, secrecy, threats, lying and abuse are. And it just makes sense from a biological perspective. No child is ever born thinking sex is a sin. In fact, kids are born naked. Sex is natural; clothing and church morality aren't.
>I disagree. Given the other alterations of the law you suggest it will in most cases no longer have a legal base anyway. But in the remaining, criminal cases it shouls still be allowed.
Look at it this way: If someone is asking to come over to someone's house for consensual sex, are they really that much of a threat to society? Instead of these cops sitting around pretending to be little girls, I'd rather they be using their resources to catch rapists and carjackers, etc..
>Fully agreed. Though I think these could be made mandatory to sort the immature adults out and give them time to mature before they cause harm.
That's a possibility...
>As long as you give them a chance to earn their rights back.
Oh, absolutely. I'm all about people learning from their mistakes and being rewarded when they learn.
>I agree to clear and dust it, but then you need truly independent experts to decide about further cuts. Some of the money should also be put into foregin aid. Fighting poverty prevents wars, fighting the poor is one causes them.
Foreign aid is good when it's asked for. In general, I'd like to see america move away from the 'World's Policeman' attitude. It makes us arrogant and contemptuous. And when there are places in the U.S. where conditions are as bad as a third world country, I'd like to see us make our own poor more of a priority. Lead by example.
>A bit too dangerous imo. Better check all "victims" buy at least one psychologue to be sure not to overlook a victim.
I'm not sure what a psychologue is. Also, this is mostly about cases where the boyfriend's 18, the girlfriend's 16, the mother finds out and has a hissy fit, then the boy goes to jail for statutory rape and the girl is completely ignored. That's an obscenity. This is about forcing the judges and prosecutors to understand that the 'victim's opinion is more important than theirs.
>A bit extreme but I see the sense in it.
Mostly because, with our paranoia about sex crimes, it's the easiest thing in the world to accuse a man of rape and literally ruin his life forever, even if he's found innocent. A steeper punishment probably won't prevent it, but it'll at least show people that the crime of making a false rape accusation is serious.
>I would keep the ones listed who were listed for violent or nonconsensual offenses.
Either we have a registry for all violent offenders, or we have no registry. I can't see the sense in having a registry for rapists, but not one for murderers.
>Life imprisonment is a bit much, and undoes none of the damage. Put them to work for international animal rights organisations for the next decades, maybe at a minimum wage.
I LIKE THIS IDEA.
>Force them to use spears or clubs instead of guns. And no protective clothing at all.
I LIKE THIS ONE TOO. Dammit, that's way better than my idea! If they wanna hunt, then the risk should be equal for both predator and prey. Maybe they can wear underpants and that's it.
>Rather simply force them to list both times per movie when the advertisements start and when the movie starts.
Actually, yeah; if they'll just be honest about it there's no problem.
>Making the film and all also costs much. I see your point but do not agree.
A lot of people have disagreed with that one. Price-fixing for digital media iis definitely a problem, but I can't think of a really good solution.
>I agree with the one on pixar. Concering the rest, releasing the missing episodes online for free would be fairer to those who ahve already bought the rest.
Still, it'd be nice to have a decently put-together box set, with better transfers and interesting extras.
>Bet the plushies have a hole.
Hee hee hee.
>Putting a warning sign on his movies would be funnier.
Nah. Bad Boys 2 is one of the most morally offensive movies I have ever seen, and don't even get me started on Transformers. He's simply banned forever.
>I would spend them to fund courses on good writing.
Nah, it'd be better to teach kids to understand the difference between shit writing and decent writing.
BTW, it'd be fun to see J.K. Rowling beating the hell out of Stephanie Meyer with her thickest Harry Potter book. ;)
Before I respond to anything else, as I have yet to read everything in its entirety...
>*Sport hunting will only be legal with a blood alcohol level above the current limit for driving. Orange vests and hats will not be allowed.
WIN! You've just ensured a new show: Worlds Dumbest Hunters! You'll make millions and it will be featured on FX, Comedy Central and Spike! Maybe Animal Planet, but only the episodes with a confirmed hunters death by stupidity. :D
>*Sport hunting will only be legal with a blood alcohol level above the current limit for driving. Orange vests and hats will not be allowed.
WIN! You've just ensured a new show: Worlds Dumbest Hunters! You'll make millions and it will be featured on FX, Comedy Central and Spike! Maybe Animal Planet, but only the episodes with a confirmed hunters death by stupidity. :D
Logically, most o\f these are incopnsistent. Most are wishful thinking with no understanding of reality. At least three of these decrees could lead to Apocalypse as we know it.
I like it. Shall make my own set of decrees someday.
Don't outlaw Catholics! THey invented nuns and catholic school girl unifroms!
I like it. Shall make my own set of decrees someday.
Don't outlaw Catholics! THey invented nuns and catholic school girl unifroms!
Consider the Catholics Ban--Terribly unfair, as it assumes other organized religions are not monstrous enough to be illegal.
Similarly, wanting your stories to be made into movies--while I WOULD pay to see such things, I doubt anyone would work on it based on a decree, governmental or not, since such a decree would be unenforceable. What would you do, imprison the artists who don't do what they're told?
Putting people in prison for having loud, obnoxious, or stupid opinions on television is also a tad silly--it's arguably worse for those who cannot think for themselves, as they will latch unto even stupider opinions present in their community. At least Rushy Limbuck has a certain charm.
Sorry if I am rude, or missed the point. Just saying--many of these cannot be enforced, are unreasonable, or are simply wishes.
*curls up and stares*
Similarly, wanting your stories to be made into movies--while I WOULD pay to see such things, I doubt anyone would work on it based on a decree, governmental or not, since such a decree would be unenforceable. What would you do, imprison the artists who don't do what they're told?
Putting people in prison for having loud, obnoxious, or stupid opinions on television is also a tad silly--it's arguably worse for those who cannot think for themselves, as they will latch unto even stupider opinions present in their community. At least Rushy Limbuck has a certain charm.
Sorry if I am rude, or missed the point. Just saying--many of these cannot be enforced, are unreasonable, or are simply wishes.
*curls up and stares*
>Consider the Catholics Ban--Terribly unfair, as it assumes other organized religions are not monstrous enough to be illegal.
The big difference is, the Catholic Church is a single entity. It's like a business. And if a major corporation was found guilty of the extensive abuses against children that the Church has been, public opinion alone would be enough to destroy them.
I'm limiting myself to the U.S. here, so there's nothing I could really do about the Vatican. But I could officially declare them criminals and not let their mob leader into the country.
>Similarly, wanting your stories to be made into movies--while I WOULD pay to see such things, I doubt anyone would work on it based on a decree, governmental or not, since such a decree would be unenforceable. What would you do, imprison the artists who don't do what they're told?
Lord no! I'd PAY them! Gobloads of money! Much better motivator. ;)
>Putting people in prison for having loud, obnoxious, or stupid opinions on television is also a tad silly--it's arguably worse for those who cannot think for themselves, as they will latch unto even stupider opinions present in their community. At least Rushy Limbuck has a certain charm.
It's not just being loud and stupid, it's LYING. All of these people have gotten famous because of lies. I really dislike the fact that our society seems to think correcting a liar or calling someone a liar is more rude than telling a lie in the first place. Basically, I think that if we enforced the slander laws we already have, these people would already be in prison. (Actually, someone else suggested they be forced to do community service. I like that better!)
>Sorry if I am rude, or missed the point. Just saying--many of these cannot be enforced, are unreasonable, or are simply wishes.
Well, for the purposes of this thought experiment, I am assuming I have some way to enforce these. Like an army of loyal robots or something. Although usually I just imagine I'm omnipotent and can just will my desires into being. :3
The big difference is, the Catholic Church is a single entity. It's like a business. And if a major corporation was found guilty of the extensive abuses against children that the Church has been, public opinion alone would be enough to destroy them.
I'm limiting myself to the U.S. here, so there's nothing I could really do about the Vatican. But I could officially declare them criminals and not let their mob leader into the country.
>Similarly, wanting your stories to be made into movies--while I WOULD pay to see such things, I doubt anyone would work on it based on a decree, governmental or not, since such a decree would be unenforceable. What would you do, imprison the artists who don't do what they're told?
Lord no! I'd PAY them! Gobloads of money! Much better motivator. ;)
>Putting people in prison for having loud, obnoxious, or stupid opinions on television is also a tad silly--it's arguably worse for those who cannot think for themselves, as they will latch unto even stupider opinions present in their community. At least Rushy Limbuck has a certain charm.
It's not just being loud and stupid, it's LYING. All of these people have gotten famous because of lies. I really dislike the fact that our society seems to think correcting a liar or calling someone a liar is more rude than telling a lie in the first place. Basically, I think that if we enforced the slander laws we already have, these people would already be in prison. (Actually, someone else suggested they be forced to do community service. I like that better!)
>Sorry if I am rude, or missed the point. Just saying--many of these cannot be enforced, are unreasonable, or are simply wishes.
Well, for the purposes of this thought experiment, I am assuming I have some way to enforce these. Like an army of loyal robots or something. Although usually I just imagine I'm omnipotent and can just will my desires into being. :3
Actually, short bus kids tend to have a decent grasp on basic 'right' and 'wrong'. To get a law that fucks over far more people than it could ever possibly help, you need a politician playing to the paranoid fears of the average dim-witted American, without any thought of consequence beyond his own reelection.
Wow. I'm sure there is a certain amount of satire and exaggeration here, but damn! I'm struggling to find the (polite) words to make how clear how BAD this would be.
I honestly can't think of a better way to destroy the very concept and ideas of the American dream. You got rid of more freedoms and rights here than the worst tyrants, or acts of Congress, in human history. Heck, Stalin's Russia or Mao's China looks better than your "reformed" USA in almost every way, even recognizing the tens of millions that died under their thumbs. Big Brother will flourish under your changes to the point that Britain's public surveillance systems will look like an attempt at mediocracy. Your actions would directly cause such a catastrophic economic collapse that our society would probably never recover.
I can think of no better way to state it than to say this honestly makes Bushes actions look like a saint in comparison. I'm hoping you were just trying to shock people (because you clearly succeeded) rather than being truly this ignorant about how society works.
I honestly can't think of a better way to destroy the very concept and ideas of the American dream. You got rid of more freedoms and rights here than the worst tyrants, or acts of Congress, in human history. Heck, Stalin's Russia or Mao's China looks better than your "reformed" USA in almost every way, even recognizing the tens of millions that died under their thumbs. Big Brother will flourish under your changes to the point that Britain's public surveillance systems will look like an attempt at mediocracy. Your actions would directly cause such a catastrophic economic collapse that our society would probably never recover.
I can think of no better way to state it than to say this honestly makes Bushes actions look like a saint in comparison. I'm hoping you were just trying to shock people (because you clearly succeeded) rather than being truly this ignorant about how society works.
Because if I did that I'd be typing for hours, and it had already been a long day, so I figured I'd at least START small.
Basically, you either got rid of entirely or severally violated the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 19th, and 26th amendments to the Constitution (and that assumes I didn't miss any) and several "natural laws" that are found throughout the US legal code! I'm going to go until I get bored, and I'm STILL not going to even get close how much your ideal would fuck things up.
Divorce rates have only just gone below 50%, how much easier and destigmatized does it need to be?
Who cares about video documentation? Try a signed, witnessed, and notarized, legal document.
You allow "natural hallucinogens" but are heavily penalizing tobacco smoking. At this point in your life you should already know that objective reviews, aren't. At BEST they aren't completely rigged to be foregone conclusions. I also find it pretty ironic because a scientific analysis of almost all hallucinogens would show that they do more harm than good. "addictive or poisonous cigarette additives" include tobacco itself, which kind of defeats the purpose. Then again, the same would prove true for most hallucinogens or other drugs in general.
You've destroyed the very concept of separation between church and state by literally forcing people who wish to worship in groups (aka a church) pay a fine/tax in order to do so. You've singled out two "religions" in particular (Catholicism and Scientology, and don't those go well together?) for special and specific punishments. Then there is calling ~22% of Americans members of a criminal organization.
You've chosen to do significantly more harm to the education system than No-Child-Left-Behind by forcing the some of the best educational institutions in the US (private religious schools) either fundamentally change how they've been operating for decades, or close. And we both know that most would HAVE to close since they receive more funding from their associated church than the federal government, let alone the whole dictatorship thing.
I get that you hate Bush, but holding a show-trial instead of an honest to goodness open, legal, and FAIR public trial would make you indistinguishable from any other petty dictator. As I recall, circumventing the law for your own ideals is one of the things you hate about Bush in the first place.
"experienced individuals with no financial ties to politicians, the IRS, banks or big business" How can they be truly experienced if they have NO ties to such groups? The only way to get actual experience with ANYTHING (as opposed to book learning or conceptual knowledge) is to have in-depth participation within a field for an extended period of time. Thats why they are called experts after all.
Your firearms ideas flat out throw the 2nd amendment out the window. Its clear that you don't like guns, but also know next to nothing about them or the people who most commonly use them. There are more guns in the United States than people, yet there are almost twice as many people are killed by cars (of which there are ~50 million less). Since ~60% of all firearms deaths are suicides, and you think suicides should be legalized, the ratio gets even more lopsided.
There is no such thing as "beyond all doubt" in science or law. Trying to put it there is a futile and pointless endeavor that just puts more ignorance of reality into both. Increasing the weight of hard facts, while lowering the strength of eye witness accounts, is definitely a good thing. But as long as there is such a thing as a trial by a jury of your peers witnesses will always be more important than they should. You'd be better off with professional jurors.
A video can never show that there was no coercion, just that there was no coercion caught on camera. Similarly "tamper-proof" does not exist, tamper-resistant does. Requiring both hampers/prevents any and all police investigation.
"independent" groups already monitor the media. And every single one of these groups has proven to have a bias, because having a bias is a part of human nature. Thats why one group says station X is biased and station Y is not, while another group says the exact opposite. Then again, there is no such thing as unbiased news in the first place. Showing unedited press releases is the ONLY way to make sure the media outlet isn't distorting the message of the source, so why would you EVER want to force that to happen? Especially since it would virtually end live reporting on big issues and give even MORE influence to the talking heads. Thus ends the 4th Pillar of Democracy as government control becomes greater than that of the public viewers or the private station owners.
Neither the FCC nor the MPAA censor anything, though the FCC can fine stations that violate the ever changing "indecency standards." That is why swearing IS allowed, though nudity is not, on public TV. Private TV is another ball of wax where almost anything goes. The MPAA's rating system has absolutely NO force of law and is completely voluntary. That is why there is an "unrated" edition of more racy films these days. If you don't like what the MPAA might say about your movie, don't submit it to them for evaluation. Simple as that. NC-17 films are already allowed in major theaters, its the theater companies and managers that don't want them there. NC-17 films don't produce anywhere to the amount of revenue as a PG film.
The difference between full disclosure of a single religion (at a time of course) and indoctrination is what again? And I'd like to know how atheism is included here considering the significant legal favoritism you grant it. This is one of the MANY things you do that destroy even a semblance of freedom of religion in this country. To put it in perspective, similar laws are found in places like Saudi Arabia.
We've had this discussion before, and I STILL don't understand what your hang up is about male circumcision. I showed you the medical and scientific data behind it, and you didn't care. You seem to be personally insulted by it or something. As I recall, part of it is because of your personal grievances with your parent(s?) but I still don't understand why you'd want to force this when its obvious that the VAST majority didn't share your experiences.
Films show that there was no coercion and that all participants volunteered.... how? Especially when children are almost guaranteed to not understand the full consequences of their decision. Then again, just because it isn't traumatic at the time doesn't mean there won't be serious repercussions later in life. Where is the liability and responsibility there?
Even knowing how fucked up many parents are these days you are forcing even MORE responsibility on the youth, less responsibility on the parents, and crippling law enforcements capacity to deal with even known predators.
Since State Rights mean nothing to you, why not get rid of the whole "United States" moniker entirely? You've already put more power into the Federal government (while stripping it from parents, businesses, private & public institutions, the press, let alone states and cities) than many socialist countries. The fact that you want our wonderful federal government, the same one which you complain about almost as much as Cigar Skunk, to be the sole authority on when/if minors can legally "drive, vote or fuck" when most can't do any one them right even WITH detailed instructions. Heck, the fact that you think they all equate is bad enough.
Does the word "democracy" mean anything to you? People are either allowed to make mistakes, or they aren't. Given that Obama is doing worse in his ratings now than Bush was at the same time frame, and thats after starting MUCH higher, how soon will it be until the voice of that half of the population is silenced too? Besides, voting records are public domain, not phone poll necessary.
"Anyone else who it can be proven has risen to fame and fortune through a pattern of deception, viciousness and a willful disregard for facts may face similar punishment." Given many of your actions/beliefs, wouldn't this also include you? :)
Are you familiar with the fact that the "education, health care and infrastructure" budget is already significantly higher than the military budget is ALL measures? How about the fact that entitlement spending is the single greatest, and fast growing, cause of federal deficits and the National Debt? Even after the post-9/11 surge in defense spending (a whopping 1.0% increase) the defense budget is already lower, as a percent of GDP, than any year until 1948. FYI, they would most likely cut costs by evacuating our overseas bases and reducing our international commitments. Which would cause a global recession as our allies would lose a staggering source of income, and thus cost us the support of those will now call friends. The axiom "Never forget that your weapon is made by the lowest bidder" is there for a reason.
You want to cut NASA's budget in HALF??? NASA's budget was higher (as a percent of GDP) three years after its 1958 founding than it is now! As for incentives for new ideas go, ever heard of the "Centennial Challenges"? Then again when responsibilities are not cut, but funding is constantly cut for the last 2 decades, its hard to do the multibillion dollar experimenting that space exploration requires.
Giving mental health care that much funding would completely break the budget, even if you didn't follow through with any of your other plans to mess it up. Medicare and Medicade already make up ~19% of the budget, and their budgets are projected to increase 235% and 224% (respectively) by 2032 as it is. If you REALLY wanted to help mental health patients would work to stop the overmedication that has placed more Americans on pills than any other malady. Especially when counseling would take care of or at least mitigate most issues.
You could completely seize all funds and assets from the health insurance companies and it wouldn't even begin to cover the costs. Didn't you pay attention to the Health Care Act passed in March? Even without ANY increase or cut in benefits, taxes would have to increase ~8.1% to fully fund Medicare and Social Security. Universal healthcare will become a reality when people are willing to financially, politically, and morally support it. And that won't happen as long as the people who benefit most from program put absolutely NOTHING into it. The average taxpayer has absolutely no problem with helping somebody who is already helping themselves (but needs a little help) but positively hates the idea of carrying along someone who contributes nothing and just leeches off of their own hard work.
Not a major disagreement here, but when a victim wishes to deny prosecution for rape it should also be determined whether fear of harm for the raper is a concern. Many domestic disputes that eventually escalate into violence begin this way. The WHY of the victims decision is even more important than the decision itself.
Again, proving a negative is considerably harder than proving a positive. Especially when you are limiting it to purely physical evidence.
As hard as it would be or someone under your rule to be a sex offender in the first place, don't you think some kind of registry is in order? The current system is overused, misused, too expensive, discourages rehabilitation, and too public, but I honestly think it has its place. I certainly have little to no problem with the 2nd time equals life prison with no parol minimum.
High speed trains in the US will only really work in the North East US, which has the conditions closest to those in Europe and Japan. For the rest of the US it is entirely impracticable. And we've found this out because we HAVE made major efforts to introduce them here, repeatedly. The US has too low a population density, the trains are too expensive to operate, they have prohibitively expensive start up costs, they are too inflexible compared to cars and too slow compared to airlines, Americans lost their love of trains (as form of mass public transportation over significant distances) generations ago, and the public doesn't use the train system we are ready have to heavily subsidize in order to keep running! Its already a sinkhole, making it bigger would only make it hemorrhage money faster.
You ever stop to think that this might just provide the paparazzi with more pictures? You may make it legal, but assaulting the media has never, and will never, have a good connotation in the mind of the public. Then again, the precedent of assaulting media who get in your way isn't exactly a good one.
Ever heard of Prohibition or the War on Drugs? Neither worked out very well, yet you are trying to do the EXACT same thing. You would be encouraging the industry (as always) to go overseas where there is less legislation and smuggle it in. The trade in pelts of endangered species is already large enough, you would be making it worse. Its always better to have strict licensing and monitoring then making things outright illegal. Once you make something illegal you have removed all capacity to change the industry for the better. Animals released from fur farms by you would fair just as well as the ones occasionally released by PETA raids: not at all. You'd be better off sending them to zoos.
I don't know what you have against pate, since it can be made from just about any meat, so I'm assuming to are opposing the most famous pate: Foie Gras. Regardless, you do the same thing with Veal and Pate that you do with fur, and it will end in the same result. Once again, rather than legislate the creation of the healthiest and least cruel farms, you instead push the problem overseas and support the most cost efficient and cruelest farms. You don't seem to understand that cruelty free meat (of all kinds) is already available and on the market. Its considerably more expensive than the meat that is otherwise available to them, so most don't buy it. Your actions would just raise the importation of meat grown overseas and destroy the US meat industry. As usual, you are just further raising cost for the consumer, lowering the GDP, forcing even more businesses overseas, and increasing federal oversight.
Genetically engineering mammals incapable of thought or pain is impossible in anything close to the near future (<20 years). Its a gigantic sinkhole of money, with no guarantee of success, that doesn't change the fact that consumers won't buy it if it also doesn't taste good!
There is already massive amounts of money spent on these endeavors. The private industry is leading the way on all of these areas, although the current laws against stem cell research is a MAJOR hamper.
No surprise, you don't understand sport hunting. Let alone the fact that licenses for hunters is one of the major ways most parks are funded. Whenever a hunter has to drop hundreds (deer, elk, etc) to tens of thousands of dollars (bison, moose, goat, etc) to hunt ONE animal it makes a difference. Especially when deer overpopulation is such a major problem in the US right now.
How about just make it illegal to get in an accident while performing such tasks? Because we all know that your plan would be impossible to enforce and that people are going to do it anyways. They already tried outlawing it in New York, and found that it didn't make a damn bit of difference to people's habits.
As always, telling private businesses (sports teams in this case) how well they have to perform kills the business. Athletes already get paid what they do based on their accomplishments and statistics, further penalizing failure (especially on something as luck dependent as a sport) is ludicrous. Not too mention a complete violation of rights on almost every single level.
If you actually look at theater listings they list the show's start time, NOT the time that the feature film begins playing. Theaters do that because they are being smart about what people want: People like being able to be late, and not miss anything important. People like having the time to buy their overpriced foods and beverages, get situated in their seats, go to the bathroom, and with other minor hassles, before the film starts. People like seeing movie trailers!
Why bother showing it on the DVD? That information is already easy enough to find. The biggest cost of DVDs (or VHS, Vinyl, or anything medium for that matter) has NEVER been raw production costs so its pretty much a moot point. As for the rest of it, congratulations for killing off all future big budget items, any semblance of copyright protection, royalties, and the incentive to create truly create works. If you can only make 150% profit, which is DAMN low all things considered, why bother to make anything really good? You'd receive money for a short period of time and then not get another penny.
Something "objectively reviewed" is only as objective as the people who review it. Especially when "doing more harm than good" is such an incredibly vague and subjective measure that its, for all intents and purposes, useless! Heck, just about anyone with a strong religious belief who "objectively reviewed" your ideas here would say you did such more harm than good that its not even funny. So would anyone who is fiscally conservative, or a business owner, or like their civil liberties relatively intact, or prefers the rule of democracy over dictatorship!
In all honesty, your mother probably gets the better part of the deal.
I couldn't care less about your other frivolous desires to just get what you want. Though the fact you'd rather force, order, or compel these things than just PAY FOR THEM really highlights the major problem I have with most of your endeavors.
I guess the biggest question I have to ask you is why it is you'd feel the need to force your own opinions (rather radical ones for most of the world, let alone the US) on people when you decry how much you hate it when people do the same to you? Especially when many of the things you'd do serve no purpose but to support your views at the expense of the freedoms and/or rights of others, just because they disagree with you. And that ignores your sheer vindictiveness about some things.
tldr: I think your changes would make the USA suck horribly for the vast majority and leave only a tiny handful even remotely close to happy. I think a very one sided civil war/coup or an assassination would occur in a matter of days.
Basically, you either got rid of entirely or severally violated the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 19th, and 26th amendments to the Constitution (and that assumes I didn't miss any) and several "natural laws" that are found throughout the US legal code! I'm going to go until I get bored, and I'm STILL not going to even get close how much your ideal would fuck things up.
Divorce rates have only just gone below 50%, how much easier and destigmatized does it need to be?
Who cares about video documentation? Try a signed, witnessed, and notarized, legal document.
You allow "natural hallucinogens" but are heavily penalizing tobacco smoking. At this point in your life you should already know that objective reviews, aren't. At BEST they aren't completely rigged to be foregone conclusions. I also find it pretty ironic because a scientific analysis of almost all hallucinogens would show that they do more harm than good. "addictive or poisonous cigarette additives" include tobacco itself, which kind of defeats the purpose. Then again, the same would prove true for most hallucinogens or other drugs in general.
You've destroyed the very concept of separation between church and state by literally forcing people who wish to worship in groups (aka a church) pay a fine/tax in order to do so. You've singled out two "religions" in particular (Catholicism and Scientology, and don't those go well together?) for special and specific punishments. Then there is calling ~22% of Americans members of a criminal organization.
You've chosen to do significantly more harm to the education system than No-Child-Left-Behind by forcing the some of the best educational institutions in the US (private religious schools) either fundamentally change how they've been operating for decades, or close. And we both know that most would HAVE to close since they receive more funding from their associated church than the federal government, let alone the whole dictatorship thing.
I get that you hate Bush, but holding a show-trial instead of an honest to goodness open, legal, and FAIR public trial would make you indistinguishable from any other petty dictator. As I recall, circumventing the law for your own ideals is one of the things you hate about Bush in the first place.
"experienced individuals with no financial ties to politicians, the IRS, banks or big business" How can they be truly experienced if they have NO ties to such groups? The only way to get actual experience with ANYTHING (as opposed to book learning or conceptual knowledge) is to have in-depth participation within a field for an extended period of time. Thats why they are called experts after all.
Your firearms ideas flat out throw the 2nd amendment out the window. Its clear that you don't like guns, but also know next to nothing about them or the people who most commonly use them. There are more guns in the United States than people, yet there are almost twice as many people are killed by cars (of which there are ~50 million less). Since ~60% of all firearms deaths are suicides, and you think suicides should be legalized, the ratio gets even more lopsided.
There is no such thing as "beyond all doubt" in science or law. Trying to put it there is a futile and pointless endeavor that just puts more ignorance of reality into both. Increasing the weight of hard facts, while lowering the strength of eye witness accounts, is definitely a good thing. But as long as there is such a thing as a trial by a jury of your peers witnesses will always be more important than they should. You'd be better off with professional jurors.
A video can never show that there was no coercion, just that there was no coercion caught on camera. Similarly "tamper-proof" does not exist, tamper-resistant does. Requiring both hampers/prevents any and all police investigation.
"independent" groups already monitor the media. And every single one of these groups has proven to have a bias, because having a bias is a part of human nature. Thats why one group says station X is biased and station Y is not, while another group says the exact opposite. Then again, there is no such thing as unbiased news in the first place. Showing unedited press releases is the ONLY way to make sure the media outlet isn't distorting the message of the source, so why would you EVER want to force that to happen? Especially since it would virtually end live reporting on big issues and give even MORE influence to the talking heads. Thus ends the 4th Pillar of Democracy as government control becomes greater than that of the public viewers or the private station owners.
Neither the FCC nor the MPAA censor anything, though the FCC can fine stations that violate the ever changing "indecency standards." That is why swearing IS allowed, though nudity is not, on public TV. Private TV is another ball of wax where almost anything goes. The MPAA's rating system has absolutely NO force of law and is completely voluntary. That is why there is an "unrated" edition of more racy films these days. If you don't like what the MPAA might say about your movie, don't submit it to them for evaluation. Simple as that. NC-17 films are already allowed in major theaters, its the theater companies and managers that don't want them there. NC-17 films don't produce anywhere to the amount of revenue as a PG film.
The difference between full disclosure of a single religion (at a time of course) and indoctrination is what again? And I'd like to know how atheism is included here considering the significant legal favoritism you grant it. This is one of the MANY things you do that destroy even a semblance of freedom of religion in this country. To put it in perspective, similar laws are found in places like Saudi Arabia.
We've had this discussion before, and I STILL don't understand what your hang up is about male circumcision. I showed you the medical and scientific data behind it, and you didn't care. You seem to be personally insulted by it or something. As I recall, part of it is because of your personal grievances with your parent(s?) but I still don't understand why you'd want to force this when its obvious that the VAST majority didn't share your experiences.
Films show that there was no coercion and that all participants volunteered.... how? Especially when children are almost guaranteed to not understand the full consequences of their decision. Then again, just because it isn't traumatic at the time doesn't mean there won't be serious repercussions later in life. Where is the liability and responsibility there?
Even knowing how fucked up many parents are these days you are forcing even MORE responsibility on the youth, less responsibility on the parents, and crippling law enforcements capacity to deal with even known predators.
Since State Rights mean nothing to you, why not get rid of the whole "United States" moniker entirely? You've already put more power into the Federal government (while stripping it from parents, businesses, private & public institutions, the press, let alone states and cities) than many socialist countries. The fact that you want our wonderful federal government, the same one which you complain about almost as much as Cigar Skunk, to be the sole authority on when/if minors can legally "drive, vote or fuck" when most can't do any one them right even WITH detailed instructions. Heck, the fact that you think they all equate is bad enough.
Does the word "democracy" mean anything to you? People are either allowed to make mistakes, or they aren't. Given that Obama is doing worse in his ratings now than Bush was at the same time frame, and thats after starting MUCH higher, how soon will it be until the voice of that half of the population is silenced too? Besides, voting records are public domain, not phone poll necessary.
"Anyone else who it can be proven has risen to fame and fortune through a pattern of deception, viciousness and a willful disregard for facts may face similar punishment." Given many of your actions/beliefs, wouldn't this also include you? :)
Are you familiar with the fact that the "education, health care and infrastructure" budget is already significantly higher than the military budget is ALL measures? How about the fact that entitlement spending is the single greatest, and fast growing, cause of federal deficits and the National Debt? Even after the post-9/11 surge in defense spending (a whopping 1.0% increase) the defense budget is already lower, as a percent of GDP, than any year until 1948. FYI, they would most likely cut costs by evacuating our overseas bases and reducing our international commitments. Which would cause a global recession as our allies would lose a staggering source of income, and thus cost us the support of those will now call friends. The axiom "Never forget that your weapon is made by the lowest bidder" is there for a reason.
You want to cut NASA's budget in HALF??? NASA's budget was higher (as a percent of GDP) three years after its 1958 founding than it is now! As for incentives for new ideas go, ever heard of the "Centennial Challenges"? Then again when responsibilities are not cut, but funding is constantly cut for the last 2 decades, its hard to do the multibillion dollar experimenting that space exploration requires.
Giving mental health care that much funding would completely break the budget, even if you didn't follow through with any of your other plans to mess it up. Medicare and Medicade already make up ~19% of the budget, and their budgets are projected to increase 235% and 224% (respectively) by 2032 as it is. If you REALLY wanted to help mental health patients would work to stop the overmedication that has placed more Americans on pills than any other malady. Especially when counseling would take care of or at least mitigate most issues.
You could completely seize all funds and assets from the health insurance companies and it wouldn't even begin to cover the costs. Didn't you pay attention to the Health Care Act passed in March? Even without ANY increase or cut in benefits, taxes would have to increase ~8.1% to fully fund Medicare and Social Security. Universal healthcare will become a reality when people are willing to financially, politically, and morally support it. And that won't happen as long as the people who benefit most from program put absolutely NOTHING into it. The average taxpayer has absolutely no problem with helping somebody who is already helping themselves (but needs a little help) but positively hates the idea of carrying along someone who contributes nothing and just leeches off of their own hard work.
Not a major disagreement here, but when a victim wishes to deny prosecution for rape it should also be determined whether fear of harm for the raper is a concern. Many domestic disputes that eventually escalate into violence begin this way. The WHY of the victims decision is even more important than the decision itself.
Again, proving a negative is considerably harder than proving a positive. Especially when you are limiting it to purely physical evidence.
As hard as it would be or someone under your rule to be a sex offender in the first place, don't you think some kind of registry is in order? The current system is overused, misused, too expensive, discourages rehabilitation, and too public, but I honestly think it has its place. I certainly have little to no problem with the 2nd time equals life prison with no parol minimum.
High speed trains in the US will only really work in the North East US, which has the conditions closest to those in Europe and Japan. For the rest of the US it is entirely impracticable. And we've found this out because we HAVE made major efforts to introduce them here, repeatedly. The US has too low a population density, the trains are too expensive to operate, they have prohibitively expensive start up costs, they are too inflexible compared to cars and too slow compared to airlines, Americans lost their love of trains (as form of mass public transportation over significant distances) generations ago, and the public doesn't use the train system we are ready have to heavily subsidize in order to keep running! Its already a sinkhole, making it bigger would only make it hemorrhage money faster.
You ever stop to think that this might just provide the paparazzi with more pictures? You may make it legal, but assaulting the media has never, and will never, have a good connotation in the mind of the public. Then again, the precedent of assaulting media who get in your way isn't exactly a good one.
Ever heard of Prohibition or the War on Drugs? Neither worked out very well, yet you are trying to do the EXACT same thing. You would be encouraging the industry (as always) to go overseas where there is less legislation and smuggle it in. The trade in pelts of endangered species is already large enough, you would be making it worse. Its always better to have strict licensing and monitoring then making things outright illegal. Once you make something illegal you have removed all capacity to change the industry for the better. Animals released from fur farms by you would fair just as well as the ones occasionally released by PETA raids: not at all. You'd be better off sending them to zoos.
I don't know what you have against pate, since it can be made from just about any meat, so I'm assuming to are opposing the most famous pate: Foie Gras. Regardless, you do the same thing with Veal and Pate that you do with fur, and it will end in the same result. Once again, rather than legislate the creation of the healthiest and least cruel farms, you instead push the problem overseas and support the most cost efficient and cruelest farms. You don't seem to understand that cruelty free meat (of all kinds) is already available and on the market. Its considerably more expensive than the meat that is otherwise available to them, so most don't buy it. Your actions would just raise the importation of meat grown overseas and destroy the US meat industry. As usual, you are just further raising cost for the consumer, lowering the GDP, forcing even more businesses overseas, and increasing federal oversight.
Genetically engineering mammals incapable of thought or pain is impossible in anything close to the near future (<20 years). Its a gigantic sinkhole of money, with no guarantee of success, that doesn't change the fact that consumers won't buy it if it also doesn't taste good!
There is already massive amounts of money spent on these endeavors. The private industry is leading the way on all of these areas, although the current laws against stem cell research is a MAJOR hamper.
No surprise, you don't understand sport hunting. Let alone the fact that licenses for hunters is one of the major ways most parks are funded. Whenever a hunter has to drop hundreds (deer, elk, etc) to tens of thousands of dollars (bison, moose, goat, etc) to hunt ONE animal it makes a difference. Especially when deer overpopulation is such a major problem in the US right now.
How about just make it illegal to get in an accident while performing such tasks? Because we all know that your plan would be impossible to enforce and that people are going to do it anyways. They already tried outlawing it in New York, and found that it didn't make a damn bit of difference to people's habits.
As always, telling private businesses (sports teams in this case) how well they have to perform kills the business. Athletes already get paid what they do based on their accomplishments and statistics, further penalizing failure (especially on something as luck dependent as a sport) is ludicrous. Not too mention a complete violation of rights on almost every single level.
If you actually look at theater listings they list the show's start time, NOT the time that the feature film begins playing. Theaters do that because they are being smart about what people want: People like being able to be late, and not miss anything important. People like having the time to buy their overpriced foods and beverages, get situated in their seats, go to the bathroom, and with other minor hassles, before the film starts. People like seeing movie trailers!
Why bother showing it on the DVD? That information is already easy enough to find. The biggest cost of DVDs (or VHS, Vinyl, or anything medium for that matter) has NEVER been raw production costs so its pretty much a moot point. As for the rest of it, congratulations for killing off all future big budget items, any semblance of copyright protection, royalties, and the incentive to create truly create works. If you can only make 150% profit, which is DAMN low all things considered, why bother to make anything really good? You'd receive money for a short period of time and then not get another penny.
Something "objectively reviewed" is only as objective as the people who review it. Especially when "doing more harm than good" is such an incredibly vague and subjective measure that its, for all intents and purposes, useless! Heck, just about anyone with a strong religious belief who "objectively reviewed" your ideas here would say you did such more harm than good that its not even funny. So would anyone who is fiscally conservative, or a business owner, or like their civil liberties relatively intact, or prefers the rule of democracy over dictatorship!
In all honesty, your mother probably gets the better part of the deal.
I couldn't care less about your other frivolous desires to just get what you want. Though the fact you'd rather force, order, or compel these things than just PAY FOR THEM really highlights the major problem I have with most of your endeavors.
I guess the biggest question I have to ask you is why it is you'd feel the need to force your own opinions (rather radical ones for most of the world, let alone the US) on people when you decry how much you hate it when people do the same to you? Especially when many of the things you'd do serve no purpose but to support your views at the expense of the freedoms and/or rights of others, just because they disagree with you. And that ignores your sheer vindictiveness about some things.
tldr: I think your changes would make the USA suck horribly for the vast majority and leave only a tiny handful even remotely close to happy. I think a very one sided civil war/coup or an assassination would occur in a matter of days.
Some of your arguments are good and I concede them. However, just as many are simply you saying, 'I don't agree with this, therefore it's wrong'. Or making an argument that completely contradicts what research has been done on the subject. So while some of your arguments are good, a lot of them lack anything solid.
Plus you're treating this as if its actually going to happen. For crying out loud, it's a thought experiment. And part of why I posted it was to get feedback. I welcome argument, but could you skip the personal disgust?
I have neither the time nor energy to argue about every last point (especially considering I seem to have some ind of stomach virus right now), but one thing stood out. You don't understand my objections to circumcision? How about: It's unacceptable for irreversible surgery to be performed on someone who cannot possibly consent, based wholly on ancient religious rites, with weak medical justifications slapped on after the fact to justify the practice's continued existence. For further ranting, I did a journal about it: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/728554/
Plus you're treating this as if its actually going to happen. For crying out loud, it's a thought experiment. And part of why I posted it was to get feedback. I welcome argument, but could you skip the personal disgust?
I have neither the time nor energy to argue about every last point (especially considering I seem to have some ind of stomach virus right now), but one thing stood out. You don't understand my objections to circumcision? How about: It's unacceptable for irreversible surgery to be performed on someone who cannot possibly consent, based wholly on ancient religious rites, with weak medical justifications slapped on after the fact to justify the practice's continued existence. For further ranting, I did a journal about it: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/728554/
Which argument(s) of mine have contradicted research on the subject? Which of them "lack anything solid"? A little quid pro quo here wouldn't hurt when you literally asked for this. On the other hand, you and I (or any one else for that matter) are never going to agree on everything. A certain amount of "I think this, so there" is present for both of us. The difference is that I don't even theorize about forcing my differences of opinion onto other people.
Of course its not going to happen. But most people I know who talk about getting unrestrained power want to make things better WITHOUT violating the civil rights of the population and putting a tiny segment of like minded individuals firmly above the newly downtrodden citizenry. So why in the world would I bother concealing my personal disgust when your own disgust is laden throughout the entire thing? Especially when you asked for me an expansion on what I said earlier.
I get that you don't like circumcision, but the sheer volatility? The fact that you also seek to persecute the doctors performing the operation, RATHER THAN THE PARENTS WHO ORDER IT BE PREFORMED, boggles my mind. And once again it shows you injecting your own personal preferences into a purely private and highly individual choice. Directly equating an entirely voluntary and routine medical procedure to child molestation shows you have serious emotional problems with the issue rather than truly rational ones. The fact that this is the ONLY point you of mine you chose to address kind of proves my point.
You've apparently made several journals on the subject, I responded to one of them. And (as I recall) you chose to ignored every bit of scientific evidence I brought to bear. Male circumcision is NOT wholly based on religion, has a solid scientific rational, and the majority of adults who choose to get circumcised report improved sensation (38%) or no change at all (44%). As for the consent issue: do you have the same issue with every one of the plethora of other (sometimes hazardous) decisions your parents made on your behalf? How about the early decisions regarding your education? How about every single other damn decision made on your behalf until you could make an informed decision? They are parents, not omniscient beings, and somebody has to make the decisions. They can and do make decisions that their children don't like. Get over it. It sucks sometimes, we all know, because we've all been there.
Get well soon.
Of course its not going to happen. But most people I know who talk about getting unrestrained power want to make things better WITHOUT violating the civil rights of the population and putting a tiny segment of like minded individuals firmly above the newly downtrodden citizenry. So why in the world would I bother concealing my personal disgust when your own disgust is laden throughout the entire thing? Especially when you asked for me an expansion on what I said earlier.
I get that you don't like circumcision, but the sheer volatility? The fact that you also seek to persecute the doctors performing the operation, RATHER THAN THE PARENTS WHO ORDER IT BE PREFORMED, boggles my mind. And once again it shows you injecting your own personal preferences into a purely private and highly individual choice. Directly equating an entirely voluntary and routine medical procedure to child molestation shows you have serious emotional problems with the issue rather than truly rational ones. The fact that this is the ONLY point you of mine you chose to address kind of proves my point.
You've apparently made several journals on the subject, I responded to one of them. And (as I recall) you chose to ignored every bit of scientific evidence I brought to bear. Male circumcision is NOT wholly based on religion, has a solid scientific rational, and the majority of adults who choose to get circumcised report improved sensation (38%) or no change at all (44%). As for the consent issue: do you have the same issue with every one of the plethora of other (sometimes hazardous) decisions your parents made on your behalf? How about the early decisions regarding your education? How about every single other damn decision made on your behalf until you could make an informed decision? They are parents, not omniscient beings, and somebody has to make the decisions. They can and do make decisions that their children don't like. Get over it. It sucks sometimes, we all know, because we've all been there.
Get well soon.
Okay, stop it.
Not once do you consider that right now we are in the midst of one of the biggest dramastorms in FA history, which has exhausted me to participate in. PLUS the aforementioned stomach virus. I just don't have the energy to do this. In another time, if i were at my peak, I might be willing to have this discussion with you. Especially considering that i agree with some of your criticisms, and letting you know how I feel about every single one would take fucking forever.
This is the equivalent of you asking me to do algebra problems while someone's shooting freakin' AK47s at my house. I'm a little distracted right now.
>Directly equating an entirely voluntary and routine medical procedure to child molestation shows you have serious emotional problems with the issue rather than truly rational ones. The fact that this is the ONLY point you of mine you chose to address kind of proves my point.
No, it does not. My rage on this issue comes from the exact opposite. I personally don't care much that i have no foreskin. What I do care about is how this issue is an appalling example of what I call 'tradition-based morality'. Basically, it's when society says that something is okay simply because everyone's always done it that way. There are uncountable examples of this, and they're particularly insidious because our minds tend to not even attempt to consider their objective morality. How many things do you only 'know' because you've never research them?
Do NOT fucking accuse me of having 'emotional problems' just because you can't fathom why I care about a given issue. It's cheap and insulting. (And boy, do I ever wanna get in a long debate with someone who's gonna pull this kinda crap on me...)
>The fact that you also seek to persecute the doctors performing the operation, RATHER THAN THE PARENTS WHO ORDER IT BE PREFORMED, boggles my mind.
Why!? Of those two, doctors or parents, who is more informed about the procedure? And who makes the cut?
>Male circumcision is NOT wholly based on religion,
That is a LIE. And that is another reason why I don't really want to be arguing with you (even though I can't seem to completely help myself...) Circumcision as we know it developed as a result of Jews marking themselves as the chosen people of God. They did not consider medical science when they made this decision, and neither do the various African tribes that practice it as part of tribal coming-of-age rituals. And the 'scientific' reasons circ is popular in America is that doctors wanted to decrease masturbation in children, which they thought would lead to insanity. This procedure is the equivalent of coming to a conclusion and then forming your hypothesis to conform to it. Circumcision is an insult to proper scientific method.
>and the majority of adults who choose to get circumcised
ADULTS. Who CHOOSE. I have no problem with that if they want to.
>They can and do make decisions that their children don't like. Get over it. It sucks sometimes, we all know, because we've all been there.
Are you actually arguing that this is sufficient justification to allow parents to keep on making the same harmful decisions to every new generation of children? And to compare irreversible surgery to education is crazy. I can unlearn BS i was taught in school. My foreskin is never coming back.
You talk about me ignoring arguments? Why don't you respond to the argument that the risks of the procedure are too great to justify the potential benefits? How about the argument that AIDS-plagued Africa is a different place from America?
Or how about this: Imagine a society where religious practices have led to all female babies having their breasts cut off. Centuries later, doctors confirm that this drastically decreases the risk of breast cancer, so they use this as justification for continuing the procedure. Can you, or can you not, see the failure of logical progression here?
Not once do you consider that right now we are in the midst of one of the biggest dramastorms in FA history, which has exhausted me to participate in. PLUS the aforementioned stomach virus. I just don't have the energy to do this. In another time, if i were at my peak, I might be willing to have this discussion with you. Especially considering that i agree with some of your criticisms, and letting you know how I feel about every single one would take fucking forever.
This is the equivalent of you asking me to do algebra problems while someone's shooting freakin' AK47s at my house. I'm a little distracted right now.
>Directly equating an entirely voluntary and routine medical procedure to child molestation shows you have serious emotional problems with the issue rather than truly rational ones. The fact that this is the ONLY point you of mine you chose to address kind of proves my point.
No, it does not. My rage on this issue comes from the exact opposite. I personally don't care much that i have no foreskin. What I do care about is how this issue is an appalling example of what I call 'tradition-based morality'. Basically, it's when society says that something is okay simply because everyone's always done it that way. There are uncountable examples of this, and they're particularly insidious because our minds tend to not even attempt to consider their objective morality. How many things do you only 'know' because you've never research them?
Do NOT fucking accuse me of having 'emotional problems' just because you can't fathom why I care about a given issue. It's cheap and insulting. (And boy, do I ever wanna get in a long debate with someone who's gonna pull this kinda crap on me...)
>The fact that you also seek to persecute the doctors performing the operation, RATHER THAN THE PARENTS WHO ORDER IT BE PREFORMED, boggles my mind.
Why!? Of those two, doctors or parents, who is more informed about the procedure? And who makes the cut?
>Male circumcision is NOT wholly based on religion,
That is a LIE. And that is another reason why I don't really want to be arguing with you (even though I can't seem to completely help myself...) Circumcision as we know it developed as a result of Jews marking themselves as the chosen people of God. They did not consider medical science when they made this decision, and neither do the various African tribes that practice it as part of tribal coming-of-age rituals. And the 'scientific' reasons circ is popular in America is that doctors wanted to decrease masturbation in children, which they thought would lead to insanity. This procedure is the equivalent of coming to a conclusion and then forming your hypothesis to conform to it. Circumcision is an insult to proper scientific method.
>and the majority of adults who choose to get circumcised
ADULTS. Who CHOOSE. I have no problem with that if they want to.
>They can and do make decisions that their children don't like. Get over it. It sucks sometimes, we all know, because we've all been there.
Are you actually arguing that this is sufficient justification to allow parents to keep on making the same harmful decisions to every new generation of children? And to compare irreversible surgery to education is crazy. I can unlearn BS i was taught in school. My foreskin is never coming back.
You talk about me ignoring arguments? Why don't you respond to the argument that the risks of the procedure are too great to justify the potential benefits? How about the argument that AIDS-plagued Africa is a different place from America?
Or how about this: Imagine a society where religious practices have led to all female babies having their breasts cut off. Centuries later, doctors confirm that this drastically decreases the risk of breast cancer, so they use this as justification for continuing the procedure. Can you, or can you not, see the failure of logical progression here?
"Not once do you consider that right now we are in the midst of one of the biggest dramastorms in FA history, which has exhausted me to participate in." At the time you wrote this I had no idea what dramastorm you were talking about. I corrected this (after reading your post) by checking out your other journals. I had know idea because I try to stay away from the drama lama whenever possible and because I have been away from FA for that long. I only even saw this submission because it WASN'T a journal. Its almost December, and I'm looking at submissions from May, thats how far behind the times I am. I apologize for adding another straw to the camels back, but you honestly and openly asked for it.
"letting you know how I feel about every single one would take fucking forever." Now you know how I felt after my first response. And now here we are.
The only important math at that time is "how many shots do they/I have left" and "how long until they/I have to reload"
If your rage comes from that point of view, why do you seem to ignore that the majority of the world does NOT perform circumcision on a regular basis? I also go back to the journal you linked me too (http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/728554/) and you clearly demonstrate, to me at least, that you most definitely DO care about what happened to you personally.
I also am COMPLETELY lost on how you consider it to be a "tradition-based morality" in the United States. I understand and agree how that can be said in the countries where it is mandatory, usually for religious reasons, but here?! Heck, the medical and scientific rational behind circumcising is increasing as time goes on for crying out loud! Even a few minutes of research shows that health concerns are the single greatest determining factors of whether a circumcision is performed. A similar amount of research will show that there is either no change or a small net gain from circumcision, that anesthesia is almost always used for nonreligious circumcision, and that complications from the circumcision are at a smaller rate than complications from other neonatal procedures.
And damn straight I'm going to say its an emotional problem if I show statics, and then you ignore them in order to make a comparison to child molestation. It could be a disagreement on facts if you'd bring any to the table, but you (repeatedly) just bring shear and utter hatred against the very concept. HOW you are saying something is just as telling as WHAT you are saying, and (to me at least) they both show that your position is FAR more firmly based on emotion than reason. Feel free to disagree, but statistics and studies carry more weight with me than impassioned oratory.
Of the two, who holds the responsibility over the child's welfare? Of the two, who makes the final decision, whatever it may be? Of the two, which can have the child circumcised regardless of what the other thinks? Of the two, who has to pay for the operation to occur in the first place? If a parent really wants to have their child circumcised it will happen regardless of what one particular doctor says. Regardless, I'm allowing the doctor (and the parents for that matter) to have more choice in the matter than you are. A doctor can ALWAYS refuse if they find the surgery objectionable.
That is the truth that you so desperately want to ignore. Do a little research, just a TINY little bit, and you'll find that Jews were not the first (or last) culture to practice circumcision by any means. Try a couple thousands years earlier with the ancient Egyptians. It even concurrently developed in several different parts of the world! Yes, some of this was religious. Yes, some of it was part of the transition between child to adult. Yes, some of it we have no idea what the fuck they were thinking. Yes, they couldn't possibly known of all the medical benefits. No, that doesn't mean it's a purely religion based practice. No, they weren't completely unaware of the medical benefits. No, religion and habit are NOT why most parents in the US have their children circumcised.
To be honest, the early history is completely immaterial. Because the medical benefits do exist, and have been fairly extensively explored. Just because you disagree with the practice doesn't mean you get to ignore the current science behind it when discussing it. This is why the rate of circumcision has INCREASED since the early 1990s.
So parents have no rights at all over their children?
When you can't even point to a scientific backing to the terribly "harmful decision" being made, yes it is a sufficient justification. If you can come up with a valid justification that I missed, I very well might change my position. But until then, I see know reason to believe otherwise.
Sorry, but the metadata regarding benefits vs risks show that there is either no net benefit or a slight positive benefit. I have seen no such study that shows net risks outweighing the net benefits. Feel free to link me to one if you can find such a study. On the other hand, it would still be one vs many. Yes, Africa is different from the US. No, AIDS isn't the only STD effected by circumcision.
If circumcision involved taking off the entire penis and performed regardless of religious belief or personal opinion, you might have a point. Since NONE of these are the case so you don't have much of a point OR a logical progression of anything.
Imagine a society where you believe a medical procedure will bring you (or even a family member) some perceived benefit, but that you weren't legally permitted to perform the procedure. That you had no choice in the matter, even if you had a valid medical justification (thin or not), and wouldn't be allowed to proceed with the operation. THIS is the society that you would prefer over a society that allows parents to have a CHOICE in the matter? Weren't you JUST complaining about how somebody else's opinions were impacting your choices regarding artwork? Allowing choice in an area you agree with, while disallowing it in an area you disagree with is the height of hypocrisy. For the record: I don't like or care for cub porn, I don't particularly care one way or the other about circumcision, but I care greatly about the choice to like or not like either one.
PS: Circumcision is not completely irreversible. There are both surgical and non-surgical methods to "regrow" the lost foreskin. Just to let you know.
PPS: Open heart surgery does not in any way equate to circumcision, and unnecessary describes almost every single cosmetic surgery ever performed. Your argument might as well not exist as far as equivalency is concerned.
"letting you know how I feel about every single one would take fucking forever." Now you know how I felt after my first response. And now here we are.
The only important math at that time is "how many shots do they/I have left" and "how long until they/I have to reload"
If your rage comes from that point of view, why do you seem to ignore that the majority of the world does NOT perform circumcision on a regular basis? I also go back to the journal you linked me too (http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/728554/) and you clearly demonstrate, to me at least, that you most definitely DO care about what happened to you personally.
I also am COMPLETELY lost on how you consider it to be a "tradition-based morality" in the United States. I understand and agree how that can be said in the countries where it is mandatory, usually for religious reasons, but here?! Heck, the medical and scientific rational behind circumcising is increasing as time goes on for crying out loud! Even a few minutes of research shows that health concerns are the single greatest determining factors of whether a circumcision is performed. A similar amount of research will show that there is either no change or a small net gain from circumcision, that anesthesia is almost always used for nonreligious circumcision, and that complications from the circumcision are at a smaller rate than complications from other neonatal procedures.
And damn straight I'm going to say its an emotional problem if I show statics, and then you ignore them in order to make a comparison to child molestation. It could be a disagreement on facts if you'd bring any to the table, but you (repeatedly) just bring shear and utter hatred against the very concept. HOW you are saying something is just as telling as WHAT you are saying, and (to me at least) they both show that your position is FAR more firmly based on emotion than reason. Feel free to disagree, but statistics and studies carry more weight with me than impassioned oratory.
Of the two, who holds the responsibility over the child's welfare? Of the two, who makes the final decision, whatever it may be? Of the two, which can have the child circumcised regardless of what the other thinks? Of the two, who has to pay for the operation to occur in the first place? If a parent really wants to have their child circumcised it will happen regardless of what one particular doctor says. Regardless, I'm allowing the doctor (and the parents for that matter) to have more choice in the matter than you are. A doctor can ALWAYS refuse if they find the surgery objectionable.
That is the truth that you so desperately want to ignore. Do a little research, just a TINY little bit, and you'll find that Jews were not the first (or last) culture to practice circumcision by any means. Try a couple thousands years earlier with the ancient Egyptians. It even concurrently developed in several different parts of the world! Yes, some of this was religious. Yes, some of it was part of the transition between child to adult. Yes, some of it we have no idea what the fuck they were thinking. Yes, they couldn't possibly known of all the medical benefits. No, that doesn't mean it's a purely religion based practice. No, they weren't completely unaware of the medical benefits. No, religion and habit are NOT why most parents in the US have their children circumcised.
To be honest, the early history is completely immaterial. Because the medical benefits do exist, and have been fairly extensively explored. Just because you disagree with the practice doesn't mean you get to ignore the current science behind it when discussing it. This is why the rate of circumcision has INCREASED since the early 1990s.
So parents have no rights at all over their children?
When you can't even point to a scientific backing to the terribly "harmful decision" being made, yes it is a sufficient justification. If you can come up with a valid justification that I missed, I very well might change my position. But until then, I see know reason to believe otherwise.
Sorry, but the metadata regarding benefits vs risks show that there is either no net benefit or a slight positive benefit. I have seen no such study that shows net risks outweighing the net benefits. Feel free to link me to one if you can find such a study. On the other hand, it would still be one vs many. Yes, Africa is different from the US. No, AIDS isn't the only STD effected by circumcision.
If circumcision involved taking off the entire penis and performed regardless of religious belief or personal opinion, you might have a point. Since NONE of these are the case so you don't have much of a point OR a logical progression of anything.
Imagine a society where you believe a medical procedure will bring you (or even a family member) some perceived benefit, but that you weren't legally permitted to perform the procedure. That you had no choice in the matter, even if you had a valid medical justification (thin or not), and wouldn't be allowed to proceed with the operation. THIS is the society that you would prefer over a society that allows parents to have a CHOICE in the matter? Weren't you JUST complaining about how somebody else's opinions were impacting your choices regarding artwork? Allowing choice in an area you agree with, while disallowing it in an area you disagree with is the height of hypocrisy. For the record: I don't like or care for cub porn, I don't particularly care one way or the other about circumcision, but I care greatly about the choice to like or not like either one.
PS: Circumcision is not completely irreversible. There are both surgical and non-surgical methods to "regrow" the lost foreskin. Just to let you know.
PPS: Open heart surgery does not in any way equate to circumcision, and unnecessary describes almost every single cosmetic surgery ever performed. Your argument might as well not exist as far as equivalency is concerned.
>There are both surgical and non-surgical methods to "regrow" the lost foreskin. Just to let you know.
As if I didn't already know that. You can regrow the skin but not the nerve endings. Those are a little bit more important. Just to let you know.
>Sorry, but the metadata regarding benefits vs risks show that there is either no net benefit or a slight positive benefit.
Wisdom teeth and appendixes.
What do they have in common? They are both useless to modern humans and pose a danger to them. There is absolutely a benefit to having them removed. So, using your justification, why don't we do this at birth, long before the problems can occur?
You nitpick everything else I say, but you completely ignored my breast cancer example. Removing baby's breasts would indeed decrease their risk for breast cancer. and what do we really need them for, anyway? The surgery wouldn't be irreversible; women could buy silicone breast implants when they get older. And they could feed their babies formula instead of breast milk. There should be no objections to this idea.
In fact, there are many health benefits associated with castration! Decreased testosterone levels can increase lifespan and decrease stress, and also prevent prostate cancer. So why not remove all male newborn's testicles? We can freeze-dry them, and then if the men want children, it's no problem to just remove some sperm and artificially inseminate.
In fact, why not strap the little ones down for some corrective laser eye surgery? They'll never need glasses! And a stomach stapling, to prevent childhood obesity. Maybe even a little plastic surgery, to ensure he'll grow up with positive self-esteem. We'll cut them and cut them and cut them until they're perfect.
This is the reasoning you're advocating. Where medical benefit alone is the sole consideration. Not trauma to the patient. Not quality of life. Not consent. Not risk of complications. Just medical benefit.
Because there is a "slight positive benefit", that is justification enough to permanently alter a newborn child's body. As if there were absolutely no other way to get that same positive benefit besides surgery.
Answer me this; why don't we wait until the baby grows up first? Give me one reason why this procedure needs to be performed on newborns, instead of allowing them to grow into adulthood and choose it for themselves. I believe a choice like this is best decided by the person it most directly affects, and that is absolutely not the doctor or the parents. That is what this comes down to for me; no one has more right to make this decision than the patient. Performing the surgery before he can even conceive of it robs him of the right to make a permanent choice about his own damn body.
As if I didn't already know that. You can regrow the skin but not the nerve endings. Those are a little bit more important. Just to let you know.
>Sorry, but the metadata regarding benefits vs risks show that there is either no net benefit or a slight positive benefit.
Wisdom teeth and appendixes.
What do they have in common? They are both useless to modern humans and pose a danger to them. There is absolutely a benefit to having them removed. So, using your justification, why don't we do this at birth, long before the problems can occur?
You nitpick everything else I say, but you completely ignored my breast cancer example. Removing baby's breasts would indeed decrease their risk for breast cancer. and what do we really need them for, anyway? The surgery wouldn't be irreversible; women could buy silicone breast implants when they get older. And they could feed their babies formula instead of breast milk. There should be no objections to this idea.
In fact, there are many health benefits associated with castration! Decreased testosterone levels can increase lifespan and decrease stress, and also prevent prostate cancer. So why not remove all male newborn's testicles? We can freeze-dry them, and then if the men want children, it's no problem to just remove some sperm and artificially inseminate.
In fact, why not strap the little ones down for some corrective laser eye surgery? They'll never need glasses! And a stomach stapling, to prevent childhood obesity. Maybe even a little plastic surgery, to ensure he'll grow up with positive self-esteem. We'll cut them and cut them and cut them until they're perfect.
This is the reasoning you're advocating. Where medical benefit alone is the sole consideration. Not trauma to the patient. Not quality of life. Not consent. Not risk of complications. Just medical benefit.
Because there is a "slight positive benefit", that is justification enough to permanently alter a newborn child's body. As if there were absolutely no other way to get that same positive benefit besides surgery.
Answer me this; why don't we wait until the baby grows up first? Give me one reason why this procedure needs to be performed on newborns, instead of allowing them to grow into adulthood and choose it for themselves. I believe a choice like this is best decided by the person it most directly affects, and that is absolutely not the doctor or the parents. That is what this comes down to for me; no one has more right to make this decision than the patient. Performing the surgery before he can even conceive of it robs him of the right to make a permanent choice about his own damn body.
True, but for somebody who has that big of an issue with it, something is better than nothing. Especially when sexual performance isn't significantly negatively impacted to begin with.
Because in both cases it is far, FAR, more dangerous to do them as neonatal surgery than later in life. As in reckless/willful endangerment at the minimum. And people complain about removing wisdom teeth before they prove to actually be a problem anyways for many of the same stupid reasons you are making here.
Every single example you just used, every single one, does measurably more harm than good if performed on infants and has absolutely NO bearing on any discussion regarding circumcision at all. They don't even make semi-decent comparisons. Next you'll be saying to kill all the babies because then nobody will ever be sick/injured/unhealthy/etc again! You've put forth enough similarly stupid examples.
How does having a choice about circumcision equate to a choice about surgery that isn't even possible on an infant? I advocate a choice. You take this to mean I advocate everything and anything, the more extreme the better. In reality, you are the ONLY person advocating anything extreme at all. I use facts and statistics, you (again) use a slippery slope logical fallacy.
And yes, if there is a surgery that has "slight positive benefit" which has no medical objection, I want the parents to have that choice. Because I'd rather them have a choice than just abide by a law that has no medical or scientific backing, but potentially impacts the health of their child.
What part of "Sorry, but the metadata regarding benefits vs risks show that there is either no net benefit or a slight positive benefit" don't you understand? Don't you think medical studies are going to include things like trauma, quality of life, risk, psychological and physiological impact, sex life, etc? Christ, I'm probably more aware of the risks than you are because I look at the damn data instead of getting emotional about it!
Did you get shots when you were a child? If yes, like ~99% of babies born in the US, you had your body permanently altered. Again. Even though there is a measurable risk of dangerous side effects, including death, the benefit outweigh those risks. Same thing applies, except that in some states it is against the law NOT to receive these shots. Similarly, waiting to get shots later in life carries more risk for less benefit. And while just about everybody doesn't like to take shots, at least babies don't fear them.
Because both the mental and physical harm done by adolescent circumcision is measurably greater than when done to infants, not too mention a HUGE difference in cost. Plus the fact that the OVERWHELMING majority of people who get circumcised as a child don't give a shit.
So exactly what aspects of childhood would you like parents to actually have control over? Because right now you won't even let parents take care of their child's health. You are literally saying that ANY decision that has far reaching consequences should not be made by the parent, or the pediatrician, and should be left to the child's decision later on in life. Thats crazy.
What your argument boils down to so far is that you have an ethical disagreement over circumcision. You could save yourself a lot of time and aggravation if you'd just say that. Because you certainly haven't brought up any science, statistics, logic, or medicine to back your view.
Because in both cases it is far, FAR, more dangerous to do them as neonatal surgery than later in life. As in reckless/willful endangerment at the minimum. And people complain about removing wisdom teeth before they prove to actually be a problem anyways for many of the same stupid reasons you are making here.
Every single example you just used, every single one, does measurably more harm than good if performed on infants and has absolutely NO bearing on any discussion regarding circumcision at all. They don't even make semi-decent comparisons. Next you'll be saying to kill all the babies because then nobody will ever be sick/injured/unhealthy/etc again! You've put forth enough similarly stupid examples.
How does having a choice about circumcision equate to a choice about surgery that isn't even possible on an infant? I advocate a choice. You take this to mean I advocate everything and anything, the more extreme the better. In reality, you are the ONLY person advocating anything extreme at all. I use facts and statistics, you (again) use a slippery slope logical fallacy.
And yes, if there is a surgery that has "slight positive benefit" which has no medical objection, I want the parents to have that choice. Because I'd rather them have a choice than just abide by a law that has no medical or scientific backing, but potentially impacts the health of their child.
What part of "Sorry, but the metadata regarding benefits vs risks show that there is either no net benefit or a slight positive benefit" don't you understand? Don't you think medical studies are going to include things like trauma, quality of life, risk, psychological and physiological impact, sex life, etc? Christ, I'm probably more aware of the risks than you are because I look at the damn data instead of getting emotional about it!
Did you get shots when you were a child? If yes, like ~99% of babies born in the US, you had your body permanently altered. Again. Even though there is a measurable risk of dangerous side effects, including death, the benefit outweigh those risks. Same thing applies, except that in some states it is against the law NOT to receive these shots. Similarly, waiting to get shots later in life carries more risk for less benefit. And while just about everybody doesn't like to take shots, at least babies don't fear them.
Because both the mental and physical harm done by adolescent circumcision is measurably greater than when done to infants, not too mention a HUGE difference in cost. Plus the fact that the OVERWHELMING majority of people who get circumcised as a child don't give a shit.
So exactly what aspects of childhood would you like parents to actually have control over? Because right now you won't even let parents take care of their child's health. You are literally saying that ANY decision that has far reaching consequences should not be made by the parent, or the pediatrician, and should be left to the child's decision later on in life. Thats crazy.
What your argument boils down to so far is that you have an ethical disagreement over circumcision. You could save yourself a lot of time and aggravation if you'd just say that. Because you certainly haven't brought up any science, statistics, logic, or medicine to back your view.
You've nitpicked the words of my arguments while ignoring the point of them every single time. That's frustrating as hell to me. Plus, every time you've gotten pissy at me about logical fallacies, you go on to commit an egregious one yourself. "Because right now you won't even let parents take care of their child's health." Hello? Gigantic fucking strawman?
All of your arguments are structured backwards. 'X already exists, so let's give reasons why X should continue to exist.' Hypothesis needs to come before conclusion. I am saying that if you structured all your arguments as a proposal in favor of circumcision, you would not be able to sell it to a population that had never heard of it before.
I am saying that, even with everything you have told me, it does not outweigh my objection that this procedure is a decision which should be made by the patient. To me, the risk of permanent injury to even one child's genitals far outweighs any positives you have mentioned. You have not proved your case to me that circumcision should be performed on babies, instead of letting people grow up and decide for themselves if they want it. You have a bunch of tiny neutrals and tiny positives which you are trying to pretend is a single big positive. I'm saying that it isn't. I've seen the same statistics and the same research as you, I've just come to a different conclusion.
My conclusion is that surgery of this kind should only be performed when there is an imminent threat to the patient, or if the patient understands the risks and can ask for it. Where is the imminent threat if a child is not circumcised? The imminent threat to an unvaccinated child is clear; children need to be vaccinated. Where is the need for this procedure? Not the 'slight benefit'; the NEED?
All of your arguments are structured backwards. 'X already exists, so let's give reasons why X should continue to exist.' Hypothesis needs to come before conclusion. I am saying that if you structured all your arguments as a proposal in favor of circumcision, you would not be able to sell it to a population that had never heard of it before.
I am saying that, even with everything you have told me, it does not outweigh my objection that this procedure is a decision which should be made by the patient. To me, the risk of permanent injury to even one child's genitals far outweighs any positives you have mentioned. You have not proved your case to me that circumcision should be performed on babies, instead of letting people grow up and decide for themselves if they want it. You have a bunch of tiny neutrals and tiny positives which you are trying to pretend is a single big positive. I'm saying that it isn't. I've seen the same statistics and the same research as you, I've just come to a different conclusion.
My conclusion is that surgery of this kind should only be performed when there is an imminent threat to the patient, or if the patient understands the risks and can ask for it. Where is the imminent threat if a child is not circumcised? The imminent threat to an unvaccinated child is clear; children need to be vaccinated. Where is the need for this procedure? Not the 'slight benefit'; the NEED?
Its not a straw man argument when you flat out said "a choice like this is best decided by the person it most directly affects, and that is absolutely not the doctor or the parents." As I said before, the single most common deciding factor for circumcision in the united states is health concerns! The best time to perform circumcision is as early as possible. So its not a straw man argument at all.
Just because the hard science came after the surgery existed doesn't invalidate the findings at all! Do you have something against aspirin because people were using willow bark for treatment before the understood why it worked? Not too mention the millions, maybe even tens of millions, of other practices that were performed without a full understanding of them. We wouldn't have been having this argument 30 years ago because I wouldn't have had a platform to stand on (kind of a mute point because I wouldn't have supported it then) besides religious dogma. Which is always a stupid position On the other hand, its NOT 30 years ago. Its the modern day, with modern science, with modern rights, and modern responsibilities. All of which support my position of allowing parents to have a choice.
Of course my arguments are in favor of circumcision, because that is the position that science supports! There is NO, repeat NO, solid medical or scientific data that says circumcision does no more harm than good. Once again, this is why circumcision rates have increased rather than decreased. Selling the practice to those who haven't heard of it before wouldn't be too hard because, once again, science exists and the science supports the option. Meanwhile, your arguments are all in opposition and include NO hard scientific facts. You initially tried to support your position with facts, but we both knew them for the lies they were, and have moved on to a position based on emotions and ethics. I've got no problem with that, except that you think your emotions and ethics trump science and are the same as the entire rest of the world's.
As far as my ethical perspective on circumcision goes: its little different than any other surgery where the patient is not cognizant and there is a recognized guardian available to make a decision. A wife can make medical decisions regarding an unconscious husband, so why can't parents make a similar decision with their children? ESPECIALLY when its a decision that they have ~9 months to consider and weight the costs/risks of themselves.
Did I ever once say there was a need? Feel free to look, but you will see that I have never once said it was a need. In fact, I have said on numerous occasions (aka almost every single damn post) that it is a CHOICE. Once again, the ONLY person trying to force things at all is YOU. Go back and look at my original statement, it has nothing about me trying to force circumcision on others and has everything to do with my lack of understanding concerning your PERSONAL hatred and your need to inflict the choice YOU would make onto others.
Just because the hard science came after the surgery existed doesn't invalidate the findings at all! Do you have something against aspirin because people were using willow bark for treatment before the understood why it worked? Not too mention the millions, maybe even tens of millions, of other practices that were performed without a full understanding of them. We wouldn't have been having this argument 30 years ago because I wouldn't have had a platform to stand on (kind of a mute point because I wouldn't have supported it then) besides religious dogma. Which is always a stupid position On the other hand, its NOT 30 years ago. Its the modern day, with modern science, with modern rights, and modern responsibilities. All of which support my position of allowing parents to have a choice.
Of course my arguments are in favor of circumcision, because that is the position that science supports! There is NO, repeat NO, solid medical or scientific data that says circumcision does no more harm than good. Once again, this is why circumcision rates have increased rather than decreased. Selling the practice to those who haven't heard of it before wouldn't be too hard because, once again, science exists and the science supports the option. Meanwhile, your arguments are all in opposition and include NO hard scientific facts. You initially tried to support your position with facts, but we both knew them for the lies they were, and have moved on to a position based on emotions and ethics. I've got no problem with that, except that you think your emotions and ethics trump science and are the same as the entire rest of the world's.
As far as my ethical perspective on circumcision goes: its little different than any other surgery where the patient is not cognizant and there is a recognized guardian available to make a decision. A wife can make medical decisions regarding an unconscious husband, so why can't parents make a similar decision with their children? ESPECIALLY when its a decision that they have ~9 months to consider and weight the costs/risks of themselves.
Did I ever once say there was a need? Feel free to look, but you will see that I have never once said it was a need. In fact, I have said on numerous occasions (aka almost every single damn post) that it is a CHOICE. Once again, the ONLY person trying to force things at all is YOU. Go back and look at my original statement, it has nothing about me trying to force circumcision on others and has everything to do with my lack of understanding concerning your PERSONAL hatred and your need to inflict the choice YOU would make onto others.
You admit there is not a need for circumcision.
Which means it's unnecessary. That's what the word means. Not needed = not necessary = unnecessary.
It doesn't matter whether there's a benefit or not. Even if everything you have said is completely true, you are still arguing in favor of performing unnecessary surgery on someone who has no choice in the matter.
I'm against that. Call me crazy.
No matter how much you nitpick the details, you cannot escape that one huge central fact. And I'm against the way you've been trying this entire time to just beat me into submission with your arguments by repeating them and repeating them and repeating them, as if I'm suddenly going to agree the third or fourth time.
I should have refused to talk to you after your second post, where you outlined how you disagree with every single thing I said in this submission. And yes, some of your objections, especially the ones relating to economics, were perfectly valid. But the fact that you just had to object to every single one tells me that you're not actually debating and never have been. You're right about everything, and you have to get me to admit I'm wrong. Well, sorry. Pretend all you want that I'm just some emotionally-hysterical nutball who's done no research. I'm sorry I make you so morally indignant, but I don't fucking care anymore.
Talking with you literally leaves me feeling sick. You gave me a massive headache last night and I'm through feeling this way. Reply with another seven pages of arguments if you want, but you'll be talking to an empty room.
Which means it's unnecessary. That's what the word means. Not needed = not necessary = unnecessary.
It doesn't matter whether there's a benefit or not. Even if everything you have said is completely true, you are still arguing in favor of performing unnecessary surgery on someone who has no choice in the matter.
I'm against that. Call me crazy.
No matter how much you nitpick the details, you cannot escape that one huge central fact. And I'm against the way you've been trying this entire time to just beat me into submission with your arguments by repeating them and repeating them and repeating them, as if I'm suddenly going to agree the third or fourth time.
I should have refused to talk to you after your second post, where you outlined how you disagree with every single thing I said in this submission. And yes, some of your objections, especially the ones relating to economics, were perfectly valid. But the fact that you just had to object to every single one tells me that you're not actually debating and never have been. You're right about everything, and you have to get me to admit I'm wrong. Well, sorry. Pretend all you want that I'm just some emotionally-hysterical nutball who's done no research. I'm sorry I make you so morally indignant, but I don't fucking care anymore.
Talking with you literally leaves me feeling sick. You gave me a massive headache last night and I'm through feeling this way. Reply with another seven pages of arguments if you want, but you'll be talking to an empty room.
Cosmetic surgery is almost never a "need" by its very definition, yet millions of such surgeries are performed every year. As far as need vs want go, probably 90% of the decisions you'll ever make in your life are based on wants. We don't NEED many of the neonatal and infant care provided as a routine measure, just look at the amish for instance, but we parents still want those services. Even though they are performed without any input from the child. You somehow think that circumcision is something radically different from everything else, when it isn't by any means. The world is not black and white.
I'm against forcing people to abide by the moral standards of somebody else and removing the freedom of choice, especially where parental rights are concerned. Call me crazy for caring about personal rights and responsibilities.
The one inescapable fact that you (somehow) STILL don't seem to grasp is that your willingness to force others to conform to your position is the exact opposite of your position regarding cubporn. You are fighting that pressure to conform and spewing freedom of choice left and right over there, but in this discussion you reject the freedom of choice that parents have over their children and push for uniform action against circumcision. Your hypocrisy, and denial, is overwhelming.
"against the way you've been trying this entire time to just beat me into submission with your arguments" And this is any different from what you've been doing how? Oh yes, you initially start your position off position with claims to have some kind of scientific support, but then drop the very relevance of science like a hot potato when its shown that you were spouting nothing but bullshit. I guess your argument does change over time. At least my stance hasn't really changed because I laid all my cards out on the table and welcomed you to address them, but you largely didn't.
If you had bothered to look before you posted this, I DIDN'T disagree with everything you said. Sure I disagreed with most of it (or at least parts and/or implementation of most of it) but looking at other people's comments, I'm not alone in that position either. You even did a point by point rebuttal with someone who DID hit every point. Meanwhile, you address only one SINGLE point I made. What does that say about your willingness to engage in debate? Heck, I tried to avoid getting into a debate in the first place with my very first post, because you have a history of acting the same way almost every time I engage you. However, YOU BLATANTLY AND DELIBERATELY ASKED FOR IT!!! Heck, I even asked you to show me where you thought my arguments were flawed, and you never mentioned or brought up a single point. Not one. You latched onto circumcision and never looked back. Yet somehow I am the one being unreasonable and unwilling to debate!? Screw that. You should be honest with yourself about it even if you aren't going to be honest to others.
I feel like I've been talking to an empty room basically from the get go, so I'm used to it by now.
I'm against forcing people to abide by the moral standards of somebody else and removing the freedom of choice, especially where parental rights are concerned. Call me crazy for caring about personal rights and responsibilities.
The one inescapable fact that you (somehow) STILL don't seem to grasp is that your willingness to force others to conform to your position is the exact opposite of your position regarding cubporn. You are fighting that pressure to conform and spewing freedom of choice left and right over there, but in this discussion you reject the freedom of choice that parents have over their children and push for uniform action against circumcision. Your hypocrisy, and denial, is overwhelming.
"against the way you've been trying this entire time to just beat me into submission with your arguments" And this is any different from what you've been doing how? Oh yes, you initially start your position off position with claims to have some kind of scientific support, but then drop the very relevance of science like a hot potato when its shown that you were spouting nothing but bullshit. I guess your argument does change over time. At least my stance hasn't really changed because I laid all my cards out on the table and welcomed you to address them, but you largely didn't.
If you had bothered to look before you posted this, I DIDN'T disagree with everything you said. Sure I disagreed with most of it (or at least parts and/or implementation of most of it) but looking at other people's comments, I'm not alone in that position either. You even did a point by point rebuttal with someone who DID hit every point. Meanwhile, you address only one SINGLE point I made. What does that say about your willingness to engage in debate? Heck, I tried to avoid getting into a debate in the first place with my very first post, because you have a history of acting the same way almost every time I engage you. However, YOU BLATANTLY AND DELIBERATELY ASKED FOR IT!!! Heck, I even asked you to show me where you thought my arguments were flawed, and you never mentioned or brought up a single point. Not one. You latched onto circumcision and never looked back. Yet somehow I am the one being unreasonable and unwilling to debate!? Screw that. You should be honest with yourself about it even if you aren't going to be honest to others.
I feel like I've been talking to an empty room basically from the get go, so I'm used to it by now.
Comments