UK ban on porn

[AK47]

Yeah, tell me about it. And the picture quality in newspapers was terrible in those days. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"

the struggle is real

[Guest]

The Government is a malleable entity, first of all, and secondly a monopoly (or sometimes a duopoly, which isn't much better) can easily exist in an unregulated market and in fact did just that (which is why antitrust legislation got implemented in the first place).

 

 

 

 

Well Acid Rain is down 65% over the last 40 years; it would probably be down further but the cap on the chemicals that cause it has been too high quite often (so companies have been able to "bank" some of the cap).

 

 

 

 

You're assuming that if there were no government regulations people wouldn't cut corners or just plain make mistakes, the kind of relatively innocuous thing that results in peoples lives being put at risk.

 

This not about absolutes, I'm not expecting that every house would fall apart on the third day after you bought it or anything batshit insane like that -- it's not even necessary that malice be involved. A failure to properly inspect structures in Australia lead to 3 people dying when a wall collapsed onto a footpath earlier this year -- this is why enforced regulation is a good idea.

 

 

 

 

This is more a clear cut case of mismanagement rather than an inherent failing of the entity of government. Additionally, I'd point out that a good portion of nations ranking above the US in the OECD have pretty limited private schooling (some examples include: The Netherlands, New Zealand, Finland).

 

Part of the problem of course, is that bumblefuck states like Mississipi and West Virginia drag down the states that actually know what the fuck they're doing (like Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Jersey) that actually do quite well.

 

 

 

 

This is an oversimplification, but the truth is that Labor Unions and the Government often intertwined pretty closely or that the Government would work to broker compromises.

 

 

 

 

Except Canada and Australia (not to mention most of the Nordic nations, France, and Japan) do better when it comes to virtually every available metric. From memory, cancer survival rates are literally the only thing America does better at and even that could be argued to be largely illusory (cancer is often picked up earlier in America due to the sheer volume of testing done to by American Doctors to avoid malpractice lawsuits).

 

The American health system *does* produce a decent outcome if you have plenty of money, I'm happy to admit that, but by and large it's just not that good. Also the system America is in the process of adopting is maybe half way between the current American system and the British NHS.

 

 

 

 

A couple of points here..

 

1) Even if it is private, it still has to be inspected (unless you trust private enterprises not to fuck things up without oversight, in which case I'm just going to say two words: British Petroleum).

 

2) Presumably a private airport is either subsidised, or people pay an extra fee to use it -- whereupon it essentially acts as a tax on all goods both incoming and outgoing (I hope I don't have to explain why increasing the cost of exporting goods is a really fucking bad idea).

 

3) It's important to note that a fuck up at customs can cause all kinds of problems like wiping out crops or bringing disease (that applies to produce) into an area. Admittedly this is less of a problem in America than here in Australia.

 

 

 

 

You know all that fancy labelling on your food packages, you know why that's there? government regulation.

 

Also that part where Melamine hasn't appeared in any American baby formula lately like it did in China a few years back.

 

As for the stuff about the FDA, to say the FDA has been bastardised by corporate interests in recent years is a moderate understatement; this isn't so much a failing of mechanism as failing of administration, and could probably be traced to the fact that the majority of American voters keep essentially voting to shiv themselves in the stomach every 2 years.

 

 

 

 

Somalia is a government free zone, I think we do have a pretty good comparison.

 

 

 

 

Lets look at the majority of this though: 17 million from Nazi Germany in the Holocaust (mostly from occupied nations), around 20 Million from he USSR under Stalin (though not all were caused by the government), 1.5 Million from the Armenian genocide, somewhere in the range of 5 Million by the Japanese during WW2 on civilians (or POWs), 40 Million give or take by Mao Zedong, and 8 Million in the Congo Free State.

 

Have we spotted a common theme here?

 

It's starts with a D and rhymes with "ictatorships".

 

I was going to sift through your post with a fine comb, but I decided to hold off on that for now as it would take far too much mental cheese-grating (you think NEW JERSEY is doing well in education) and ton of googling (especially considering you're asserting that Canada's healthcare is better by almost every metric). Instead I should have started by establishing principle first.

 

I should have started with these two questions:

 

1) What is the main goal of what you believe? Maximum freedom? Economic prosperity? Well-being for all? (please don't identify yourself with a party or a group, being liberal, conservative, socialist, etc. is irrelevant if you don't understand what the main goal of their platform is)

2) You believe that the solution to problems with monopolies, acid rain, building codes, customs, education, and healthcare. I do not. Am I allowed to freely and safely disagree with you and hold my own belief that the government is not the solution to such complex issues as I long as grant you the same respect?

 

Please only respond to the two questions particularly. If we ever want to establish any progress in our society, we must understand and respect the goals of others.

We can speak about the practicality of policies later, but first we have to walk through the basics.

[CusDamato]

You UK guys better start downloading a life time supply of porn then.

[Guest]

You UK guys better start downloading a life time supply of porn then.

 

I can't even believe this is even a consideration.

 

Then again, I can't really believe that most bans are even considered. Seriously, if you get caught with the wrong type of vegetation in America, you are kidnapped and locked in a cage. I don't do drugs or drink because I know it is healthier. However, I don't want the people that do to be locked in a cage and I definitely don't want to pay for it. But I must, so I do.

[762x39]

Kids these days have it too easy. I used to have to jerk it to bra ads in the newspaper when i was a kid.

I use to always check and see if it was scratch and sniff!

[Hammer]

I use to always check and see if it was scratch and sniff!

 

That's only for used underwear mate.

[762x39]

That's only for used underwear mate.

When I was young my grandma use to get the Sears Christmas book, I would go through and circle the toys I wanted then perv out at the bra and underwear adds! They would model both. Closest thing to porn till I found my dads magazines.

[Viking]

Good

 

Porn needs to be banned

 

It poisons the mind

[Erik]

I was going to sift through your post with a fine comb, but I decided to hold off on that for now as it would take far too much mental cheese-grating (you think NEW JERSEY is doing well in education) and ton of googling (especially considering you're asserting that Canada's healthcare is better by almost every metric). Instead I should have started by establishing principle first.

 

New Jersey scores top 5 on most metrics not involving fourth graders (because who gives a toss where someone is less than half way through their education, it's only when they're old enough to leave school or move onto tertiary education that it's time to give a damn) that I've been able to find, just saying.

 

 

 

1) What is the main goal of what you believe? Maximum freedom? Economic prosperity? Well-being for all? (please don't identify yourself with a party or a group, being liberal, conservative, socialist, etc. is irrelevant if you don't understand what the main goal of their platform is)

 

No risk of me identifying with a specific party (especially an American one), or any political group (always find I disagree on at least a few things). This is difficult to answer though because I don't think in terms of single goals, largely because an over-focus on a single objective can often compromise others (and in turn compromise the objective). I suppose if there's anything I value above others, it's reason and intellect.

 

 

2) You believe that the solution to problems with monopolies, acid rain, building codes, customs, education, and healthcare. I do not. Am I allowed to freely and safely disagree with you and hold my own belief that the government is not the solution to such complex issues as I long as grant you the same respect?

 

The speech we disagree with is the most important to protect (though this is very different to intentionally false speech), in my books. So yes. This should go without saying though.

[Guest]

 

 

New Jersey scores top 5 on most metrics not involving fourth graders (because who gives a toss where someone is less than half way through their education, it's only when they're old enough to leave school or move onto tertiary education that it's time to give a damn) that I've been able to find, just saying.

 

 

 

 

 

No risk of me identifying with a specific party (especially an American one), or any political group (always find I disagree on at least a few things). This is difficult to answer though because I don't think in terms of single goals, largely because an over-focus on a single objective can often compromise others (and in turn compromise the objective). I suppose if there's anything I value above others, it's reason and intellect.

 

 

 

 

The speech we disagree with is the most important to protect (though this is very different to intentionally false speech), in my books. So yes. This should go without saying though.

 

Well I'm not lying when I say I don't believe the government is the solution to these problems.

And I think me and you probably agree on more than you realize, and I am very glad that you don't identify with any particular party or issue.

 

So I have two follow up questions (don't worry, I'm not going to question you in a coondescending manner).

 

1) Since you don't believe in using government to solve indidual issues, would you agree that certain principles should be sacred (such as don't hurt or steal from others)?

 

2) I agree that we should protect opposing speech. However, if I disagree with you, shouldn't I be able to practice that disagreement as well as express it (as long as I'm not harmig others)?

[Erik]

Well I'm not lying when I say I don't believe the government is the solution to these problems.

And I think me and you probably agree on more than you realize, and I am very glad that you don't identify with any particular party or issue.

 

Most people agree on most objectives, it's just how we get there that things tend to get messed up in my books.

 

 

1) Since you don't believe in using government to solve indidual issues, would you agree that certain principles should be sacred (such as don't hurt or steal from others)?

 

I'm actually ok with using the government (or pretty much any means available) to solve (or work towards solving) individual issues, my point was that it's key that we keep an eye on the larger picture of where our actions take us as a society.

 

 

2) I agree that we should protect opposing speech. However, if I disagree with you, shouldn't I be able to practice that disagreement as well as express it (as long as I'm not harmig others)?

 

As long as it doesn't harm or threaten anyone or their property.

[Guest]

Most people agree on most objectives, it's just how we get there that things tend to get messed up in my books.

 

 

 

 

I'm actually ok with using the government (or pretty much any means available) to solve (or work towards solving) individual issues, my point was that it's key that we keep an eye on the larger picture of where our actions take us as a society.

 

Understandable. But don't you think principle should always trump intentions?

 

 

As long as it doesn't harm or threaten anyone or their property.

 

Great, we agree. So in that case, I should be able to exorcise my disagreements and beliefs and I should be able to choose to not fund programs I disagree with or believe don't work and invest or donate to alternatives and you should be able to chose to fund the programs you agree with and that you believe work.

 

I really have no freedom to disagree with you at all if I am only allowed to express my disagreement without being able to tangibly practice them.

That would be an illusory right, like having the right to own a firearm but having no right to own bullets or fire it.

[Erik]

Understandable. But don't you think principle should always trump intentions?

 

No, and truly only the impotent think like this. Pragmatism is key when you're trying to govern something effectively.

 

 

Great, we agree. So in that case, I should be able to exorcise my disagreements and beliefs and I should be able to choose to not fund programs I disagree with or believe don't work and invest or donate to alternatives and you should be able to chose to fund the programs you agree with and that you believe work.

 

If you're willing to go full Amish on the issue, then yes, else no.

 

 

That would be an illusory right, like having the right to own a firearm but having no right to own bullets or fire it.

 

On the contrary, having the right to disagree means having the right to work on getting things you dislike changed.

[Guest]

No, and truly only the impotent think like this. Pragmatism is key when you're trying to govern something effectively.

When you are trying to "govern" something, maybe. But not when you are trying to actually solve a problem. If you are going to try to defend your statement, I can guarantee that you are just going to talk in circles.

 

Let's do a thought experiment: What if I told you I know a way to significantly reduce racism and poverty? Would you go for it? You probably would because it could pragmatically work. What if you then found out that that solution was a "Final Solution" and I was going to establish an inquisition and kill all racists and kill anyone below a certain poverty level. Would it reduce poverty? Probably. Would it make people hesitate before they do or say something racist? Most likely. Would you support my proposal to reduce poverty and racism?

 

 

If you're willing to go full Amish on the issue, then yes, else no.

So if I don't want to pay for the systematic kidnap and detainment of marijuana smokers, I have to "go full Amish?"

1) This is a blatant false dilemma

2) I find this as a personal ad hominen attack that insinuates that I have an inherent disrespect for modern civilization. I'm obviously communicating with you on the internet right now, I don't want to "go full Amish." I just don't want to be forced (with violence) to pay for something I disagree with

 

 

On the contrary, having the right to disagree means having the right to work on getting things you dislike changed.

Oh my, you really don't have an understanding of how democracy or modern representative democracy works.

When America first went to war in the Middle East and Vietnam, America had the two largest anti-war protests in history. I really don't need to tell you if it worked out.

If you think that you're voice matters in a modern democracy, you are close to dead wrong. Obama promised that he would shut down Guantanamo Bay and restore Habeas Corpus in 2008. In 2009, he must have forgotten about it, because he hasn't mentioned it since then. In fact, he actually further raped Habeas Corpus with the passage of NDAA which allows American citizens to be detained without due process indefinitely. That means that his actions as President directly allow for the actions that the principle he advocated was intended to prevent. And then of course you have the corporate welfare lobbyists and the religious political action committees and the international globalist conferences that all have our leaders on speed dial. We may technically have the right to work for change, but you better have A- a astronomical army of supporters... B- a lot of money or C- be elected or appointed in the government. So since it is borderline impossible for me to change the way the government works, I can say I disagree with you, but I still have to pay for the drug war, I still have to pay bureaucrats, I still have to pay for prisons, and I also have to abide by those rules I am forced to pay to enforce as well.

 

So that's modern representative democracy, here is pure democracy: 51% vote to kill 49%. The motion passes, anyone who did not vote on the bill is killed. 2 wolves and a sheep vote on dinner. 6 men vote to rape 1 woman. The majority votes to disarm the minority. These are all examples of pure democracy where your voice actually "counts".These may seem like hypotheticals that would never happen, "the majority votes to disarm the minority" HAS on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, which is usually followed by massive genocide.

 

Bottom line: I may have a voice, but as long as I don't have my own personal sovereignty, I truly have no voice.

[Erik]

Yeah.. this just got way too childish and Americanised a discussion for me to be bothered with.

 

Have fun in your bubble, maybe someday you'll realise if you share a country with others you're interlinked with them regardless of if you like it or not.

[Guest]

Yeah.. this just got way too childish and Americanised a discussion for me to be bothered with.

 

Have fun in your bubble, maybe someday you'll realise if you share a country with others you're interlinked with them regardless of if you like it or not.

 

Now you're just attacking me with ad hominens.

Please explain what you mean by your last statement. Everybody in the world is "interlinked" in some form, but forcing people to adhere to arbitrary nationalisms and obey certain threats to do or not do certain things is abusive and not practical.

 

This belief that because we're all interlinked and we have to have centralized organization to control the collective is the reason why people can get away with telling people they shouldn't be allowed to watch porn.

[Guest]

In response to your principle being for the impotent. I am a Christian BTW, and don't just judge the cover and title it is actually a fairly informative video.