Slashdot Mirror
Comics Code Dead
tverbeek writes "After more than half a century of stifling the comic book industry, the Comics Code Authority is effectively dead. Created in response to Fredric Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent, one of the early think-of-the-children censorship campaigns, and Congressional hearings, the Code laid out a checklist of requirements and restrictions for comics to be distributed to newsstand vendors, effectively ensuring that in North America, only simplistic stories for children would be told using the medium of sequential art. It gradually lost many of its teeth, and an increasing number of publishers gave up on newsstand distribution and ignored the Code, but at the turn of the century the US's largest comics publishers still participated. Marvel quit it in 2001, in favor of self-applied ratings styled after the MPAA's and ESRB's. Last year Bongo (publishers of the Simpsons comics) quietly dropped out. Now DC and Archie, the last publishers willingly subjecting their books to approval, have announced that they're discontinuing their use of the CCA, with DC following Marvel's example, and Archie (which recently introduced an openly gay supporting character, something flatly forbidden by the original Code) carrying on under their own standards. The Code's cousins — the MPAA and ESRB ratings, the RIAA parental advisory, and the mishmash of warnings on TV shows — still live on, but at least North American comic publishers are no longer subject to external censorship."
I don't know about the MPAA or the others, but i know the whole point of the ESRB was that it was a voluntary measure the video game industry took on itself in order to avoid something like the Comic Book Code getting created by an outside group. So it's not external censorship and it's really kind of weird to put it up as an example of the Comic Book Code's "cousin" living on. It's really a good example of the _right_ way to inform consumer about what's in the content they're consuming without being subject to censorship.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
and in the meantime for the past quarter century I have wanted the porn industry to establish the same kind of warnings. I'm still waiting.
Gay characters are harmful to children? Children who might be gay themselves, and feel like monsters since they aren't aware that being gay is fine since they are never exposed to positive examples of it, in say, comics?
How does this kind of idiocy exist?
And it was always voluntary. The publishers were not subject to external censorship. They chose to follow that "code" (and of course not all did. You just never heard of those who didn't.)
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
While schemes like the MPAA and ESRB systems are good in theory (rate the content, allow people to make their own decisions), the market realities of them basically end up resulting in "no adult content allowed". No one will stock or publish an ESRB AO game, just like no theatres ever show NC-17 films. As such there is no money in them, and the end up never being made.
I knew about the Movie Code from the 1930s-50s. It stifled movie creativity, and required that women be subservient to men, or that an evil person ALWAYS wound-up dead or jailed. I thought such nonsense had long ago been abolished and didn't realize "the code" had been revived to stifle comic book creativity.
I consider this a perfect example of what happens when you ignore the Supreme law of the land: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....." "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The US Government has zero authority to censor movies or books.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
...as well as his roommate Leonard Hofstadter and friends Howard Wolowitz, and Raj Koothrappali.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
*Ding dong the witch is dead*. And good riddance. Censorship has no place in a freedom loving society and its really appalling that Republicans who blather on about freedom are the first to support authoritarian censorship. Censorship and other social conservative ideas generally makes a society by condoning violent behaviour and sanctioning supression and violence against others who have views, expression or opinions some do not like.
Skin never hurt anyone, the idea that nudity or sex is bad (or psychedelics for that matter) is completely concocted by society, these things are victimless, as a society we should let individuals make up their own minds and decisions, rather than have a authoritarian government and the right wing religious organisations, the private quasi or defacto governmental form of that, watching over our every move.
I prefer more of a western European model, with a socially liberal atmosphere and little or no censorship, nude beaches etc, and governments that concern themselves with making sure people have food, housing, good jobs, and health care, and education, rather than obsesssing over imposing arbitrary ideologies on people. As a social libertatian, that is what we believe in and leads to a truly safe society.
The idea that nudity is wrong is, in fact, a lie. It is a lie promulgated by oppressive religious ideologies that are designed to control, enslave and indoctrinate peoples minds. It is opposed to individual liberty and rationality, that people should have individual self determination rights and things which do not deprive others of their own freedom should not be enacted. Nudity is victimless, it takes away no ones right to not or to wear clothes as they prefer. In fact, laws against nudity take away our right to make these choices for themselves. Nudity is truly harmless, and there is much more of it in Europe. Yet Europe is far safer than the US and has much less violent crime, an overall safer society.
The most socially conservative places in the world, such as Iraq, or Afghanistan are also the most dangerous and violent.
Ironically the country that Republicans seem to want is one where public school has been replaced by bible school, harmless. natural and innocent things like nude swimming have been banned, and with children dying on the street from starvation and treatable medical conditions, massive military and industrial prison complexs and so on.
We will all be better off when we evolve past medieval religious ideologies and systems of oppressive social control designed to take away individuals freedom, not preserve them.
I haven't collected since I was a kid...actually I've never collected. I just got them and read them until the covers literally fell off. But, those young readers were the pool from which adult readers sprang. Creating titles that everyone could read is what made the industry so ubiquitous. Now, it's a boutique niche with drastically reduced readership. Maybe that's made it more satisfying to the adult readers, I don't know.
I had a friend in college who collected and bragged about the value of his collection with the confidence of a basement full of gold bullion. That was before everyone figured out the only readers left were just the collectors, and the valuation formulas were all wrong. Kind of like their own economic bubble.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
We will all be better off when we evolve past medieval religious ideologies and systems of oppressive social control designed to take away individuals freedom, not preserve them.
Like the two-party system that convinces people that there's a "good guys" camp and a "bad guys" camp and causes them to act irrationally in support of "their tribe" and spit vitriol against the "other tribe"?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"only simplistic stories for children would be told using the medium of sequential art"
Yeah, That's exactly how comics have been since the CCA.
Eyeroll
Wow that brings back some memories!!!
Now THAT is a movie I would like to get a BD remaster of, all cleaned up, so that when I have kids I know they can watch it...
Time for some googling...
Smoking bans are in place because you are igniting a caustic material in a public area. Your smoking affects others around you and that's where your rights start to seriously fade fast. Think about this logically, why would it ever be ok to light things on fire in public and subject others to the results of said fire? In no way do you have an inalienable right to ignite chemicals in public places whenever you feel like it.
Good-bye
I guess now it's really effectively dead.
Kind of reminds me of a certain dead parrot.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Nobody is forcing you to go into that bar, anymore than anyone is forcing you to read a comic book with a gay character. But thanks for pointing out the douchey tyranny of the majority - You are against freedom. The freedom for a property owner to own property and say "this is what I want to happen on my own property". Your mentality is also the exact same mentality that stomps out adult stops, strip clubs, and sex clubs. "Something is going on that I don't like, so I'm going to whine to the government to control the behavior of consenting adults." Whether you realize it or acknowledge it, you are anti-freedom. People like you are why I would never open a business.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Now maybe Batman and Robin can be honest about their love.
Yes, just like smoking bans. Because when I read comics in public, I force everyone around me to participate in breathing in dangerous chemicals.
Right on brother. When I go into a place of business or in a park, I should have the right to pull down my pants and take a dump on the table or the lawn. People are such whiny bitches. Sheesh!
As one of the pre-teens reading comics during the late forties and early fifties (Including the horror stuff that was one of the things the busy-bodies complained about.) I think that foolishness alone proves congress has always been a pack of idiots unqualified to do anything but waste the peoples money on stupidity. The difference between the stuff published pre-code and afterward was obvious even to those of us with single digit ages. Even the mainstream things like Superman and Batman went to total dumb and boring while anything that might make you think was verboten. Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse were more intellectually challenging than the trash DC was putting out and the predecessor of Marvel mostly did terrible sci-fi hackery.
As long as the owner is the only one working in the bar (ie no employees) he is free to let people smoke all they want.
No one is forcing you to go into a bar so just smoke outside.
Archie Comics spokesman mentioned the whole "we're not going to have any women in refrigerators" just because we're dropping the comics code, which is somewhat ironic, as the woman in that particular refrigerator came to be as a direct result of the comics code authority interference. Originally in the Green Lantern story the incident occurred in, the woman in question was supposed to be brutally murdered, but the comics code didn't want people to see a murdered woman, so instead, they had her put in the refrigerator and alluded to it instead. Nice work, comics code.
First off, we are not talking about public parts. We are talking about private businesses. So already, you're using a strawman fallacy to attack a completely different situations than the one I'm talking about.
Second off, IF I OWNED MY OWN ESTABLISHMENT that consenting could enter into, and take a dump on the table - AND THIS IS WHAT MY CLIENTELE WANTED TO DO - Who the fuck are you to tell me I can't? If I open MY doors to the public, all of a sudden the public gets to tell me what to do?
But yea, anonymous coward, way to talk about something completely different and irrelevant. You win the internet.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Looking at some data for box office revenues, it looks like PG movies are actually the most profitable segment of the market.
Most years in recent history show a ratio of 1 PG-rated movie being released to every R-rated movie, yet the percentages of total gross have remained close to one another in recent history:
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?view2=mpaa&chart=byyear&yr=2010&view=releasedate&p=.htm
I was on the internet in minutes, registering my approval.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Minor mistake -- that should be 1:3 ratio of PG:R...
ARCHIE has a gay character? After decades of frustration with the girls did Archie come out?
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
And until "real" censorship, i.e. government mandated censorship, happens, this will stay dead. Let's hope for a long resting in peace.
The only reason such "codes" could fly is that the makers of art had to rely on a distribution system that could force such arbitrary restrictions on them. Write to our code or we don't publish, and if we don't, nobody worth mentioning will. You will not sell your comic, you will not show your movie, your game will never be sold.
Now, the internet makes the whole scheme crumble. You don't sell my game, my comic book, my movie and nobody in the US does? So I sell it through a publisher in another country, and unless the US forbids import of the game (and unless they plan to swing that censorship hammer, they won't), I couldn't care less for your "code of conduct". People who are fed up with your "coded" content will gladly look abroad and with global shipping, yes, it might cost them a bit more, but they get what they want. Whether I pay 5 bucks for a comic I don't want or 8 for one I do is not going to break my neck financially.
But it sure will break yours, since I'm not the only one who can't care less for your "coded" crap.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So...what you're saying is that consumer demand for NC-17 and AO products is pretty low, therefore content providers don't produce much of it?
No, AO games sell fine when they aren't AO. Look at GTA: San Andreas. It sold fine, then it became rated AO and was removed from store shelves at the time, despite the fact that the content couldn't be normally accessed. It wasn't any merits of the game itself that caused it to be removed from store shelves, but rather a pointless rating system by the ESRB.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
There is no one forcing someone to work at a bar or restaurant that allows smoking. Rather, it is a choice where you work. It is similarly a choice where you eat or drink, no one forces you to go to a bar where smoking is allowed, no one even says you have to go to a bar. Rather, it should be left up to the owners of the business if they will allow or deny smoking on their property and it should be only the owner's choice. It is impossible to live a risk-free life, life is about matching risks and rewards. If you prefer to take a job where you are exposed to smoke rather than taking a more challenging or lower-paying job that doesn't have you exposed to smoke, that is your choice. If you choose to take a job where you are exposed to smoke, that is your choice.
It is up to the employee to choose where he or she wishes to work and know about the potential risks that they have working there. It is up to the owner of that establishment to choose whether he or she wishes to allow certain things on the property such as smoking. It is up to the customer to choose whether or not to visit that establishment. If someone feels so strongly against smoking, and doesn't visit bars that allow smoking, non-smoking bars will become a bit more profitable. If someone enjoys smoking and only visits bars that allow smoking, that smoking bar will be a little bit more profitable. But there is no reason why they can't coexist just like everything else. If you don't like smoking, don't work for or go to places that allow smoking. If you like smoking, don't go to or work for places that deny smoking.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Smoking bans don't stop that from happening, so you're arguing against something completely different from my original statement. Meanwhile, cars and industrialization put far more chemicals into your lungs than cigarettes, but you don't complain about that, because you emotionally love cars and industry, and emotionally hate cigarettes. Try to hold some consistent logic here. I know it's hard, but try.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
People are hired to do dangerous jobs each and every day. People who are die doing their job and know that it can happen the moment they sign their contract with e.g. the military.
So do I think it should be legal to hire employees knowingly send them into a dangerous zone. Yes, I do.
Now what you must do is to make sure that you take reasonable precautions, like ventilation and a good health plan. That way if people loose e.g. a leg (by smoking or by shot at) people will be getting a good pension and will not have to worry about their future.
Also if there are so many people are against smoking, why are there no (or very little) voluntary non-smoking places? If 75% of the people dislike smoking and there are no non-smoking pubs, I would open one and I should be making a fortune as I just have cornered 75% of the market.
With the health plan, it would also most likely mean that prices in smoking places will become much higher and non-smoking places will become more attractive to go to. No bans needed and people will still have a choice.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Just wait until the next issue when they realize that Comics Code was *NOT* dead, but instead placed in suspended animation when his arch nemesis switched the translator module causing a brain cascade failure... And in all that time, Comics Code was in an alternate reality, getting stronger, leveling up....
Next issue.. Comics Code returns!
So there *was* a reason American comics are inferior to manga!? And I tough it was only a matter of personal taste.
(There are good western comics I know, *I guess*, I've read great things about The Sandman)
But... the future refused to change.
First off, we are not talking about public parts. We are talking about private businesses.
The places are public in the sense that the public is invited to enter. If that's true, then the space inside is privately owned public space. If you want everyone to come in and be customers, and invite everyone in, then you are running a public establishment.
The right to advertise for everyone to come in but to select some subset you find undesirable to exclude was thrown out with the Jim Crow laws.
Second off, IF I OWNED MY OWN ESTABLISHMENT that consenting could enter into, and take a dump on the table - AND THIS IS WHAT MY CLIENTELE WANTED TO DO - Who the fuck are you to tell me I can't? If I open MY doors to the public, all of a sudden the public gets to tell me what to do?
If the sign on the front says "Open, come in" and you ran your defecation bar at noon, you'd be in trouble. If you had a bouncer to check IDs and talk to people before they came in, you'd be less likely to run into trouble. However, if your employees are getting hepatitis cleaning up, then they'd shut you down. Just like if your employees were getting ill from second hand smoke. Your freedom to have an establishment in which your purposefully expose employees to dangerous conditions ends when you employ people. I'd entertain arguments where a bar was operated with the only worker being the owner, but those are so rare that they are hardly worth considering.
Learn to love Alaska
Wrong. Why do you think OSHA exists? To set the level of dangerous conditions that your employees can be exposed to. And OSHA specifically states that secondhand smoke does not meet their standards. Look it up.
Furthermore, your laughable statement -- with no legal basis I might add -- would exclude many jobs out there, from factory worker, farmer, taxi driver, policeman, and any other job in which employees are exposed to dangerous conditions.
Your entire argument seems based on the fact that you are only allowed to employ people with 0 potential harm, which is a falsehood.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
They can ban anything; they banned interracial marriage until the 1950s; they banned women voting; they banned blacks being free; they try to ban mosques being built. The TaliBAN bans music :) I may want to pick a better example, but stating that people ban something because they can speaks very little as to whether such ban makes sense. And even if it makes sense, freedom means allowing people to do things that don't make sense. But freedom is a concept lost on most Americans these days.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Please, for the sake of freedom, and allowing others to live lifestyles you don't approve of -- please don't think that it's right to force one viewpoint on all doors that dare open themselves to the public. It's not.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
If someone for some reason wants to open a "dump on the table" club where patrons come in to participate in social interactions involving taking a dump onn the table, that's fine by me. I certainly won't be going there ever, but that's fine too.
If there are enough people locally that have a pent up desire to take a dump on a table, I guess it will be a successful business.
Likewise, if someone wants to open a club where people drink and smoke, I'm fine with that too. If there's enough people who want to drink and smoke, I guess that'll be a success too.
Except, of course, that legally it's probably easier to open a dump on the table club than it is to open a smokers welcome bar.
It sold fine, then it became rated AO and was removed from store shelves at the time, despite the fact that the content couldn't be normally accessed. It wasn't any merits of the game itself that caused it to be removed from store shelves, but rather a pointless rating system by the ESRB.
"Hot Coffee" was accessible in both PC and console versions of the game.
Rockstar Games, the publisher of the Grand Theft Auto series, initially denied allegations that the minigame was "hidden" in the video game, stating that the Hot Coffee modification (which they claim violated the game's End User Licence Agreement) is the result of "hackers" making "significant technical modifications to and reverse engineering" the game's code. However, this claim was undermined when a hacker known as N.A.V.A.I.D G, on July 12, 2005, released an "Action Replay Power Save" for the Xbox console, and codes for the PlayStation 2 Action Replay game enhancer that allowed the scenes to be accessed in each of the console versions. These new methods of accessing "Hot Coffee" demonstrated that the controversial content was, indeed, built into the console versions as well.
The creator of the original PC mod, Patrick Wildenborg (under the Internet alias "PatrickW"), a 38-year-old modder from the Netherlands, rejects Rockstar's claim that the mod required significant technical effort, pointing out that he only changed a single bit in the installed game's "main.scm" file, and that there is absolutely no new content that he actually created--every piece of the required code was already in-game, just not available to the player. The PC mod itself is actually just an edited copy of the game script files with the bit changed. The mod was also made possible on the console versions, by changing the bit inside a user's savegame or by using a third-party modding device.
The possibility of enabling the minigame by changing a single bit of code shows that the sexual intercourse content is part of the game's original data, and not new content inserted into the game by the mod. However, it is not possible to access the sexual content simply by playing the game as intended by the developers, because it was fully disabled and the bit cannot be changed by normal gameplay. The oral sex animations are however clearly visible in the background of an early mission, "Cleaning the Hood", even in the re-released game. This may explain why the mini-game was not simply removed when the decision was made to cut it from the game: its assets were in use elsewhere. Hot Coffee minigame controversy
Rockstar had a history of pushing the limits of the M rated game.
Rockstar's use of inner city gangland stereotypes did not endear it to America's racial minorities or the American inner city itself. That was dangerously charged territory to tread for a developer based in Edinburgh, Scotland.
Introducing a button-mashing sexual minigame into a game that implies or allows the rape or murder of a prostitute raised even more red flags. Prostitutes call for ban on GTA
There is - or can be - a meaningful distinction between handling adult sexual themes in a game and porn. The adolescence of "Hot Coffee" was absolute proof that the video game industry had a lot of growing up to do.
The one thing Rockstar could not survive was the precedent it had set for embedding AO content in an M rated game. Content which could be unlocked with a wink and a nod sometime after release.
Recently, we took our kids to see Yogi Bear. It was exactly what you'd expect a movie based upon the old Hanna-Barbera cartoon to be -- inoffensive and insipid. Yet, "Rated PG for some mild rude humor."
From comparing notes with other parents, I gather we're on the restrictive end of the scale -- we actually examine 'M' rated games before deciding whether to allow our 14-year-old to play them, whereas other parents in our circle seem to allow younger kids to play 'M' rated games with no supervision at all. I generally give the go-ahead for our 14-year-old, but I do want to check first. In practice, we're more worried about avoiding high octane nightmare fuel, then about sex or violence, per se.
It's striking to me, though, that I rarely see games that rated below 'T' or 'M', even games that are clearly aimed at young children, just as I rarely see a movie that is rated below 'PG-13'. The overall pattern seems to be a sort of rating inflation, in which the more restrictively rated material is seen as more attractive by most consumers, and there are only disadvantages to having less restrictive ratings.
Overall, rating systems seem to have become almost completely useless, and this is a problem, because I do think parents could use tools to help them screen the content their children will be exposed to, especially younger children.
My god, people like you are why we should be allowed to do late term abortions.
Your comment is funny, but you still don't win the internet.
Are you familiar with the concept of "live and let live"? If you want to ban something, pass a law banning it. If it's not banned, let people do what they naturally want to do, without government interference. I'd totally be down with a mandatory picture of lung cancer on the entrance to every bar.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
It has a lot more to do with your employees than your customers. The argument is that your employees have a right to work in a safe environment - the same way that employees in a machine shop or garage or manufacturing facility have the right to be safe at their jobs, too.
It doesn't matter if every employee you have smokes and doesn't mind. What if one of them wanted to quit smoking? Should a company be able to fire an employee who asked for goggles because he kept getting metal dust in his eyes from a machine lacking safety mechanisms?
At one point such an employee would get fired. Then there were some sit-ins and a few factories burnt to the ground, and now there are workplace protections in place. Extending them to smoking is a smaller leap than making smoking an exception.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
But do not think that people have a right to a job with no risk. Tell that to taxi drivers, farmers, cops, miners, and anyone else with a risk of injury to their job. There's a reason you're being paid to put up with it. And nobody has a right to force no risk into a job that would normally carry some. To use an absurd and completely unrealistic metaphor -- just to illustrate how silly it seems to me -- it would be like someone applying for a job as skydiver instructor, and then instead telling the company that it should no longer allow people to jump out of the planes (they can do it on their own time) because it puts the employees at an undue risk. At some point, and with some jobs, there are going to be risks associated with your employment.
The reason bars are popular is that, as a product, they are for the most part, people going where they want, doing what they want. The people decide what is acceptable. That is why many places have voluntary non-smoking in states without bans. Freedom is choice. No smokers anywhere are asking the government to force non-smokers to allow smoking in their privately run businesses. Yet non-smokers everywhere are asking the government to force smokers to not be allowed to smoke in their privately run businesses. It is utterly hypocritical freedom. It is not live and let live. It is live and petition the govenrment to force those who don't want to live by your rules to have to.
Don't want to work at a smokey bar? Don't apply for work at one.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
...the hardcore Archie-and-Jughead scenes. (Yes, I know, they probably exist in slash fiction, but a Google Images search reveals surprisingly little. Get on it, folks!)
Tom Geller
By the way, your logic is why adult businesses, strip clubs, swinger clubs, and the like are often shut down.
Stop frothing at the mouth and try some consistency. On one hand, you claim I'm wrong. On the other hand, you claim that it's bad and it's done all the time. You contradict yourself. Deep breaths, and try again.
Learn to love Alaska
You'll have to explain the contradiction in more detail. It is in fact true that wrong things do happen, however.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Your entire argument seems based on the fact that you are only allowed to employ people with 0 potential harm, which is a falsehood.
I never made such a claim, nor required such an assumption. But if you need to lie to justify your incorrect opinion, I wouldn't want to damage your self image.
Learn to love Alaska
That is you saying that you can not employ with harm! Or it is simply that you now want to splice hairs with respect to "chemical" harm versus other harm? The morals do not change regardless of this hair-splitting.
In fact, that freedom you just spoke of is not true, nor should it be.
If I wanted to operate a popcorn factory, I'd have to expose employees to dangerous conditions. OSHA would regulate those conditions and not allow them if they caused damage to the level OSHA regulates at, just as they do secondhand smoke (which does not meet the legal harm level in the 40 carcinogens tested). Quite simply put, it's already legal to expose people to far worse than smoking. The freedom you claim doesn't exist.
Either way, if those people got sick later (which did happen--the popcorn factory worker lawsuit), they can sue in a court of law. There's no need to have the government ban employing people who may be harmed.
My opinion still stands, and I have not contradicted myself anywhere. My opinion is the one that yields the most freedom for the most people, and more importantly, yields the most choice for the most people.
Smokers aren't asking the government to force non-smokers to have smoking sections in restaurants, libraries, schools, malls, and everywhere else. People would scream tyranny. Yet non-smokers are asking the government to force smokers to not smoke in their own bar they they personally own. There is a big difference here. Maybe you don't own any property, or maybe you only care about the freedom of groups you belong to, and not the freedom of groups you disagree with -- but the freest thing to do is to let all people involved do what they want, not to force the government to tell people what they want to do on their own property.
You wanna set policy on public property? BE MY GUEST. You SHOULD be able to on public property. But your right to control public property doesn't magically expand into someone's private property just because he dared open his door to someone who doesn't like what he's doing.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The only reason such "codes" could fly is that the makers of art had to rely on a distribution system that could force such arbitrary restrictions on them.
Actually there's a theory (which I'm not sure I totally buy) that the whole thing was contrived as a way to destroy E.C. Comics.
At the time, E.C. -- the publisher of Tales from the Crypt, the Vault of Horror, the Haunt of Fear, and Weird Science, among others -- was the best-selling comics publisher in the industry. It was a bona fide phenomenon. Many publishers tried to imitate E.C.'s success, but none were able to truly recreate its unique formula of quality art and stories.
So instead, the also-ran publishers colluded to knock E.C. out of the market. Many of the objections raised in the Congressional hearings on comic books were examples taken directly from E.C. Comics covers and stories. Much of the language of the Code seemed to directly target E.C. -- for example, comics were not allowed to use the words "terror," "horror," or "fear" in their titles. The Code pretty much made it impossible for E.C. to continue to publish its top-selling titles in their original form, because when the smaller publishers all voluntarily jumped on board with the Code, distributors soon stopped shipping comics that didn't carry the Code seal on their covers.
At the time, the E.C. horror titles were still so popular that it was getting ready to publish the Crypt of Terror, a fourth title featuring its Crypt-Keeper character. Only one issue of that title was ever produced; instead, the Code killed all four titles.
While the rest of the industry continued on with superheroes and newspaper strip reprints, E.C. tried to launch a new line of titles with subjects like medical dramas, war stories, pirates, and (believe it or not) true tales of psychoanalysis. None of them were successful. Before long, E.C. Comics had vanished from the racks, with the company's only remaining product being the (admittedly successful) Mad Magazine.
Like I said, I'm not totally sure I believe this interpretation -- it seems odd that so many publishers, who were themselves publishing horror titles, would rather shoot themselves in the foot than compete honestly -- but it is pretty odd when a company can go from being the industry leader to practically filing for bankruptcy, not because of government regulation (there never was any), but solely because its competitors chose to collude on a voluntary censorship scheme... don't ya think?
Breakfast served all day!
The reason adults-only works don't sell has nothing to do with lack of consumer demand, and everything to do with distributors refusing to carry them. This is very much like what happened with comics and the Code: you could still publish and sell comics that (for example) showed police in a negative light, or included lurid images of women in ripped clothing, but you could not distribute them through the newsstand sales network (which was pretty much the only way of selling comics in those days).
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
That is you saying that you can not employ with harm!
Then you interpreted it wrong, and I'm correcting you. When you cause harm, it must be judged and weighed and is no longer an absolute. You can't contract an employee into an indefinite contract. Both people can agree to it, but indentured servitude is simply illegal. That doesn't mean you don't have the freedom to employ someone indefinitely, but that you can't hold them to any such indefinite contract. Apply that principle to my words. Also, a police officer is not harmed in the line of work as a matter of course. The risk is higher, but the harm is from relatively random and infrequent acts which the employer has no control over. The current medical stance is "there is no safe level of second hand exposure." This means that actual harm is caused each and every time the person shows up to work. That's vastly different from a rare and unpreventable action by a 3rd party against an officer and direct harm caused by the working environment on a regular basis.
But your right to control public property doesn't magically expand into someone's private property just because he dared open his door to someone who doesn't like what he's doing.
You win. You change your argument randomly based on reality or idealism based on what supports you best, without regard to consistency, reality, or logic. You've successfully argued that there currently exists the right to control private property because that's what actually happens today. Then you state there isn't when your opinion is there shouldn't be and that better supports your stance. If you can't pick either the unreasonably idealistic and stick to it or reality and stick to that, then I can't prove you to be wrong when you are.
Learn to love Alaska
If it's my property, and it's legal, I should be able to do it. If I want to open the doors to the public - both as employees and as customers - NOBODY IS FORCED BY ANY GOVERNMENT TO DO ANYTHING THEY DON'T WANT. Nobody has to ever give me a red cent. The only time the government should intervene is if there is a law being broken. And there's not (unless some tyrannical majority gets together and says "we don't like X so let's ban X").
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
And ... there was no examination for breaking cartel regulations? It sounds a lot like the textbook definition of "collusion with the intent to gain unlawful advantage over competitors".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I love how the majority of your arguments have been critiques of my argument instead of the situation at hand.
Why yes. I stated something, you said "you are wrong because..." and so I address your reasoning. You are the first person I've met who has complained because my responses have been on topic to what they said.
If it's my property, and it's legal, I should be able to do it.
But that's not how it works. Selling is legal. Sex is legal. Selling sex isn't legal. Taking two legal things and combining them doesn't always result in a legal result. To make a logical leap when it's proven false isn't support of your argument. It's just showing your idealism and how your world view contradicts the vast majority of people. I can't convince you that unrealistic naive idealism is incorrect. I can just give a counter example for everything you've said so far. It seems your argument boils down to "We need to re-do everything done by the federal, state, and local governments to rework the government in the image of what I think they should do." I can't disagree with that because it isn't applicable.
And there's not (unless some tyrannical majority gets together and says "we don't like X so let's ban X").
So you obviously don't like democracy, where the majority can do such things, so what government would you like? A dictatorship of you, the one benevolent dictator who knows what everyone wants better than they do?
Learn to love Alaska
That would be a great argument if the reason that I thought those things should be legal in combination was strictly because I was combining two things. But no, it was a basic moral freedom. That ownership of property means you can do what you want on your property within law. The idea that government can regulate behavior between consenting adults is wrong; it's why we have the drug war; it's why prostitution is illegal in the first place. It should not be.
RE: "your dictator paragraph": That's a strawman representation/response to tyranny of the majority, which is the weakest part of democracy. Democracy is only free when freedom is upheld beyond the tyrannical majority. Otherwise, any 51% of people can tell any other 49% of people what to do.
And, in fact, that is what happened. This is the country where slaves existed in spite of a constitution that granted rights to "all persons". This is the country where interracial marriage was illegal until 1950. This is the country where interracial marriage was almost recriminalized in Alabama, in a vote that failed by a few per cent -- in the past 10 years. This is the country where a town not far from me voted to put the 10 Commandments back into a school, despite an amendment protecting us from government endorsement of religion. This is the country where men decided women couldn't vote for the majority of its existence. If you had said any of those things were wrong in the past, and I then responded, "What would be right, A dictatorship?", it would be a fallacious response, as yours was here. Tyranny of the majority is a real problem to be addressed with real discourse, not comparisons to dictatorships and Hitler and such.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Don't want to work at a smokey bar? Don't apply for work at one.
If all establishments have smoke, where can one work?
Without a smoking ban, what happens when all bars in an area decide they can attract more paying customers by allowing smoking than by promoting their clean air? That's tyranny of the majority. Compare what happened in the Jim Crow era, where businesses decided they could attract more business by promoting a "colored-free" environment to white customers than by welcoming all customers.
However, if all employers do something you don't like, that's too bad for you. See also: Drug tests.
But actually, not all jobs entail being in an enclosed space, so even if everyone on the planet smoked but you, you could still find a job that did not expose you to smoke. I suggest something where you aren't around people. There are tons of jobs like that.
But yea, bringing up a non-issue can be interesting, but I don't think it really furthers the discussion about personal property freedom here.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
That ownership of property means you can do what you want on your property within law.
Second hand smoke is poison. You can't poison people on your private property. Selling is legal, sex is legal, selling sex on your property is illegal. And no one is telling you that you can't smoke in your own bar after hours when no one is there. You still have that freedom. You just can't enter into an employment contract that makes your employees slaves, nor requires that they be poisoned every time they show up to work, whether they are working in public parks or your "private" establishment.
That's a strawman representation/response to tyranny of the majority, which is the weakest part of democracy.
So you support it while hating many things that come from it? Or do you not support it? Tyranny by the majority is a natural result of democracy, and if you think it's such a problem, what other governmental structure would you prefer?
Tyranny of the majority is a real problem to be addressed with real discourse, not comparisons to dictatorships and Hitler and such.
You brought up Hitler not me, and, in case you didn't know, Hitler was democratically elected. Democracy leads to Hitlers, not protects us from them.
Learn to love Alaska
You do realize that you sound like a 1950s restaurant owner with a "no dogs, blacks, or jews" sign in the window, don't you?
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Without a smoking ban, what happens when all bars in an area decide they can attract more paying customers by allowing smoking than by promoting their clean air? That's tyranny of the majority. Compare what happened in the Jim Crow era, where businesses decided they could attract more business by promoting a "colored-free" environment to white customers than by welcoming all customers.
I'm very sorry, but your attempt to equate it with colored-free environments is simply not valid morally or legally. Legally, the antidiscrimination amendment only protects specific groups of people. Non-smokers is not one of them. Morally, however, you can: 1) Not go to a bar. 2) BUY YOUR OWN BAR AND DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT. That's the thing. Nobody is forcing you to smoke, but you are trying to force others not to. The only one forcing anyone is you, not us. You are not forced to attend bars. I am not forced to go to a church. Someone preaching a religion that I find harmful can go about doing whatever they want -- I simply wont go to their church.
By the way, almost every bar in New Orleans just decided to go smoke free, voluntarily, without any ban. Of course, some may decide not to. THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF FREEDOM: Nobody is forcing you to do anything. By walking into a bar and declaring that you have a right to tell them how to run the place (via petitioning your government), you are forcing people to do something. You are the one using the force of the government, police, and guns, to tell free people that they cannot practice their kind of freedom simply because they don't agree with it.
Are you against the Fred Phelps protestors too? They have a right to say whatever they want on public property. I may think the world would be a better place if they whould all spontaneously drop dead, but I'm not going to petition my government to control their speech (on public OR private property) because I can simply NOT LISTEN.
Please. Stop and think about what it means to be free. Nobody is forcing YOUR PROPERTY to have smokers smoking on it. If they did, you'd be screaming bloody murder. So would I! Nobody tells me what to do with my own property! But apparently it's okay to tell others what to do with their own property IF you like it, and can make up enough reasons. But in the end, YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO VISIT MY BAR. Non-smokers who want to visit my bar are not protected by the constitution. Black people who want to visit my bar are, however, protected from being discriminated by race. And honestly, people like you make me question whether that was the right decision. Not because I think minorities shouldn't be protected, but because it opens the door for a slippery slope of ever-increasing government intervention.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Not really. The dump-on-the-table club is going to run into health inspection problems and never open. But a truly private members-only smoking bar should be fairly easy to set up in most jurisdictions.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
What does Jim-Crow have to do with that? You have piqued my intellectual curiosity.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Didn't MAD purposely go to magazine format to dodge CCA-type stuff?
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
And for further clarification, yes, if they banned smoking outright, I'd go on a rant about it. In fact, a country in Asia just instituted a country-wide ban, and I ranted on it on my blog. You are dead correct. The government telling people what to do with their own bodies is wrong, and the drug war -- all drugs -- is wrong too. Nevermind the fact that even if it was right, it's not practical, has failed, and always will. Prohibitions of physical objects just don't work very well; especially when people want them.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The federal government wanted the Code; they weren't about to object to it just because of restraint-of-trade issues.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
As for gingers, a roundup of the red-headed is the concept of M.I.A’s “Born Free” music video; it seems clear that she was trying to say that discriminating against groups that actually are commonly targeted is just as nonsensical as the targeting of redheads in the video.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I recall some film with a D.B. Cooper subplot suggesting that he burned most of his ransom money to stay alive longer in the wilderness; stacks of $20s also seem to fit your "flammable valuable" theme.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
He must be happy from this news. :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The codes could fall under the category of accurate product information even in a free market; yes, they're far more obnoxious in oligopoly situations, but I could see them theoretically playing a role.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Yes, and you had to modify the game code to access it, just like every other idea that gets put into a game then latter scrapped. It is silly to rate a game on what can be done outside of the game itself. It was their own decision to access a part of the game that could not be accessed normally, and if we take this to its logical conclusion, we should be rating all Mario games M because someone could make a game save or a patch that makes texts in the games say FUCK simply because there is an F, U, C and K sprite. But yet we aren't doing this. And perhaps you want to look at the sales figures, GTA San Andreas is the highest selling game for the PS2 and it refutes the claim that AO games wouldn't sell well because no one would buy them.
In games, a lot of content gets scrapped, levels get unused, and such. Yes, you can modify the game code to let you access it, but such things are not part of the game itself and shouldn't be rated as being part of the game because it isn't, it is a third party patch where users are clearly warned what they are doing. This isn't some kid finding out they can press up up down down L1 L2 X and Start and it will suddenly play the minigame, rather you have to use a third party tool to edit the hex data of the game.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
It isn't just a problem with retailers not stocking the game. Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony all prohibit AO content on their consoles. It is almost as bad as if MPEG-LA refused to license DVD patents to companies that that make NC-17 movies. That leaves the PC as the only place you can sell AO games, which is why publishers would rather modify their games rather than cut out 2/3 of their market.
YOU cannot open your private property for business to the public without express sanction from a local governing body, you simply cant in almost all cases.
You ASK PERMISSION to allow that to occur. As part of the agreement to allow you to open an establishment to the public you agree to follow the law. The law has very specific guidelines on what you can and cannot do in privately held public spaces. It is YOUR CHOICE to open your venue to the public. Once you do that you are subject to the rules that are set forth for operations of that nature.
Society ( that thing that nurtured and educated you and gave you incredible chances at survival) has deemed this to be fair. Your naievete is charming " no one tells me what to do on my property, except pay taxes, business license, beer and wine license, separate liquor license, zoning ordinances, eminent domain, safety regulations, fish and game regulations, mining rights, water rights..." Do i really need to go on?
For the record, I despise the Westboro church, but I uphold their right to LEGAL protest.
Good-bye
"My private property doesn't become yours to run once I open my doors to you. It's still mine. I still own it, pay mortgage and taxes on it. It is mine. It is not public property owned by the government and public taxpayers."
This is false on so many levels. By choosing to open your doors to the public, society has a vested interest in regulating your affairs from that point on in regards to your interactions with said public.
Good-bye
And if you need a list of said abuses... I can provide many.
But hey, it's all okay if YOU get your way, right? Fuck that 1% who may have a different method of doing things. Like those people who want that disgusting raw milk that hasn't been pasteurized. The cops went on them too.
So yes, your assessment is correct when you paint it with such broad strokes. I still think it is not the situation that grants the most freedom of choice to the most people, however, and find this all very contrary to "live and let live".
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
No, it doesn't fail on so many levels. You didn't even name a single level that it failed on. You simply used the nebulous, vague, broad "vested interest" stroke, which is about the same as when the government claims things are in "national security". That is, it's a made-up term used to justify anything someone subjectively wants. If I actually ask you "which interest", your answers will be met with responses we've already talked about. Employee health? Already address by OSHA. You lose.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Explain that please. So I could be kept from getting a product without "accurate product information"? For real? Ok, let's say I want to see a comic without nanny protecting me from seeing something bad, can I get it?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, I have every right to smoke on private property, and I have every right to "poison" whoever else is in my house. I OWN IT, and I can do what I want with it.
Wait, are we talking about private property that's a public space anymore? Or do you just change your argument every post because consistency would leave you proven wrong? Because I can't even keep track with the number of two-faced turnarounds you make. So pick which scenario you'd like to discuss, and we'll keep it there. Or do you have a large glowing neon sign outside your house announcing "open" and multiple paid employees inside?
ALCOHOL IS A POISON TOO. Alcohol kills more people than all illegal drugs combined, even not counting drunk driving. But I can drink it, and serve it to guests in my house AND my bar.
And you tell me to "slow down and think?" It's not about the freedom to poison yourself. Nothing I've said could be reasonably taken to indicate you don't have the right to poison yourself. To pretend I've even hinted such a thing indicates you are either an illiterate idiot so tied up in holding your broken opinion over reality that you can't even processes what's said to you, or you are a liar. I've never said you don't have the right to poison yourself as quickly or slowly as you like. It's about whether you have the freedom to poison others. You claim that you get the right to poison others if you are rich enough (since the rights aren't tied to the person, but the land they own).
Making shit up is not the best debate tactic.
I agree. When you stop trying that tactic, we'll come to a very swift resolution.
What, are you come kind of libertarian? You laud democracy as being the opposite of Hitler when Hitler was democratically elected and act like you are all for personal freedoms when you are anti-freedom for people, but instead back to the feudal ideas of land ownership conferring rights that aren't held by the peasants who don't own land. Combining the gross ignorance, useless anti-reality idealism, and classist discrimination, you smell a lot like a self-described libertarian. Am I close?
Learn to love Alaska
Accurate knowledge about a product is crucial to the operation of a free market, and a CCA seal (_or the lack thereof_) is amongst the things that could serve as a shorthand for that information/knowledge.
The way it was actually used isn't free-market, but labels like that theoretically could be
Analogous to some conception of trademarks, perhaps.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Of course. Truly public property is run by the government and paid for by the taxpayers. Those are the only places where you actually have your constitutional rights. Every place else, you only have the rights given to you by the property owner. If you come to my house with a Republican t-shirt, I'm going to tell you to leave, and there's not jack shit you can do about it. And I could do the same thing if I was running a restaurant. (It wouldn't be smart for business though.) I hope you understand that's how it does and should work. Since most people tend to only respect rights they themselves exercise, I have to wonder on a personal level if you ever own property or thought of owning a business.
Or do you just change your argument every post because consistency would leave you proven wrong? Because I can't even keep track with the number of two-faced turnarounds you make
I truly have no clue what you're talking about. I've always been talking about the same things: Freedom to be left alone from government interference, and freedom of choice. Meanwhile, you've been whining that I'm not arguing with you correctly. I'm pretty much ignore those comments.
It's not about the freedom to poison yourself. Nothing I've said could be reasonably taken to indicate you don't have the right to poison yourself.
Yes, PLENTY of what you've said could reasonably be taken to indicate that. The little part where I purchase a bar so my friends (and other random people) can have a place and come drink and smoke, but then people like you tell me I'm not allowed to smoke on my own property. It is precisely the result of what you said. I'm sorry you cannot glean this yourself from your own statements.
Making shit up is not the best debate tactic.
I agree. When you stop trying that tactic, we'll come to a very swift resolution.
What, are you come kind of libertarian? You laud democracy as being the opposite of Hitler
I see you didn't listen to my "don't make shit up" advice very long. One whole sentence. Wow. you are all for personal freedoms when you are anti-freedom for people There you go again. I repeat: I have never been a proponent of forcing non-smokers to have to allow smoking on their own property. You, however, are a proponent of forcing smokers to not smoke on their own property. I have never advocated not allowing someone to do something legal on their own property. You are. So maybe you need to look in the mirror and reconsider who is the one for personal freedom here. Freedom has always been about allowing unpopular choices, and acts you don't agree with. Clearly this is too much for you.
P.S. Fuck Bob Barr.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
"Periodic revisions were made to the Code to reflect changing attitudes about appropriate subject matter (e.g., the ban on referring to homosexuality was revised in 1989 to allow non-stereotypical depictions of gay men and lesbians)"
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Such practices still need to be outlawed because they're about as anti free market as they get. A free market requires the customer as the deciding factor because he chooses the superior product. If that decision is made by someone else (because a monopoly or cartel position is abused to eliminate a (possibly) superior competitor), free market cannot work.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Also: Congratulations for making a pointless parallel. The poor non-smoker who wants to force smoking bar owners to stop; yes, their plight is the same as minorities who have faced discrimination at the color of their skin. Totally the same there. Anything you fill in that blank of yours, totally the same. Great parallel. You win at internet.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
AGAIN: Nobody is forcing you or anyone else to smoke. Everybody has the right to go wherever they want. This does not mean they have the right to force those places to accommodate their personal tastes. That is what choice, freedom, and the free market (for what it's worth) are supposed to do. If you don't like smoking -- start a business that doesn't allow smoking. NOBODY IS TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO -- though you are telling everybody else what to do. Enjoy the freedom that you have for being on the right side; the freedom to actually do what you want. For some people not fortunate enough to be on the right side, they don't get the freedom to do what they want. Gay marriage is a great example. And why was gay marriage never allowed? Because there was a time when it was thought to be far more harmful than smoking. So everyone got together and said, "Hey! Since we are the majority, we can force our choice down everyone else's throat."
You know the saying: "DON'T SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE? DON'T HAVE ONE!" and "DON'T SUPPORT ABORTION? DON'T HAVE ONE!"? That logic doesn't end with those two choices alone. Don't support smoking in bars? Don't attend one. And certainly don't work at one. Allow people to make their own choices, Mr. Government Lover. People like you make me realize why Republicans exist... And that makes me incredibly sad.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Don't like pornography? Don't buy it.
Don't like profanity on TV? Change the channel.
Don't want abortion? Don't have one.
Don't want smoking? Don't go where people smoke
It's very easy to live and let live. It doesn't require paragraphs of justification and excuses. It is, quite simply, that you life your life, and let other people live theirs. If they are doing something that makes it unacceptable for you to be there, leave.
You are psychotic if you think it's psychotic to tell other people what to do, simply because YOU don't like it.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
De facto banning stuff that fails to meet the code is of course anti-free-market: what I meant was code-passed and code-failed material circulating in parallel; some might value the options and the identification marker.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
OK, so you don't realize it. 'Nuff said.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
My point is that it does not matter if I sound like someone else who is worse than me. That is a poor attempt at equivocating a strawman to attack, rather than attacking and discussing the actual issue. It is an intellectual dodge around answering questions you don't want to answer, because they may challenge your belief. You're starting to sound like a Christian or something.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Please, enough with the slippery slope fallacies. It's amateur.
P.s. You should read 1984, if you actually didn't, though.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The first part is true, at least if they also want to serve food and drink in the same room. However, the second not so much in many jurisdictions. That and I said bar, not truly private club.
If you come to my house with a Republican t-shirt, I'm going to tell you to leave, and there's not jack shit you can do about it. And I could do the same thing if I was running a restaurant. (It wouldn't be smart for business though.) I hope you understand that's how it does and should work.
So, the business owner should be able to refuse business because of a t-shirt. How about the color of their skin? Their religion? Their sexual preference? Gender? Is there anything at all that you think should be not be allowed to discriminate against for giving jobs, serving in stores or selling a house to? Was apartheid fine because the whites owned all the land and made all the rules?
I've always been talking about the same things: Freedom to be left alone from government interference, and freedom of choice.
The freedom of the landowners to push around the non-landowners isn't freedom for all. So I didn't really understand at the time that you advocated extra rights for those with land and less for those without. It all made sense when you pushed for the stripping of power from the poor. Even if that's not what you think you want, that's what must happen if your ideals came to pass.
The little part where I purchase a bar so my friends (and other random people) can have a place and come drink and smoke, but then people like you tell me I'm not allowed to smoke on my own property. It is precisely the result of what you said. I'm sorry you cannot glean this yourself from your own statements.
I'm sorry that you are too stupid to understand an argument against what you cling to with unsubstantiated emotion. You can smoke all you like on your property, as long as no one else is there. What you can't do is to pay other people to stand there while you smoked in their faces. It is not now, and never was, about your freedom to smoke. It's about everyone being free to take a job without fearing fearing for their health. That you think the freedom to poison others should be constitutionally protected but the right to work should not be says plenty about you.
I repeat: I have never been a proponent of forcing non-smokers to have to allow smoking on their own property. You, however, are a proponent of forcing smokers to not smoke on their own property.
You are lying again. You whine like a little schoolgirl that I'm making things up, when you are doing it more than I am. The issue was always about whether the "public" in a semi-public place can smoke. The owner of the establishment is not a member of "the public" for that case, and as such, there are no comments I've made that concern that one way or another. But feel free to make up whatever you want about what you assert I think so that it's easier to bash my ideas. Even better when it's one sentence after you bash me for making up things.
Freedom has always been about allowing unpopular choices, and acts you don't agree with. Clearly this is too much for you.
You are asserting that the right to poison others is more important than the right to work. Perhaps you should consider the generosity of allowing acts you don't agree with. But no, you won't, yet hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself.
P.S. Fuck Bob Barr.
I called you a libertarian. Bob Barr is not a libertarian. Very few (if any) members of the Libertarian party are libertarians. Though that's a creative way to dodge the question. Much like you implied that democracy would prevent Hitler when the truth is the opposite and Hitler came to power by being elected in a democracy.
Learn to love Alaska
So, the business owner should be able to refuse business because of a t-shirt. How about the color of their skin? Their religion? Their sexual preference? Gender? Is there anything at all that you think should be not be allowed to discriminate against for giving jobs, serving in stores or selling a house to? Was apartheid fine because the whites owned all the land and made all the rules?
And again, you're equivocating. Someone smoking, and you not wanting to go in because they are smoking, is not the same as refusing your business. They will gladly take their business. YOU are the one refusing. I understand the slippery slope you are trying to apply here, but it does not apply.
What you can't do is to pay other people to stand there while you smoked in their faces.
Actually, I can. That has been the standing law in most places during most of human history. It's only in a few exceptions that you have now carved out, via smoking ban, that that would be illegal. It's another strawman attack, though, as nobody is being forced to be employed by me. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one. Don't want to work with my smoke? Don't work here. It's very simple, and no, it's not the same as refusing someone based on their skin color.
I repeat: I have never been a proponent of forcing non-smokers to have to allow smoking on their own property. You, however, are a proponent of forcing smokers to not smoke on their own property. And no, I am not lying, despite your nonsensical paragraph trying to explain how I am lying when I say that. Is a place that plays hip-hop forcing you to listen to hip-hop? Is a Chinese restaurant forcing you to eat Chinese? You choose where you patronize. If anyone's the whiny pussy, it's you, whining to papa government to force people to run things your way. The smoker crowd was not doing that. They were no more forcing you to smoke than a Chinese restaurant is forcing you to eat Chinese. And stop the employee bullshit; everyone chooses where they patronize, and where they want to work at.
You are asserting that the right to poison others is more important than the right to work
More strawman bullshit. A bar is inherently poisoning their clientele by serving them alcohol. I live in a state where you can be terminated at will. No explanation has to be given. So guess what? Your ridiculous supposition is technically true! Bwahaha.
. Much like you implied that democracy would prevent Hitler when the truth is the opposite and Hitler came to power by being elected in a democracy.
I'm still trying to figure out where you pulled that out of. But you do love to, instead of copying and pasting what I said (like I did to you earlier, and you didn't acknowledge because it was a winning point), paraphrasing it as some form of weak intellectual arguing. It doesn't work.
In the end, it is you, not I, using force to force others. Smokers in a bar no more force you to breathe smoke than Chinese restaurants force you to eat Chinese. You can do what you want, but that's not enough, you have to compel others to your way. You lose for freedom, but it's okay because most people agree with you; just like the gay marriage ban, if you want to equivocate things.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
And again, you're equivocating.
You said that a person on their property (even if a "public" business") should be able to do whatever they want on that land and if anyone doesn't like it, they can leave. "If you come to my house with a Republican t-shirt, I'm going to tell you to leave, and there's not jack shit you can do about it. And I could do the same thing if I was running a restaurant." So you can kick people out of your restaurant for a t-shirt. How about the color of their skin? Their gender? I'm not equivocating. You made a positive statement about what you think a proprietor should be able to do. I'm asking for clarification about your statement. You are avoiding clarifying anything you say because the clarifications would lead to obvious contradictions or very very unpopular stances on segregation and such. You apparently feel trapped enough to pretend I said nothing and move on.
Learn to love Alaska
Oh, you mean, I was expected to actually answer that? What do you think I think? Jesus man. Of course not. But the only reason they cannot do that is because of a constitutional amendment. Not a law, but a constitutional amendment.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Gender isn't protected in the Constitution. Neither is sexual orientation, both I had asked about earlier. If, as you assert, you are going by a strict Constitutional stance for your opinion of what should be allowed, you think it's ok to discriminate based on age, gender, perceived sexual orientation, and such. After all, that's what you just asserted by stating that you only follow the Constitution, but not indicating that you follow any morals of your own. Or are you going to equivocate while accusing me of the same by not actually stating what you believe? After all, you've dodged answering it twice already. How many more times can you avoid a direct question while having the chutzpah to sling accusations at others of doing what you yourself are actively engaged in?
And I find it amusing that you talked about what "should be" so much before, but for this, you are not talking about what "should be" and are pointing to the law so you don't have to answer the "should be" that you pressed so hard about before. What attributes do you think a property owner should be able to discriminate based on?
Learn to love Alaska
I need to take a shit.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
'Nuff said.
The reason I mentioned the constitution was to assert the point that it is a BIG DEAL to grant the government power to tell people what to do with their own property. It's been done, but it's almost always been abused.
Every law has been abused; even zoning laws. Why can't I operate a business out of my house? Oh yea, because of zoning laws. The tyrannical majority says, "We don't want cars parking on our street so people can't run businesses out of their house." (Nevermind that I don't have street parking anyway, I live on a busy street with no parking lane and only driveways!)
At least some of them make sense. The basics, like anti-discrimination. Which say you cannot refuse service to somebody. What they DON'T say is that you have to change your service so that everyone is happy. For instance, if 99.999999% hated Chinese food, banning it would accomplish making everyone happy. Restaurant space would then be used to serve the public interest, instead of serving food they hate. BUT IT WOULD STILL BE WRONG IN TERMS OF LIBERTY. But not a single person would complain, because 99.9999% would be happy. (Well, *I* would complain, I'm the rare breed who cares about the rights of those I disagree with as much as my own.)
After all, you've dodged answering it twice already.
Dodged answering what? If I didn't answer something, why do you not just re-paste it and re-ask it, like I have when you ignored me? Oh riiiight! You're the guy who likes the whine about how the debate is being conducted, rather than using that same energy to further the debate. Almost forgot for a second.
What attributes do you think a property owner should be able to discriminate based on?
Whatever he wants, but allowing smoking inside IS NOT DISCRIMINATION. Discrimination is telling people they are not allowed to enter. Smokers are allowed to enter, but they do not. It is no more discrimination than a place that a restaurant that exclusively serves pork is "discriminating" against muslims because they can't eat there. It is no more discrimination than a gay strip club discriminates against fanatical Christians who don't want to be there. You not going somewhere is not discrimination.
At least conservatives admit when they are being assholes. Liberals try to pretend that they are doing you a favor. That's the main reason people are driven to the Republican party. If Liberals would be a little less nanny state, there'd be more democrats in congress, and our nation wouldn't be passing stupid fucking things like repealing Obamacare right now. The conservatives are supposed to be the ones taking away peoples' rights!
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
A great deal of places have a sign that says "we refuse the right to serve anyone". I have a sneaking suspicion that people like you would rather force people to serve everyone.
The funny thing is, I had a long conversation with a retired DEA agent. He always dreamed of using his retirement money to buy a bar. But the smoking ban in Virginia was in the works at the time, and he said no fucking way would he start a business if he couldn't do what he wanted there. Even the DEA gets it, apparently. Which is quite ironic. The guy talked about how much he wished he had weed before his cancer surgery. Nice old man.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Voluptuous, for athletic builds, women who wore very little for the kind of physical work they did. And Wonder Woman too, I suppose, but I wasn't a DC reader when I was a kid. Being a kid and reading the X titles was as close to walking around with a Playboy in public. There was even a swimsuit issue at some point when I was older. Then I found out about the indie books, not the underground mind you, but stuff like Dirty Pair. Even with the CCA, some of the Marvel titles had enough to keep the juices flowing in a hormonal teen.
Are they gonna resort to nude women now? Kids get enough sex and nudity without them having to see it in comics. Sure comics do handle adult themes and sexuality is just another one, but some prudish throwback in me says to leave explicit sex to the underground books and let the books deal with folks in tights trying to save the world.
I don't read the X titles any more, it's been a long time. From the snippets I've looked at, I don't know who is who and what timestream they belong in anyway. Plus, I don't need to imagine naked women at this stage in the game.
Hey, you brats! Get off my la-- Damnit! Now look at me!
"To stop the terrorists."
Dodged answering what?
If you can do what you want on your property, should you be able to refuse service to a person based on the color of their skin? Their gender? Their sexual preference?
The reason I mentioned the constitution does not play into your attempt to stereotype me as following some party [i.e. libertarian, republican] line, which I do not.
You have some beliefs, which you are unwilling to define. However, the reason your brought it up was so that you could refuse to answer about what you think "should" be done and instead say "that's what the law says" while not answering what you think. You don't answer any questions I ask, and instead rant on about things I never said. Go on, don't answer a 4th time. I wouldn't want you to actually state your personal opinion here (other than the obvious opinion that you object to something I say, but are unwilling to actually address my points and instead rant about the supreme power of democracy in preventing Hitler and other emotional whines that are factually incorrect).
Learn to love Alaska
If you can do what you want on your property, should you be able to refuse service to a person based on the color of their skin? Their gender? Their sexual preference?
Yea, I already answered that, and said that they should not be able to. I'm not sure how many times I need to re-answer that for you to believe that I did. I already did so here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1962140&cid=34971344. You seem to have major reading comprehension issues if I answer questions and you come back whining that I didn't answer them. Seems to be a theme in your responses.
You have some beliefs, which you are unwilling to define
I'll define any believe you want me to, and have been. Go ahead and make up facts about me so you can attack them. The strawman fallacy runs rampant in you.
Go on, don't answer a 4th time
Except I already did - see link provided above, and learn to read.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I forgot to point out this statement is total bullshit too. Every establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone they want, as long as it is not for one of the reasons currently made illegal by equal rights amendments and laws. Have you seriously never gone to a McDonald's or fast food joint and seen the sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"
Have you seriously never gone a night club that rejected certain people based on dress code, or simply that they didn't look "Cool"? You seem to have this made up concept that Jim Crow laws ending meant that anyone can force themselves to be a customer anywhere, and quite simply, your right to patronize a place only trumps the right of that place to reject you for VERY FEW REASONS EXPLICITLY DEFINED BY LAW. And the law is currently in a good place with that.
If I ran a restaurant that served pork in every meal, Muslims and Jews would not be able to claim that I am discriminating against them just because they cannot stand to be there.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The whole "hot coffee" thing seems quaint now. In Red Dead Redemption, at least on the PS3 version I played, there's actually a scene where one of the characters is shown fucking a topless woman. It's part of the main story, no mod needed. Maybe it's ok because he's doing it missionary style?
No, you don't see any actual penetration, but there wasn't any for hot coffee, either.