Although every man Switzerland must own a gun, and be ready to assemble in case of invasion, it is actually illegal to use, handle, or even open the box in which it is stored without prior permission from the army.
I find your comparison flawed. The fact that our newly elected Prime Minister (K-Rudd) is not a racist, conservative-of-politics-yet-radical-of-eyebrows thistletwat makes him very different to the late J-Ho, and in my eyes, rather preferable. Your analogy of Pepsi to Coke (two extremely similar things, differentiated mostly by marketing and packaging) is laughable at best, not least because both leaders look Rather Similar. Consider the far more pressing and relevant issues that face most Australians, such as abolishing WorkChoices, leaving Iraq, reducing Greenhouse Gases, making friends with Asia and Apologising To All Those Kidnapped Children[1]. Many of these important tasks have already been completed, even though Young Kevin has only been in power for around 130 days, surely making him at least slightly preferable to Old Man Howard. These issues have been judged[2] by the Australian public to be far more important than untrue[3] claims of eroding civil liberties.
I believe these things invalidate your comparison of Eyebrows & TinTin to Pepsi & Coke. On the scale of carbonated drinks, Mr Rudd rates at least a Fanta, or possible a Red Creaming Soda (with ice cream in it), in his difference to Mr Howard (Coca Cola).
I guess what I'm saying is, given the history of the 20th century, when 100 million humans were killed by other humans, (about 60% of them civilians to boot) you're on very shaky ground to assume that humans in our current form are "morally superior" to anything.
Actually, although we're led to believe we're in the middle of a global crime wave, this isn't actually true. I dislike the view that humanity is on a downturn, because it propagates the view that we are falling angels rather than rising apes. Not only is this a largely religious view, it's also rather depressing, so I'm going to argue against it.
Think about the ease with which capital punishment was thrown around in Europe up until a few centuries ago, for example. 500 years ago, if you insulted the king, you'd be torn into pieces while still alive. Now, a guy in Texas can murder and rape half a dozen people, and we still protest his death by lethal injection. Why? Because our society abhors violence. You might point to the actions of the CIA, with torture and worse being condoned by the most powerful government on Earth, but it is not a fraction of what had been done to perceived 'traitors' in the past. You might point to Iraq and Darfur, and all the other atrocities that have been committed in the last two centuries alone, but you know what? If the murder rate of 'peaceful' hunter gatherer societies (which you seem so quick to idolize) had continued into the 20th century, the death toll via war would be around 2 billion, rather than a hundred million.
The thing is, we have more information now that ever before. The horrors around the world are blaring from our television screens everyday. But if you had a news feed of the past, it would be a hundred times worse. We lack the information, so we like to paint the past as a picturesque and happy time, but it wasn't. It really wasn't. The 'good old days' are a lie. You think there wasn't murder, rape and genocide? You think that these things didn't happen even more when we lived in caves and had to fight and wage war to gain the resources to survive? When death was an everyday occurrence (remember: no medicine, no concept of sanitation or viruses, wild animals on the prowl, starvation a constant threat), do you think murder would be the taboo it is today? With rival tribes living side by side, do you really think that "kill of be killed" situations didn't crop up all the time?
Peace is profitable. We are finally learning that. Cooperation is in everyone's best interest, and since (like all) humanity is a self serving species, it will prevail in the end. And no, our DNA hasn't changed much over the last 20 thousand years, but our society has. We are morally superior (at least, according to our own moral code, ha), because our morals lead to a stable society, and a stable society propagates. Ideas are subject to evolution to; good ideas dominate in the end.
Women are inundated with astrological nonsense from fashion magazines, so it is normative for them to believe it even if they are otherwise highly logical.
And what happens when it no longer requires a child to create child porn?
I don't have a problem with people creating pornography that depicts ficitonal children: that is, written or drawn. No people were harmed in the making of it, and I have yet to see valid proof that the viewing of such material makes you a child molester. I may find it disturbing and disgusting, but if something doesn't hurt people, it cannot be wrong.
Where, exactly, is child porn legal? Or, if it were, where would it be legal to CREATE said pornography given that creation of said material would involve molesting a child?
It is illegal in both our countries to rape children. Tragically, this crime still occurs, and will occur whether or not child pornography is legal. However, I believe if it is profitable to commit a certain crime, then the amount of times that crime is committed will increase. If a government succeeds in stopping the ways that people can make money off the crime, then the amount of that crime will drop - not disappear, but drop.
Right. However, usually by viewing a page on a site, you create revenue for the site owner because they gain money from advertising (or spyware, in the case of a lot of porn sites). If a certain kind of image or content is popular, it creates money for the webmaster, therefore he/she would want more of that content.
In this case, to produce more content, children would have to be abused. Do you see my logic?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, well, http://xkcd.com/202/.
Although every man Switzerland must own a gun, and be ready to assemble in case of invasion, it is actually illegal to use, handle, or even open the box in which it is stored without prior permission from the army.
I believe these things invalidate your comparison of Eyebrows & TinTin to Pepsi & Coke. On the scale of carbonated drinks, Mr Rudd rates at least a Fanta, or possible a Red Creaming Soda (with ice cream in it), in his difference to Mr Howard (Coca Cola).
Yours sincerely,
Summer Glau.
[1]"Rudd says sorry", Dylan Welch, Sydney Morning Herald February 13, 2008 http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-says-sorry/2008/02/13/1202760342960.html
[2]"Australian federal election, 2007." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 9 Apr 2008, 01:16 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 14 Apr 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_federal_election%2C_2007&oldid=204352606.
[3]"It's a beatup about a non-story." Slashdot Nerd, Slashdot, April 14th, 2008. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=521210&cid=23060106
Actually, although we're led to believe we're in the middle of a global crime wave, this isn't actually true. I dislike the view that humanity is on a downturn, because it propagates the view that we are falling angels rather than rising apes. Not only is this a largely religious view, it's also rather depressing, so I'm going to argue against it.
Think about the ease with which capital punishment was thrown around in Europe up until a few centuries ago, for example. 500 years ago, if you insulted the king, you'd be torn into pieces while still alive. Now, a guy in Texas can murder and rape half a dozen people, and we still protest his death by lethal injection. Why? Because our society abhors violence. You might point to the actions of the CIA, with torture and worse being condoned by the most powerful government on Earth, but it is not a fraction of what had been done to perceived 'traitors' in the past. You might point to Iraq and Darfur, and all the other atrocities that have been committed in the last two centuries alone, but you know what? If the murder rate of 'peaceful' hunter gatherer societies (which you seem so quick to idolize) had continued into the 20th century, the death toll via war would be around 2 billion, rather than a hundred million.
The thing is, we have more information now that ever before. The horrors around the world are blaring from our television screens everyday. But if you had a news feed of the past, it would be a hundred times worse. We lack the information, so we like to paint the past as a picturesque and happy time, but it wasn't. It really wasn't. The 'good old days' are a lie. You think there wasn't murder, rape and genocide? You think that these things didn't happen even more when we lived in caves and had to fight and wage war to gain the resources to survive? When death was an everyday occurrence (remember: no medicine, no concept of sanitation or viruses, wild animals on the prowl, starvation a constant threat), do you think murder would be the taboo it is today? With rival tribes living side by side, do you really think that "kill of be killed" situations didn't crop up all the time?
Peace is profitable. We are finally learning that. Cooperation is in everyone's best interest, and since (like all) humanity is a self serving species, it will prevail in the end. And no, our DNA hasn't changed much over the last 20 thousand years, but our society has. We are morally superior (at least, according to our own moral code, ha), because our morals lead to a stable society, and a stable society propagates. Ideas are subject to evolution to; good ideas dominate in the end.
Please die.
it's not aboot paying less Please tell me that typo was intentional. :D
I don't have a problem with people creating pornography that depicts ficitonal children: that is, written or drawn. No people were harmed in the making of it, and I have yet to see valid proof that the viewing of such material makes you a child molester. I may find it disturbing and disgusting, but if something doesn't hurt people, it cannot be wrong.
Where, exactly, is child porn legal? Or, if it were, where would it be legal to CREATE said pornography given that creation of said material would involve molesting a child?
It is illegal in both our countries to rape children. Tragically, this crime still occurs, and will occur whether or not child pornography is legal. However, I believe if it is profitable to commit a certain crime, then the amount of times that crime is committed will increase. If a government succeeds in stopping the ways that people can make money off the crime, then the amount of that crime will drop - not disappear, but drop.
In this case, to produce more content, children would have to be abused. Do you see my logic?
It's not a laughing matter! You CAN BREAK THE INTERNET.
In many cases, by viewing such images you create demand for them, thereby encouraging the creation of more images of the same nature.