It's also not possible to prevent murders from occurring, so murder should be legal, right?
I see your point, but fortunately watching porn isn't like murdering someone. I do not believe there is truly a problem, so I think nothing at all should be done.
Meanwhile the people with actual life experience get on with consulting experts where necessary and implementing a system they know is imperfect but which can go some way towards fixing the actual perceived problem.
And in turn, they help the government censor information and ban content. How noble of them!
I personally think "do nothing" is a far better solution as it doesn't strip people of their rights.
But a great deal of porn is about transgressive acts, and nasty attitudes. Rape fantasies are common. The notion that "no means yes" is common. The notion that all women turn into sluts when you scratch the surface. Getting pleasure from spitting, slapping and insulting someone (or I guess from being subjected to that). And of course, body parts of abnormal size.
And how do you know this?
In any case, even if that were true, I believe banning it (even just in certain places) would be morally wrong.
But children find it more difficult.
Interestingly enough, I don't see children running around raping and murdering random people very often, so I highly doubt it's a widespread problem even assuming it actually happens.
But neither am I dumb enough to say that porn is harmless.
Porn is most likely harmless to a grand majority of people. There.
Thirdly, Constitutional protections apply at all times, except for a narrow set of circumstances which are legally well-defined.
I'd like to think so, but the justification for the TSA seems to be that you don't have to get on an airplane (which I think is ridiculous). Someone I argued with before used similar arguments and provided this link. Whether it's true or not, such logic would give the government a tremendous amount of power.
There is exactly one reason to do so, and that's when the threat to one's security is so paramount that his very existence is at stake.
So in other words, when there's actually a threat. Nope. I'd rather have freedom. If you want security, find a way to have it without violating people's rights.
I believe there are few legitimate reasons for wanting to violate people's privacy or freedoms in the name of security, and the fact that there may be real threats does not matter to me. If the TSA was actually anything other than security theater, I'd still be against it completely.
Living in a particular city is a privileged activity. The constitution doesn't apply! Don't like it? Move.
Any time you partake in a privileged activity such as flying or driving, you give your implied consent to whatever conditions are attached to that privilege.
Just because I want to get on a plane doesn't mean that I have given the TSA consent to harass me. If I wish to get on a plane, it is the government's problem if they send thugs to harass me and force me to consent to certain conditions (with them possibly resorting to violence if I resist) before they'll let me on the plane.
Yes, none of this 'logic' is exploitable at all. By moving to or living in city X, you have implicitly given away all of your rights! You have the option to move elsewhere, so it's all okay!
Constitutional protections do not apply when you are engaged in a privileged activity, and there is over a century of case law that says so.
The constitution just flies out the window because a few judges who couldn't care less about freedom supposedly think that people don't deserve rights when trying to get on a plane and think that it's perfectly okay for government thugs to harass people who wish to do so. Right.
That said, I don't think you had to make that comment, did you? Constitutional protections do not apply when you are engaged in a privileged activity, and your comment just happened to offend me. You'd better hope some random judge doesn't decide that the first amendment no longer applies.
People judge eachother on age, fashion, and looks pretty much wherever there are people. But don't let the facts get in the way of your self-righteousness.
I'm not really sure what he was talking about. From my perspective, most people are shallow and idiotic no matter where you are.
I understand why judicial systems and governments have similar concerns. I understand why many ordinary citizens are concerned.
Mainly because they're cowards who would rather punish the innocent and ban something entirely rather than accept that tools are sometimes abused? We have the TSA in the US for a similar reason: cowardice.
When another bomb goes off, you will all be asking why didn't the TSA do something about it.
I didn't do any such thing on 9/11, and I certainly wouldn't now. Just because many people seem to be cowards who are afraid of the terrorist bogeyman and don't mind sacrificing everyone's rights just so they can feel safe doesn't mean I'm the same way.
How on earth can we on one hand argue that Bush et al had ample warning and did nothing and then on the other bitch when they do something?
Even if someone was angry that Bush did nothing and then later became angry about what the government chose to do, that doesn't mean that the actions the government took was what they wanted. Cockpit doors have been secured and citizens are willing to fight back; that's all we need.
And this is security theater, but even if it weren't, it violates our rights and therefore I believe the TSA should be destroyed. How so many people can be afraid of a nearly nonexistent threat is beyond me, but I think it's sad to see how little most people seem to value the constitution (it's like the second amendment is all that exists for some people).
There is nothing specific as long as it only remained a suggestion. However, I didn't care for his comment as it seemed to imply that only victims who were directly harmed matter and that safety is important above almost all else.
I know. The people who believe random rumors and respond to them in a way that harms the individual the rumors speak of seem to always get away, just like those who trample others in crowded theaters.
It is so embarrassing seeing people talk about how evil the TSA is and how their freedoms shouldn't be violated just because there might be a few terrorists out there. I just cringe at the thought of someone whose life was affected by 9/11 reading some of those comments.
I much prefer freedom to safety, and I believe what the victims think is irrelevant to whether or not that's right.
The funny thing about slippery slopes is, since there is no evidence for their existence, they can run either way.
When rights I believe are fundamental are threatened, I'd rather not even take the risk at all. History has shown just what corrupt governments can do, and no government is immune to corruption (as we can see in the US and every other country already).
Clearly, this means that liberals have decided that fucking your cousin is A-OK, despite the fact that it increases the chance of genetic defects in the children of that union.
You don't have to have a baby, and even if you did decide to have one, it is by no means certain that something would be wrong with him/her. If you don't like it, just don't do it; don't try to restrict others' freedoms.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also not possible to prevent murders from occurring, so murder should be legal, right?
I see your point, but fortunately watching porn isn't like murdering someone. I do not believe there is truly a problem, so I think nothing at all should be done.
Meanwhile the people with actual life experience get on with consulting experts where necessary and implementing a system they know is imperfect but which can go some way towards fixing the actual perceived problem.
And in turn, they help the government censor information and ban content. How noble of them!
I personally think "do nothing" is a far better solution as it doesn't strip people of their rights.
But a great deal of porn is about transgressive acts, and nasty attitudes. Rape fantasies are common. The notion that "no means yes" is common. The notion that all women turn into sluts when you scratch the surface. Getting pleasure from spitting, slapping and insulting someone (or I guess from being subjected to that). And of course, body parts of abnormal size.
And how do you know this?
In any case, even if that were true, I believe banning it (even just in certain places) would be morally wrong.
But children find it more difficult.
Interestingly enough, I don't see children running around raping and murdering random people very often, so I highly doubt it's a widespread problem even assuming it actually happens.
But neither am I dumb enough to say that porn is harmless.
Porn is most likely harmless to a grand majority of people. There.
Thirdly, Constitutional protections apply at all times, except for a narrow set of circumstances which are legally well-defined.
I'd like to think so, but the justification for the TSA seems to be that you don't have to get on an airplane (which I think is ridiculous). Someone I argued with before used similar arguments and provided this link. Whether it's true or not, such logic would give the government a tremendous amount of power.
There is exactly one reason to do so, and that's when the threat to one's security is so paramount that his very existence is at stake.
So in other words, when there's actually a threat. Nope. I'd rather have freedom. If you want security, find a way to have it without violating people's rights.
* A legitimate reason for increased security.
I believe there are few legitimate reasons for wanting to violate people's privacy or freedoms in the name of security, and the fact that there may be real threats does not matter to me. If the TSA was actually anything other than security theater, I'd still be against it completely.
Living in a particular city is a privileged activity. The constitution doesn't apply! Don't like it? Move.
Any time you partake in a privileged activity such as flying or driving, you give your implied consent to whatever conditions are attached to that privilege.
Just because I want to get on a plane doesn't mean that I have given the TSA consent to harass me. If I wish to get on a plane, it is the government's problem if they send thugs to harass me and force me to consent to certain conditions (with them possibly resorting to violence if I resist) before they'll let me on the plane.
Yes, none of this 'logic' is exploitable at all. By moving to or living in city X, you have implicitly given away all of your rights! You have the option to move elsewhere, so it's all okay!
Constitutional protections do not apply when you are engaged in a privileged activity, and there is over a century of case law that says so.
The constitution just flies out the window because a few judges who couldn't care less about freedom supposedly think that people don't deserve rights when trying to get on a plane and think that it's perfectly okay for government thugs to harass people who wish to do so. Right.
That said, I don't think you had to make that comment, did you? Constitutional protections do not apply when you are engaged in a privileged activity, and your comment just happened to offend me. You'd better hope some random judge doesn't decide that the first amendment no longer applies.
Yeah! If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right?
I thought we grew past that notion already.
Where have you been?
People judge eachother on age, fashion, and looks pretty much wherever there are people. But don't let the facts get in the way of your self-righteousness.
I'm not really sure what he was talking about. From my perspective, most people are shallow and idiotic no matter where you are.
If you want to tap someone's phone you need a warrant.
Are you sure about that?
I understand why judicial systems and governments have similar concerns. I understand why many ordinary citizens are concerned.
Mainly because they're cowards who would rather punish the innocent and ban something entirely rather than accept that tools are sometimes abused? We have the TSA in the US for a similar reason: cowardice.
My position is that the TSA should be destroyed outright.
Another thing you guys keep complaining about is the TSA allowing short knives
No, I don't. When you speak like this, I'm not even sure who you're arguing with.
When another bomb goes off, you will all be asking why didn't the TSA do something about it.
I didn't do any such thing on 9/11, and I certainly wouldn't now. Just because many people seem to be cowards who are afraid of the terrorist bogeyman and don't mind sacrificing everyone's rights just so they can feel safe doesn't mean I'm the same way.
How on earth can we on one hand argue that Bush et al had ample warning and did nothing and then on the other bitch when they do something?
Even if someone was angry that Bush did nothing and then later became angry about what the government chose to do, that doesn't mean that the actions the government took was what they wanted. Cockpit doors have been secured and citizens are willing to fight back; that's all we need.
And this is security theater, but even if it weren't, it violates our rights and therefore I believe the TSA should be destroyed. How so many people can be afraid of a nearly nonexistent threat is beyond me, but I think it's sad to see how little most people seem to value the constitution (it's like the second amendment is all that exists for some people).
There is nothing specific as long as it only remained a suggestion. However, I didn't care for his comment as it seemed to imply that only victims who were directly harmed matter and that safety is important above almost all else.
I know. The people who believe random rumors and respond to them in a way that harms the individual the rumors speak of seem to always get away, just like those who trample others in crowded theaters.
So do I, but I'm serious.
And people like you will happily sue the ass off the police if there was a threat
Is that something he'd actually do, or is that something you assume he'd do for the sake of insult?
Option 4: Police/govt under-react, another attack happens: Everyone "responsible" as good as burnt alive at stake
That's pretty much why we can't get rid of the TSA.
Do you have some sort of point?
It is so embarrassing seeing people talk about how evil the TSA is and how their freedoms shouldn't be violated just because there might be a few terrorists out there. I just cringe at the thought of someone whose life was affected by 9/11 reading some of those comments.
I much prefer freedom to safety, and I believe what the victims think is irrelevant to whether or not that's right.
The funny thing about slippery slopes is, since there is no evidence for their existence, they can run either way.
When rights I believe are fundamental are threatened, I'd rather not even take the risk at all. History has shown just what corrupt governments can do, and no government is immune to corruption (as we can see in the US and every other country already).
This all looks like a great excuse for the government to take away more of our rights in exchange for security theater.
That said, every person who is alone and carrying a backpack is clearly a terrorist.
Clearly, this means that liberals have decided that fucking your cousin is A-OK, despite the fact that it increases the chance of genetic defects in the children of that union.
You don't have to have a baby, and even if you did decide to have one, it is by no means certain that something would be wrong with him/her. If you don't like it, just don't do it; don't try to restrict others' freedoms.