Also, this might sound far-fetched but is less far-fetched than it sounds - the day we ever do have a "war with the robots" or an invasion by aliens - we are going to be truly totally fucked.
A pansy-ass disarmed society is a dead society, that is one constant through human history and probably an evolutionary fact of life throughout the universe.
Indeed, a "company" can't pay taxes any more than a "company" can play the violin or enjoy a cheeseburger. By "company" we mean an association of individuals (stakeholders), and only those individuals can or can not "pay" taxes in the end. When we say a "company pays taxes" we are just speaking metaphorically, we are saying that stakeholders paid taxes of the corporate tax form of taxation. This obfuscation obscures the debate, and makes the whole system more opaque - it is harder to tell who is contributing how much. Even if a "company" pays no taxes on paper, when an executive draws a salary from the company in order to do something like enjoy a cheeseburger, that salary is usually taxed. My understanding is there are loopholes for the very rich though, but these would not be accessible to most small business owners.
The rich don't really pay zero tax, if this were true, then it would not be the case that almost 40% of net tax receipts are paid by the rich.
The story is a lot more complicated than this, and it is in many ways distorted badly and unfairly in favor of the rich (and the increasingly squeezed middle class bears the brunt), but simply saying that 'the rich pay zero tax' just makes it sound like you're spewing nonsense, rather get informed on the true nature of the disparities.
PS to be clear, both Republicans and Democrats (I supported neither) have supported and perpetuated the same violations, so that was not a partisan jab, it was a jab at immoral murders, by any human being who has a sense of moral outrage against murder without due process (which should be qualities not really related to nationality or party affiliation).
This is the most contrived attempt I've ever seen to artificially try work an off-topic ad hominem attack on gun owners into an unrelated discussion.
Incidentally, it is the same administration (the one you support) using drones like this to murder children overseas, that are pushing for gun control.
Has the time come when we should realign our political system with modern perceptions? Or should we respect that we have such an archaic system for damned good historical reasons?
Neither. We should take lessons from the past but think with a clean approach about what a new, morally ethical mode of governance should be. The "modern" perception is completely broken - we're a long way away from what it "should be".
The reason this discussion is so confused is because everyone is arguing about which incorrect system is better than which other incorrect system.
The real source of our troubles is not caused by, and has nothing to do with, whether or not the elected president is fully democratic (as in 'will of the people') or less than fully so (representative federalist system)... the real source of our problems is that regardless of method, the administration and Congress effectively have the power to violate the natural rights of citizens (and does so all the time, rather than protect their natural rights), and secondly, that corporate interests have the politicians in their pockets (the budgetary and debt debates and processes are little more than a fight for table scraps between different warring corporate lobbied interests) and nobody does a thing about it.
A fully democratic system is not the be all and end all. Consider a hypothetical scenario where a majority of the people (or for that matter a representational system) voted in favor of slavery - would that make slavery OK? Absolutely not --- what you ideally should have is a democratic system with representatives, but there are ethical constraints on what it may do, and those take the form of defending rather than violating the natural rights of innocent people.
If the anti-porn side can demonstrate some actual documented harm, then I'll change my mind
Assume they could demonstrate harm against the woman. Why, then, pass laws that would put the victim in jail? Since when do we put the victim of a crime in jail? They are banning the production of porn, in many cases that involves the active voluntary participation of the woman.
The key problem: There's no scientific data to support any position on the subject, so it's come down to gut feelings with various rationalizations on both sides
Actually, the "data" is irrelevant; what matters is whether someone's natural rights are violated by a ban. And they are. There is no "scientific data" that can demonstrate that violating someone's rights is not violating their rights.
Uh, any group that wants to violate the rights of other women, is not a feminist group, BY DEFINITION. They can call themselves "feminist" until the cows come home, it would not make them feminists.
To play at Devil's Advocate here: some women may be in porn against their will, "forced" into it either through unlawful restraint
That's not playing "Devil's Advocate", that's just playing stupid, because forcing someone to do porn against their will should be and already is illegal.
Do you know how in a crime, you're normally supposed to throw the perpetrator in jail, and not the victim? How is it "protecting" the victim to put the victim in jail?
Actually, that's a common argument for putting prostitutes in jail, that it supposedly "protects" them. I'm not sure prostitutes appreciate the "protection" of a jail cell.
Throwing a woman in jail for producing or distributing porn, on the other hand, would constitute harm against her. Ergo, it should be illegal to throw a woman in jail for merely producing porn, and these lawmakers should be in jail.
Where's the actual evidence of harm to either porn consumers or producers?
Funny thing about laws, is that they're supposed to protect the people allegedly being harmed. Laws that ban women from starring in porn roles are saying, let's attack and throw in jail the women who are allegedly being harmed.
1. Allowing a woman to voluntarily make her own voluntary, consenting choices as an adult is a 'violation of her rights', but:
2. Initiating force against an adult woman to forcibly prevent her from being allowed to do what she actually voluntarily wants to do, is 'protecting her rights'.
If that's "progressive" thinking then I think I prefer "regressive" thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea is that if you can't repeal the 2nd Amendment, try work around it - by using methods like stigmatization and brainwashing.
Also, this might sound far-fetched but is less far-fetched than it sounds - the day we ever do have a "war with the robots" or an invasion by aliens - we are going to be truly totally fucked. A pansy-ass disarmed society is a dead society, that is one constant through human history and probably an evolutionary fact of life throughout the universe.
Indeed, a "company" can't pay taxes any more than a "company" can play the violin or enjoy a cheeseburger. By "company" we mean an association of individuals (stakeholders), and only those individuals can or can not "pay" taxes in the end. When we say a "company pays taxes" we are just speaking metaphorically, we are saying that stakeholders paid taxes of the corporate tax form of taxation. This obfuscation obscures the debate, and makes the whole system more opaque - it is harder to tell who is contributing how much. Even if a "company" pays no taxes on paper, when an executive draws a salary from the company in order to do something like enjoy a cheeseburger, that salary is usually taxed. My understanding is there are loopholes for the very rich though, but these would not be accessible to most small business owners.
By 'supporting the society you live in' you mean funneling trillions toward bombing kids in faraway countries?
The rich don't really pay zero tax, if this were true, then it would not be the case that almost 40% of net tax receipts are paid by the rich.
The story is a lot more complicated than this, and it is in many ways distorted badly and unfairly in favor of the rich (and the increasingly squeezed middle class bears the brunt), but simply saying that 'the rich pay zero tax' just makes it sound like you're spewing nonsense, rather get informed on the true nature of the disparities.
PS to be clear, both Republicans and Democrats (I supported neither) have supported and perpetuated the same violations, so that was not a partisan jab, it was a jab at immoral murders, by any human being who has a sense of moral outrage against murder without due process (which should be qualities not really related to nationality or party affiliation).
He isn't talking about the 2nd Amendment, he's talking about the use of drones to violate constitutionally described natural rights.
I'm not convinced anyone has a god-given right to weapons
No, but every non-violent peace-abiding person does have a right to self-defense, and thus to self-defense tools (but obviously, not to WMD's).
Proves that for the weapons fetishists
This is the most contrived attempt I've ever seen to artificially try work an off-topic ad hominem attack on gun owners into an unrelated discussion.
Incidentally, it is the same administration (the one you support) using drones like this to murder children overseas, that are pushing for gun control.
You evidently didn't notice that the commie pinkos are now in power, and GI Joe is now working for them .. let that be a warning, you capitalist pig!
That is simultaneously very funny, and very sad.
Has the time come when we should realign our political system with modern perceptions? Or should we respect that we have such an archaic system for damned good historical reasons?
Neither. We should take lessons from the past but think with a clean approach about what a new, morally ethical mode of governance should be. The "modern" perception is completely broken - we're a long way away from what it "should be".
The reason this discussion is so confused is because everyone is arguing about which incorrect system is better than which other incorrect system.
The real source of our troubles is not caused by, and has nothing to do with, whether or not the elected president is fully democratic (as in 'will of the people') or less than fully so (representative federalist system) ... the real source of our problems is that regardless of method, the administration and Congress effectively have the power to violate the natural rights of citizens (and does so all the time, rather than protect their natural rights), and secondly, that corporate interests have the politicians in their pockets (the budgetary and debt debates and processes are little more than a fight for table scraps between different warring corporate lobbied interests) and nobody does a thing about it.
A fully democratic system is not the be all and end all. Consider a hypothetical scenario where a majority of the people (or for that matter a representational system) voted in favor of slavery - would that make slavery OK? Absolutely not --- what you ideally should have is a democratic system with representatives, but there are ethical constraints on what it may do, and those take the form of defending rather than violating the natural rights of innocent people.
If the anti-porn side can demonstrate some actual documented harm, then I'll change my mind
Assume they could demonstrate harm against the woman. Why, then, pass laws that would put the victim in jail? Since when do we put the victim of a crime in jail? They are banning the production of porn, in many cases that involves the active voluntary participation of the woman.
The key problem: There's no scientific data to support any position on the subject, so it's come down to gut feelings with various rationalizations on both sides
Actually, the "data" is irrelevant; what matters is whether someone's natural rights are violated by a ban. And they are. There is no "scientific data" that can demonstrate that violating someone's rights is not violating their rights.
Are you aware you are a sociopath?
Uh, any group that wants to violate the rights of other women, is not a feminist group, BY DEFINITION. They can call themselves "feminist" until the cows come home, it would not make them feminists.
To play at Devil's Advocate here: some women may be in porn against their will, "forced" into it either through unlawful restraint
That's not playing "Devil's Advocate", that's just playing stupid, because forcing someone to do porn against their will should be and already is illegal.
Do you know how in a crime, you're normally supposed to throw the perpetrator in jail, and not the victim? How is it "protecting" the victim to put the victim in jail?
Actually, that's a common argument for putting prostitutes in jail, that it supposedly "protects" them. I'm not sure prostitutes appreciate the "protection" of a jail cell.
Throwing a woman in jail for producing or distributing porn, on the other hand, would constitute harm against her. Ergo, it should be illegal to throw a woman in jail for merely producing porn, and these lawmakers should be in jail.
In the United States the exact same problem and principle manifests in the criminalization of prostitution.
Where's the actual evidence of harm to either porn consumers or producers?
Funny thing about laws, is that they're supposed to protect the people allegedly being harmed. Laws that ban women from starring in porn roles are saying, let's attack and throw in jail the women who are allegedly being harmed.
It's a "progressive" view in Europe.
Ironically, "protecting" women by initiating force against them is much closer to women-beating than anything else.
How exactly is banning porn "protecting" the women that went to porn as a last resort?
You can't "protect" a woman by initiating force against her
There's a huge difference between having sex (or even just appearing naked in front of people) and cleaning a toilet, to a lot of people.
Yes, for one, having sex can be a lot of fun, but cleaning toilets is about as fun as eating dogshit.
2. Initiating force against an adult woman to forcibly prevent her from being allowed to do what she actually voluntarily wants to do, is 'protecting her rights'.
If that's "progressive" thinking then I think I prefer "regressive" thinking.