Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Actually, I was thinking of pro-lifers so often being for capital punishment and against social programs for those in need (such as pregnant women or young mothers). This is very much anti-life positions, imo.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
the lever puller did not create the circumstances, cannot change the outcome or save anyone
Great point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Please put "BINARY" into context.As I am not certain of the implication of the question.
A BINARY world is cleanly divisible into two categories.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
*independent* of his mental bankruptcy.
So, your "defense" is that your comment is a NON-SEQUITUR.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
For one, it requires one to at least dabble in stereotyping.
Hippies like weed.
Hippies hate war.
Can't arrest hippies for being anti-war.
Increase penalties for weed.
Half of your "problem" is solved.
IT'S NOT JUST "RACISM".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Can the influence of one's masturbation be observed in the interaction with others?
Male circumcision for curative purposes has had many advocates and adherents. John Kellogg, the founder of the Kellogg's cereals empire in the USA, viewed it as an effective cure for masturbation and the social ills that were said to accompany it. He advocated an unashamedly punitive approach:
“A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.” 26 [**]
Many sex therapists suggest masturbating regularly — whether you’re single or partnered.
In addition to the physical benefits derived from masturbation, a boost to self-esteem coupled with relaxation can be great for your sex life.
As for your libido, there’s some evidence that masturbating can help you maintain a healthy sex drive. For example, this 2009 study links frequent vibrator use to a high sex drive and positive sexual function, as well as general sexual wellness.
But the effects aren’t always positive
While there are proven benefits, some people do have negative experiences with masturbation.
You might dislike the feeling, or it might be against your belief system, or you might simply be uninterested in it. That’s fine! Whether you choose to masturbate or not is up to you.
If masturbation is difficult for you, and this difficulty is bothering you, consider reaching out to a doctor or therapist.
Some people experience negative feelings related to social or spiritual expectations
Masturbation is considered a sin in some religions. There are also many societal stigmas attached to masturbation: Some people believe women shouldn’t masturbate, or that masturbation is immoral.
That’s not to mention the anxiety-inducing myths around masturbation.
If you believe those things and go on to masturbate, you might experience feelings of guilt, anxiety, shame, or self-loathing afterward. [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
ISN'T YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT A SUGGESTION THAT ABOLISHING HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS WOULD BE GOOD FOR BUSINESS ?Abolishing regulations is always good for the consumer. In EVERY case. Unless you believe the consumer is too stupid to make good choices.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I'm white and I have used a lot of pinatas in my day. Do you only associate pinatas with brown people? Seems a bit stereotypical...
I'M NOT SUGGESTING 100% OF PINATA SALES ARE TO PEOPLE OF ONE SKIN-TONE.
I'M SUGGESTING THAT A TAX ON PINATA SALES DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS PEOPLE OF ONE SKIN-TONE.
MAKING IT FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM A SKIN-TONE TAX.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If you think there is a valid comparison between the government telling you what sex acts you are allowed to partake in vs the government telling you that you must take precautions to avoid spreading a deadly disease to other people then you have serious issues I can’t resolve.
Even the united states has laws prohibiting "what sex acts you are allowed to partake".
Out of the 53 countries in the Commonwealth - a loose association of countries most of them former British colonies - 36 have laws that criminalise homosexuality. Countries that criminalise homosexuality today also have criminal penalties against women who have sex with women, although the original British laws applied only to men. [**]
ALSO, ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, CIGARETTES AND ALCOHOL (AND REFINED SUGAR) SHOULD ALSO BE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY ARE A DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Organized government is attempt at civilized way of creating a commonly shared set of fair/just and compassionate laws, that hopefully based on intellect and love of life.
One would hope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
This argument makes no sense.
Please be slightly more specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Choice is the left’s focus when it comes to abortion
And that was their biggest mistake.
From a legal perspective, it's always been about MEDICAL PRIVACY.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
The year 2020 has proved beyond all doubts that the vast majority of people are programmable black boxes. The year 2020 also revealed who would and who wouldn't have complied in WW2 Nazi Germany. Did you take note? I sure as hell did. Now I know who never to trust and who would sell me out and throw me under the bus.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
That was only a single example. Black people do not receive disproportionate prison time. Only people who associate black skin with crack users view the world that way. Even if the penalty for powder vs crack cocaine was unfair, it would be disproportionate between users of those drugs regardless of skin color. You are perpetuating stereotypes.But the main point is that you seem to agree white people are victims of systemic racism that can actually be identified in the letter of the law.
Let's say we tax pinatas at 500%.
That's not (technically) "racist" because it's the same tax regardless of "skin-tone".
Created:
-->
@Bones
I can see your distinction between the individual and the system, but I think that's too surface level. If everyone in the system is racist, I agree that this is not systemic racism as defined by you, but it as good is.
I'd say functionally indistinguishable from "systemic racism".
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
(THEN) the law should treat violators EXACTLY THE SAMEGiven that the law is absolutely silent on racial differences, that means the law does not distinguish racial differences...
Why is 500 grams of power equal to 5 grams of baked powder ?
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
NOT receiving free money from the government is hardly comparable to receiving disproportionate prison time.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So to be clear, you are saying that white people are currently victims of systemic racism in the U.S., correct?
NOT receiving free money from the government is hardly comparable to receiving disproportionate prison time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS CRIPPLE EMPLOYERS ABILITY TO HIRE DESPERATE PEOPLE FOR CHEAPNo they don't People work under the table all the time and flip you the bird for imposing "regulations"people know what they want more than you do.
ISN'T YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT A SUGGESTION THAT ABOLISHING HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS WOULD BE GOOD FOR BUSINESS ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
IS MASURBATION A HUMAN ACTION ?Yes. So, how does this impact other people?
YOUR ACTIVITY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE IS SHAPED BY YOUR PREVIOUS INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER HUMANS AND ALSO SHAPES YOUR FUTURE INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER HUMANS (IN BOTH "POSITIVE" AND "NEGATIVE" AND BOTH "NEUTRAL" AND "UNKNOWN" WAYS)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nothing to do with "Safety" regulations Spanky.
HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS CRIPPLE EMPLOYERS ABILITY TO HIRE DESPERATE PEOPLE FOR CHEAP
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
C) The USA can't even fully staff a McDonald's due to Covid checks.
BECAUSE THE MARKET REFUSES TO COMPENSATE RELATIVE TO LABOR SUPPLY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
B) Employers fight with competing employers to offer benefit packages to retain a workforce.
BECAUSE THEY JUST FURLOUGHED NEARLY EVERYONE OUT OF PANIC
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A) We have to import desperate people to do risky jobs.
BECAUSE THE MARKET REFUSES TO COMPENSATE RELATIVE TO RISK
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
DOES HUMAN ACTION HAVE A CAUSE AND DOES THAT CAUSE ALSO HAVE A CAUSE ?Yes, but how does this tie to masturbation?
IS MASURBATION A HUMAN ACTION ?
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
They are fighting alleged invisible systemic racism with actual and explicit systemic racism.
Sure, but you can't reasonably pretend that implicit "systemic racism" "does not exist".
Just because one type "seems worse" to you, doesn't mean the other is not ALSO a serious problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's no room for triangles today in a competitive free market.
ONLY BECAUSE OF HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS
Did you know that it was considered routine for coal miners, railroad workers, and steel mill employees to drop dead from exhaustion on a daily basis?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
EVERY SINGLE THING YOU DO IMPACTS OTHER PEOPLE.Even masturbation?
DOES HUMAN ACTION HAVE A CAUSE AND DOES THAT CAUSE ALSO HAVE A CAUSE ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pursuing personal enrichment does not equal "public good".It absolutely does if you are dependent on selling something the public wants.
Are you familiar with the triangle-shirtwaist fire ?
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
But an example might be affirmative action type programs. Such are intended to benefit minorities in terms of college admittance or access to financial resources not afforded to white people.
Any law that uses "skin-tone" as a pre-qualifier is an example of "systemic racism".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Executives have no power outside of monopolies.
Pursuing personal enrichment does not equal "public good".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The government does want to control our lives; that's its purpose.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Again, show me any law, or official policy, not some study that alleges systemic racism. Allegations are rampant; the real deal is, so far, evasive, and it will continue to be so.
(IFF) powder cocaine is considered "dangerous" enough to warrant scores of specialized officers and untold millions of dollars worth of military grade equipment and the corresponding erosion of individual rights and freedoms associated with this particular enforcement mechanism (AND) "crack" cocaine is NOT demonstrably MORE "dangerous" than powder (THEN) the law should treat violators EXACTLY THE SAME
nOtice that I AM NOT DISPUTING the "DANGER" here.
nOtice that I AM NOT DISPUTING the ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM here.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Again, show me any law, or official policy, not some study that alleges systemic racism. Allegations are rampant; the real deal is, so far, evasive, and it will continue to be so.
FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM "SYSTEMIC RACISM" EVEN IFF THE THERE IS NO EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO SKIN-TONE IN THE LETTER OF THE LAW
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Should we assume that laws or policies that benefit one racial group over another are examples of systemic racism, or at least a functional equivalent to it?
Please provide a specific example.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
If you believe that recreational use of cocaine should be legal, then I have no interest in discussing various punishments for the recreational use of cocaine.
There is no need to "explain yourself".
(IFF) you don't want to talk about any particular subject for any particular reason (THEN) simply don't talk about it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
MAKE ALL BRIBES LEGAL !!!!Bribery is only feasible when the people vote to give the government power.Nobody rationally bribes a government official that has no power to regulate.
BRIBE CORPORATE EXECUTIVES !!!!
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The "powder-cocaine" versus "crack-cocaine" sentencing disparity is only one example of this.Show me the current statute allowing that disparity. Show me the departmental policy that allows it. You cannot because it doesn't exist. It is individual choice to creep.
A comprehensive examination of the 100-to-1 crack versus powder cocaine sentencing disparity under which distribution of just 5 grams of crack carries a minimum 5-year federal prison sentence, while distribution of 500 grams of powder cocaine carries the same 5-year mandatory minimum sentence. [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I believe our present predicament exists because we have gradually developed governmental institutions in which the people effectively have no voice.
100% THIS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
People who intend only to seek their own benefit are “led by an invisible hand to serve a public interest which was no part of” their intention.
AWESOME !!!!
MAKE ALL BRIBES LEGAL !!!!
MAKE EXTORTION AND EMBEZZLEMENT LEGAL !!!!
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Finally, you said in post #61 that if a law discriminates against a particular race, even if it is unintentional, it is still functionally indistinguishable from systemic racism. You used this to point to crack/powder cocaine laws as an example of systemic racism, or at least a functional equivalent to it. So I am still looking for clarity about whether laws or policies that benefit one racial group over another are examples of systemic racism, or at least a functional equivalent to it.
Great question.
For example, if a hypothetical government does something like, I don't know, something maybe perhaps like, cutting estate taxes for people with a net worth over one million, and, hypothetically now, let's say, that just happens to benefit "non-black" individuals disproportionately, could that tax cut be considered functionally indistinguishable from "systemic racism" ?
Is this what you're asking ?
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
That depends. Do you believe that cocaine should even be illegal? Because if you don't (as with heroin), there is no point in going down this road.
You seem to be leaping to the conclusion that I'm pursuing an agenda.
You seem to be leaping to the conclusion that I'm interested in "motivated reasoning".
You seem to be leaping to the conclusion that I'm engaged in "post-facto rationalization".
I'm only interested in CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS.
(IFF) ... (THEN) ...
I only mentioned my PERSONAL OPINION on a question that you specifically asked, specifically about my PERSONAL OPINION (and then failed to follow-up on).
THEREFORE,
(IFF) powder cocaine is considered "dangerous" enough to warrant scores of specialized officers and untold millions of dollars worth of military grade equipment and the corresponding erosion of individual rights and freedoms associated with this particular enforcement mechanism (AND) "crack" cocaine is NOT demonstrably MORE "dangerous" than powder (THEN) the law should treat violators EXACTLY THE SAME
nOtice that I AM NOT DISPUTING the "DANGER" here.
nOtice that I AM NOT DISPUTING the ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So, you and I believe slavery is a form of government control. Double_R does not.Based on post #74, I'm still unsure if you are trying to disagree with me. It seems like your disagreement should be with Double_R and his definition of government control not including slavery.
I've never "tried to disagree" with anyone ever in my entire life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This is where I go back to the simple test of Occam’s razor and I ask again… please explain what makes it more plausible that politicians are passing these laws (mask mandates, curfews, etc.) out of a desire for power? What do they get out of that? How does this idea make sense? And how does this make more sense than “because they believe we should listen to the health experts”?I would really love for just one person in this thread to explain this.
Occam's razor says,
GOVERNMENTS abhor any perceived threat to their absolute whimsical authority.
This is easily demonstrated by even a cursory review of history.
Occam's razor says,
GOVERNMENTS will use any CRISIS, whether "real" or "imagined" to erode INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PERSONAL FREEDOMS.
Perhaps you're aware that when the "income tax" was expanded from a 1% tax on the top 1% of citizens in the united states, it was promised to be TEMPORARY ?
It was a TEMPORARY tax increase in order to address a CRISIS.
The history of income tax in America is an unusual one. The first federal income tax was created in 1861 during the Civil War as a mechanism to finance the war effort. In addition, Congress passed the Internal Revenue Act in 1862 which created the Bureau of Internal Revenue, a predecessor to the modern day IRS. The Bureau of Internal Revenue placed excise taxes on everything from tobacco to jewelry. Following the end of the Civil War, the income tax did not have substantial support and was repealed in 1872. [**]
On October 3, 1917, six months after the United States declared war on Germany and began its participation in the First World War, the U.S. Congress passes the War Revenue Act, increasing income taxes to unprecedented levels in order to raise more money for the war effort.
The 16th Amendment, which gave Congress the power to levy an income tax, became part of the Constitution in 1913; in October of that year, a new income tax law introduced a graduated tax system, with rates starting at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income above $500,000 ($13,722,020.20 in today's dollars, accounting for inflation). Though less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time, the amendment marked an important shift, as before most citizens had carried on their economic affairs without government knowledge. In an attempt to assuage fears of excessive government intervention into private financial affairs, Congress added a clause in 1916 requiring that all information from tax returns be kept confidential. [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Regarding convenient rationalizations, that will always be a thing in politics as well. Like the way legislatures around the country are using the myth of rampant voter fraud as justification to roll back voting rights knowing that when less people vote they have a better chance of winning elections.
100% THIS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Here is the main point of this thread from the OP:This is a talking point I hear constantly from the right; the idea that “the left”, or “the government” just wants to control our lives...Is there anyone on this site who can explain the rationale here?
It's certainly not only "the left" that "wants to control our lives".
More specifically, the wealthy want the poor to shut-up and do what they're told.
They say, "if you just play-the-game, you'll get a lot more out of life" but with each passing day, it becomes more and more obvious that this is a lie.
He seems to be criticizing and rejecting the idea that the government has been trying to assert more control over our lives in recent days. Yet, he also said this:Was [slavery] a form of government control? I would say no...
Protecting the practice of slavery and acting on the behalf of slavers is very clearly "a form of government control" (specifically over the slaves themselves).
So according to his logic, if the government was allowing and enforcing slavery, he would not see that as a legitimate reason to argue that the government is trying to assert more control over our lives.
Protecting the practice of slavery and acting on the behalf of slavers is very clearly "a form of government control" (specifically over the slaves themselves).
Now I generally agree with your point that we should not be doing business with companies who utilize slave labor (we're looking at you China...). That being said, I'm not sure what your argument is in your post #74. Do believe that the government allowing and enforcing slavery within its own country can be considered government control?
Protecting the practice of slavery (even overseas) and acting on the behalf of slavers (importing their products and services) is very clearly "a form of government control" (specifically over the slaves themselves).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It is, but the moral justification is different.It isn’t the same in the slightest. I was talking about laws governing how we have sex - something that has absolutely nothing to do with anyone outside of the bedroom. Mask wearing, vaccination passports, or take your pick, whatever you think about them, absolutely impact other people.
EVERY SINGLE THING YOU DO IMPACTS OTHER PEOPLE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
FAUCI on 60 Minutes March 2020 - "People should not be walking around with masks"You do know what science is and how it works right?
Do you ?
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So to be clear, you are agreeing with me that crack being a part of the black identity is not just a logical conclusion, but it is simply reality? Or, it is true that crack is actually a part of blackness?
You're missing the point.j
Sure, "crack-cocaine" is more popular among "blacks" than among "whites".
NOBODY IS DISPUTING THIS BECAUSE IT IS A DEMONSTRABLE FACT.
"Crystal-meth" is more popular among "whites" than among "blacks", this does not imply that "crystal-meth" is "actually a part of whiteness" as you might say.
Some products and some activities and some foods are more popular among some regional and or culturally identifiable groups.
This does not mean that ALL members of that regional and or culturally identifiable groups prefer that particular product and or activity and or particular food.
And it also does NOT mean that any particular product and or activity and or food is INTRINSIC to any particular regional and or culturally identifiable group.
NOW,
can you identify a reasonable, logical, rational hypothesis that explains why "powder-cocaine" and "crack-cocaine" are treated differently under the law ?
Created: