Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
pornhub moves its servers to BrazilThat seems to be the crux of your argument, but why would they do that when plenty of people in the US can still legally upload? Is no one going to serve the US market?
Of course someone is going to serve the US market, pornhub; hosting American content from Brazil. The only way to stop it is to destroy the internet and make privacy coins illegal.
That's far less liability for any distributor than being required to collect license information. Also there are tons of people who won't trust a distributor with their true name. What happens when that distributor leaks a database or simply sells your info for blackmailers?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Can you have a standard debate but select no judges?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Are you talking about a license to view as well as uploadNo, just to upload. But you could only legally watch explicit content that's licensed.
So say you implement this law, and pornhub moves its servers to Brazil and says "can't serve the US anymore, we can't get all this content licensed"
Do you think everyone in the US will go "oh well, no more pornhub for us. Guess we'll just wait for something else"
No, they'll take the 5 minutes to download Tor and look at pornhub from Brazil. Once people are used to accessing porn through proxies they'll never go back.
I think maybe there is a technical solution, but it's a solution to a wider problem than simply porn. The wider problem is authorship, whether it's a song, art, porn, an essay, a book, etc.. etc...
People produce something, but a bunch of people try to steal it, even if there is no money involve they try to steal credit and in the worse case you can't even prove you made it.
What complicates this is pseudonyms, "pen names"; which would be a very big issue in porn production as just about no one wants their real identity publicly traceable to the porn they produce or consume.
It may be possible to create a cryptographic system that allows for psuedonyms that can't be traced back to one particular real person, but can be confirmed to be generated from a real person.
Creating such a pseudonym without the real persons private key would be impossible.
You could then have whitelists, government maintained or government influenced of confirmed citizens. Even the government couldn't trace a pseudonym back to the real citizen (without the real citizen's consent) but they could tell for sure that it was created from a real citizen.
When a person uploads anything they register a checksum on a public blockchain, thus forever proving that they were the originator.
This wouldn't really solve the sex trafficking, but neither does your suggestion; and for the same reason: sex traffickers are either getting people outside the system or they are kidnapping people in the system. If they have kidnapped someone of course that person will give up their private key. You might be able to have a "help me" decoy key but there isn't much that can be done when someone has your physical body at gunpoint.
For the same reason if they have a real person they'll just use their license to upload.
If your idea was simply to block all porn produced outside the USA, good luck with that. That will definitely be bypassed when it only takes 5 minutes.
When the FBI gets someone, it's because that someone made a tactical errorHuman error is so common that it's practically inevitable.
It gets less inevitable the more people use carefully designed systems. See bitcoin tumblers vs Monero.
The FBI is very good at latching onto a single error in order to take down a large network of criminal activity.
If they were that good, why is there a sex slave issue to begin with?
I think you're misunderstanding my main point. Illicit content will still exist, but it will be easier to identify, and law-abiding citizens won't watch it unintentionally, hence reducing demand and protecting the privacy of human trafficking victims.
In that case I agree, but with two caveats:
1.) It's easier said than done, there are a lot of stupid and totally ineffective ways of trying to verify origin of content. What I suggested is pretty much the only way that wouldn't create another giant bloated inefficient government agency.
2.) There is no point making it illegal to watch unauthenticated content since people can and will just bypass that at will. Making it illegal will only trigger a polarization that will move the industry into the darkness (like prohibition). On the other hand making it just information that is available for ethical consumers has a chance of slowly taking over the market over twenty years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
once the government goes too farThat's the point. They're not going too far. If a license is easy to get, the vast majority of people won't go outside the law to view illicit content. Why risk getting caught?
Sorry, there has been a context shift and I'm not sure if I did it. Are you talking about a license to view as well as upload?
Even if the license is easy to get, will enforcing that license be easy? How easily do gangs and cartels bypass car licensing requirements? Gun permit requirements?
A sex slave operation are going to be the only ones who can easily bypass this by using stolen or bought private keys. For everyone else it will be another annoying hoop to jump through, it will be a much bigger issue for porn distribution companies. If the distributors find it too annoying to do, they'll pull out. There are plenty of examples for this too, silicon valley giants have threatened to pull out of entire countries.
Thus the final reason to bypass the law would not be simply annoyance but the fact it is the only way to get to the majority of content.
with the right crypto technology no one can stop or traceI don't think anyone has better tech resources than the FBI. Every time scammers think they're one step ahead of the US government, they're not.
That is a carefully maintained illusion to discourage attempts. I can't prove it to you until you learn enough math and computer science to understand private public encryption, but this isn't some Hollywood "Ohhh wow we spent millions of dollars so now we have +15 hacking".
The system is stacked in favor of the person trying to hide information, incredibly so.
When the FBI gets someone, it's because that someone made a tactical error; not because the FBI broke encryption. If you're familiar with a story a while back where the FBI was asking Apple to decrypt one of their phones, that is when I became sure this was a crafted narrative. After Apple refused the FBI claimed they had gotten into the phone without Apple's help. I am almost certain this was a lie.
Created:
Got something against prostitutes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
If users can find illicit content, so can the police.
Anyone can find, but with the right crypto technology no one can stop or trace.
And most law-abiding citizens would choose to watch legal content over illegal content
Isn't the VPN use lud referred to side stepping the law? The point is that once the government goes too far and people are pushed out into anonymous space it's easier just to upload from there than to do whatever (probably over the top and ridiculous hoops) the government may set for uploading porn.
Maybe all porn will become obsolete with AI deep fakes and this is a non-issue, but the government trying to control internet activity is not going to go away (unless politics changes a lot).
I could easily see a rapid devaluation of the dollar leading to the increasing use of cryptocurrencies for general economics. Government tries to tax the shit out of them since the monopoly money is being used less and less. People move to a fully private coin, they mine in through encrypted proxies and ever increasing number of people fully encrypt all communications using a distributed DNS system.
The only move left for the government is to make it illegal to have encrypted internet traffic, i.e. they read every letter.
It's sometimes hard to explain this to people who aren't familiar with private public encryption technology. You say "get a license to upload", but if that unless that license is required to use the internet in general it becomes useless. Anyone without a license can simply upload the porn anonymously by encrypting it. When it's encrypted you don't know if it's porn or not. Therefore the only way to know that no one without a license is uploading porn is to make encryption illegal.
Now maybe you could try to go after the distribution point (like pornhub) requiring that they only accept porn from license holders; but what happened in Utah? They got the hec out rather than deal with that, knowing damn well nobody is going to go through government bureaucracy for the sake of Utah.
Even if it was all of the USA at the same time, the same thing would happen because the world is bigger than the USA. Every step closer to making encryption illegal will be preempted by ever more effective use of crypto technology and peer-to-peer networks. At the end of the day the government will have to control every chip, i.e. it would be illegal to own a computer chip without a government back door and which is tied to your government identity.
This, like taking away the guns or free speech, is essentially a declaration of war against human liberty and the precursor to an eternal surveillance state so you'll have far more than just porn addicts fighting against it.
So I would suggest that if one is concerned about sex slaves one should work on ways to free said sex slaves. It's not like porn is the #1 reason they're enslaved anyway.
totally anonymous internetTell that to Jared Fogle.
Not sure of the details, but just because planes crashed before the wright brothers doesn't mean planes can't fly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Well practically speaking it would likely fail as it would be another drop in the bucket pushing towards totally anonymous internet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
it's usually considered reasonable for the government to require some sort of inspection to make sure actions fall within the purview of the law (voter ID, to give another example)
I'd say that's a bad analogy. Voting isn't a true right, it's a citizen privilege granted by a particular form of government just like a public road system is a privilege. Now communications infrastructure is a privilege too, but the key difference is that the government is a third party to that interaction (despite what some might claim about the internet being built by the government everything the government may have helped build could be replaced privately in a year).
It's more like going to a store to buy an apple. It might be the government's legitimate role to task investigators and other agents to make sure that apple isn't poisoned, to publish standards for apple names and qualities, to generally fight against fraud; but if they ever say "You got a license for that apple?" they've crossed the line.
Requiring a permit to exercise a particular constitutional right isn't unwarranted if anyone wanting to exercise that right can get a permit.
Spoken like a man who has never tried to build a garage on his own land in an overbearing county (most of them).
Permits to exercise true rights are categorically unethical. It's in the name "permit", you apply to be permitted. Without it you are not permitted. If you have to ask permission it's not a right. As practiced, permits are always the choke point where bureaucracy and oppression pile, there are innumerable examples, so it's not like my objection is technically correct but practically inconsequential.
of extremely questionable constitutionalityMost courts have historically ruled them as constitutional, so that shouldn't be an issue for my proposal. Courts give a lot of discretion if a right isn't outright banned, so they will probably favor me here.
I wasn't saying it was inconsistent with precedent, I'm saying precedent is illogical. You do not have a right to keep and bear arms if you have to ask permission, have to wait 14 months, get denied because of your free speech, take it to the supreme court who sides with you, and then they confiscate the gun a month later.
That is an excellent example of rights being trampled upon and therefore a good reason to reject application of the same 'principles' to speech and expression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Similar to laws regarding child porn.
Not really. Uploading child porn is always illegal even with an ID, but it isn't illegal to upload non-child porn until it's proved to be non-child porn.
it's like gay pride parades—they're protected by the first amendment
Thought you said obscenity wasn't protected... JK
Also comparable to gun permits.
So... of extremely questionable constitutionality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
The results showed men who ejaculated at least 21 times a month reduced their risk for prostate cancer by 20 percent compared to men who ejaculated four to seven times a monthThat's interesting. But I've read another study that claimed prostate massage has better results.
There are rumors and wives tales that you can ejaculate and massage your prostate without constant access to online porn. Not sure I'd give credit to such quackery though.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
It autoplayed this next https://youtu.be/myQ2wVQxHNE?t=161 (not making this up) lol
Anyway I just thought it was so typical. Trump plays it off as nothing, Clinton of course lies about it.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Deeply tied.Is this the Erotica Forum.Naughty Naughty subliminal sexual messaging TWS.You're as bad as all the rest.
Oh zedvictor, not all know of the hidden anatomies.
Created:
Posted in:
I have a different angle, you mentioned VPNs. That's what I would point out, internet use can't be controlled. Not unless the internet is re-engineered from the ground up and that won't happen because there is not consensus on that.
It's not a question of what you do or do not what on the internet, it's only a question of how quickly decentralized hosting and economics takes over the world. Today it's VPNs which can themselves be attacked by a government.
The harder the government pushes the faster they'll accelerate to the choice between cutting of the internet in general or having their laws violated without consequence.
From a purely strategic point of view it's better to pretend you're liberal but disapproving than to demonstrate you are powerless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
granted, but someone in this operation has got to have more brains than that. Also we already know what left-tribe will say when payments from bizarre sources are identified: "He was just defrauding them, Joe never actually sold US foreign policy"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The point that everyone is missing here is that through this legal proceeding, that Hunter asked for, will result in a forensic accountant digging into ALL of Hunter’s financials. When they do, per the judge’s order/request, it will expose the Biden’s in their corrupt dealings with Ukraine, China and where all the millions received were dolled out between Hunter, Hunter’s sister in law (whom he screwed after his brother’s death), Joe’s brother, and the “Big Guy” himself.
Um... the world economy isn't on a blockchain yet. I have seen this... confusion... from my quarters; just because there is an investigation or discovery does not mean the full truth will be uncovered.
Sometimes (imagine this) people don't keep detailed ledgers of their criminal activity and then hand them over on request.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
You might be thinking that scientists only draw conclusions from lab experiments. That's wrong. We can infer certain things based only on simple observations, like when Newton witnessed an apple falling to the ground, he elaborated his gravitational theory from that simple fact.
This is correct, and something many would-be-debaters and science acolytes (whom are not scientists in any way) do not understand.
You only need experimental/statistical data if you use that as a premise in an argument. If your premises are axiomatic or universally observable there is no need. Asking for data when no data was used in the argument is a sign of shallow understanding of rational epistemology and thus science.
To give an example of a field with zero experimental data but many sound arguments: Mathematics
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Dude..............it's a tiny piece of skin.
So is your eyelid. All I'm saying is that you can't say you know what was lost.
If this is a big deal, you should hear about ear piercings.
A tiny hole in the ear that nobody does to children? Not the same boat.
Created:
-->
@93ham
IwantRooseveltagain thinks a democrat elected by people in a city to run that city don't qualify as "democrat run" if the office exists under the authority of the state government.
It's very convenient, of course it fails to exonerate all the dangerous blue cities in blue states... but let's ignore that along with any relevant context.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Not sure what "close to a child's age" means, did you have significant sexual experience before and after? If not how can you know? I assume it isn't a great loss while urinating.It doesn't affect me in any way. Also, I don't consider sexual experience to be fundamental to living a healthy and fulfilling life.
You're um, kinda side stepping the issue then.
Whether or not YOU think sexual experience to be important doesn't tell us how other males might feel when they grow up. The question is whether something that may be of value to anyone is lost.
I mean you might have someone who claims to never want children, thus they don't resent being sterilized. That doesn't mean sterilizing children isn't a cruel mutilation and probably sabotage of their life.
Created:
in unadjusted dollars.You want unadjusted dollars? Why is that?
because left-tribe propaganda constantly uses tricks like that to convey inaccurate impressions while being technically correct in some sense.
Whatever the standard is, it must be uniformly applied.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Not sure what "close to a child's age" means, did you have significant sexual experience before and after? If not how can you know? I assume it isn't a great loss while urinating.
Created:
It was NOT the largest tax cut or reform in history. This was a blatant lie.
Provide numbers, in unadjusted dollars.
Created:
Washington Post: We got em. +3 liesBullshit. They documented every lie and inaccurate statement Trump made while in office. Look it up.
Spot checks:
Trump: We also got tax cuts, the largest tax cut and reform in the history of our country, by far.
Deep State Propaganda: "Even before Trump’s tax cut was crafted, he promised it would be the biggest in U.S. history – bigger than Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut. Reagan’s tax cut amounted to 2.9 percent of the gross domestic product and none of the proposals under consideration came close to that level. Yet Trump persisted in this fiction even when the tax cut was eventually crafted to be the equivalent of 0.9 percent of GDP, making it the eighth largest tax cut in 100 years."
GDP is a proportional measure, not an absolute measure. Playing dirty games with normalization is a favorite tactic of the left-tribe propaganda machine.
Deep State Propaganda: 0
Trump: 296 (he repeated 296 times apparently)
Trump: We just got seventy five million votes. And that's a record in the history of in the history of sitting presidents.
Deep State Propaganda: When the counting was finished, Trump had received 74 million votes, not 75 million as he often claims
1.3% round up, I snort in derision at the propaganda.
Deep State Propaganda: but Biden earned more than 81 million.
That is in doubt, and regardless he wasn't a sitting president.
Deep State Propaganda was wrong in three different ways.
Deep State Propaganda: 0
Trump: 315(+19)
Trump: One of the things we're very, very proud of is the selection of almost three hundred federal judges and three great Supreme Court justices.That's a very big number. That's a record-setting number.
Deep State Propaganda: Contrary to his boasts, Trump did not achieve a record for appointing the most appeals court and district court judges. Bill Clinton has the record, with 367 judicial appointments in his two terms, followed by Ronald Reagan with 358 and then George W. Bush with 322. Through his four years, 226 judges nominated by Trump were confirmed by the Senate. (That is still behind Jimmy Carter, who had 261 judges confirmed in his single term.) George Washington appointed 39 judges during his presidency. Trump appointed 54 judges to the federal appeals court, behind Carter's 59 appeals-court appointments. Trump ranks second, after Carter, in terms of the number of district judges. (He just edged out Clinton and George W. Bush.) Trump often said he would appoint nearly 300 judges but he ended up well short of that number.
The deep state propaganda assumes what record is being referenced. Record over what period? Including reappointments? Including special territories?
The deep state propaganda switches the context from "selection" to "appointment"
Even if it was technically false it clearly falls into the category of exaggeration.
Deep State Propaganda: 0
Trump: 399(+84)
=====================
Conclusion: BS, utter total smelly BS. I was fully expecting to see a lot of "fact checking" clear hyperbole but the first three weren't even that close to the mark. Pure malinformation that you swallowed.
Let me apply this level of "strictness" to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7X-LplRcMM
Paranthetically is not a word. +1 lie
19, 5, 6, 7, 8 is not a time. + 5 lies
How about https://youtu.be/c6Vu2236uqM?t=65
There are not 54 states. + 1 lie.
Biden did not arrive at the senate a 180 years ago. +1 lie.
Of course the total would never reach 30,000; because he hides in a basement.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
It doesn't really affect people who are circumcised.
That is an assumption. Something I recently said on another forum:
The only men who could quantify what was lost are those who are circumcised later in life, but statistically such people will almost certainly have a bias towards circumcision if they choose to have it done to them.
The testimony of someone who lost their foreskin involuntarily or through some medical necessity would be the only kind I would give full credence to.
And as for the "benefits", go to the Wikipedia for water (H2O) and look at the "dangers and toxcitiy".
It's very easy to overestimate risks when no statistics are involved. Why don't we remove appendixes immediately when they are known to have deadly infections at appreciable rates? We could just as easily remove a foreskin after multiple penile infections, treat the problem that exists not the one that might exist.
Created:
Trump told over 30,000 lies while in office and you idiots love him.
Trump: This is the best ice cream ever folks, that's what people say, this amount of flavor is totally unprecedented in the history of this country.
Washington Post: We got em. +3 lies
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Savant
[Savant] but it's clear that intuition is inconsistent and not always reliable.
Yes, that's been clear to anyone whose thought about it for more than five minutes at a time since the bronze age. Still though, there are hordes of people who think philosophy is a punch line and "morality" is code-speak for "religion". *sigh*
[Greyparrot] For every Authoritarian policy that became accepted over time, I am sure there are many more that were not accepted. Take the recent example of authoritarian Covid policies that we now know were completely wrong and unacceptable. We just tend to censor over time the crappy things the government did to people.
That's true. We could add prohibition, Japanese internment facilities, post-war censorship in Japan, constantly making territorial treaties with native American tribes and then reneging... and that's just the USA.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Now, why do I think this? Well, if you'd asked people ten years ago if people should be forced to wear masks or social distance in the event of a global pandemic with a relatively low death rate, I think that almost everyone would say no. Similarly, if you'd asked most people 400 years ago if the US government should implement the amount of taxation we have today, most of them would oppose it. When asked about a hypothetical government policy, almost everyone seems to think that the ends don't justify the means.
Some may think you're making an argument for sacrificing more freedom. In my opinion you're making an excellent argument for the inverse. It's gone too far, people are weak when they're afraid; and it's a lot easier to slip into tyranny than to get out because as you said the status quo is calcified by various powerful factors.
Similarly, a draft order today would be very controversial, but no one seems to oppose the Civil War conscription order or any draft order that was historically successful in helping achieve some desirable outcome.
A draft in lieu of a clear and generally agreed upon threat is bound to be viewed differently. It's also impossible to wind back the clock and know precisely all the effects having a moral (liberal) policy might have. If I were to guess though, the good guys would still win.
Some disadvantage in moments of crises due to mass confusion but an enormous advantage in productivity, creativity, and morale.
I find it interesting that people judge policies retroactively by a different standard than they judge policy proposals.
Well there is a fundamental difference in that people tend to assume they know the outcome of an alternative decision in history when they often do not. Uncertainty can have a major impact on moral calculus.
The trolley problem is profoundly different if one track certainly has a person and the other track has a 50% chance of having 5 people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
What do you think of this statistical finding?That it's identifying a culture, not a race.What do you think produces culture?The extraordinarily chaotic system whose general study is known as "history"You're reversing cause and effect. History isn't creating culture. Culture creates history.Causality can flow both ways and form a feedback loop. It's a profoundly common and important class of phenomenon. You may have heard of differential equations?Yes but culture create history first, and then there is a feedback loop. We can't have history first -- that defies definition.
I don't see the point in arguing chicken vs egg. Suffice to say that it hardly matters where it started because the system has had plenty of time to occupy any possible state ten times over.
Would you not agree that humans create culture?I would agree to that.Would you agree that human genes create this culture?
Human genes created the biology which granted the capacity to think which allowed for the development of culture.
All those degrees of separation mean full decoupling except on the most foundational of terms. e.g. every human culture will involve concepts of food, friends, family, sexual reproduction, etc...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I feel a presence I have not felt since.... Sowell :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
What do you think of this statistical finding?That it's identifying a culture, not a race.What do you think produces culture?The extraordinarily chaotic system whose general study is known as "history"You're reversing cause and effect. History isn't creating culture. Culture creates history.
Causality can flow both ways and form a feedback loop. It's a profoundly common and important class of phenomenon. You may have heard of differential equations?
Would you not agree that humans create culture?
I would agree to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
The extraordinarily chaotic system whose general study is known as "history"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
You don't have to repeat them, just refer to what you already said. More minds means more perspectives and more chances at finding a strong or sound argument. That's of course assuming honesty and requite reasoning skills; but you can have a formal debate with a dishonest fallacy-factory so that factor cancels out.Quality > quantity, imo. Better to have an in-depth discussion with one opponent than repeat the same arguments multiple times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
If you're going to argue with every person who posts here, you'd be better off just instigating a formal debate.
Why, you can't have multiple opponents simultaneously then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
What do you think of this statistical finding?
That it's identifying a culture, not a race.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
lol, I wonder how many politicians ran to keep the other guy out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I think being in a position of authority makes me evil
Um, didn't you run for president here?
Created:
Funny how he wasn't fomenting insurrection, suddenly it's democratic to storm the legislature during a session.
Created:
I don't know why I respond to you...
Created:
Being a liar is not subjective
Aside from probably a thousand cases of precedent saying otherwise, the truth is an absolute defense to libel and slander.
How can you prove she's not a liar?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So if he says that he didnt rape her, he is sued for defamation?saying "i didn't do it" isn't defamation. saying "she is a dirty liar" is defamation.
That is comically wrong.
Insulting someone is always opinion and never a claim of fact that can be defamation. Also when someone is accusing you of rape you can't really deny it without implying they're a dirty liar.
Created:
Posted in:
Are crimes prosecuted by the city attorney or the attorney general?
/CNN and wbaltv would not be able to lie about something as basic as a prosecutor office being a matter of local election
/CNN and wbaltv claiming that the office of state's attorney for Baltimore is a locally elected position
//the office of state's attorney for Baltimore is a locally elected position
City
[Savant] All of those cities are run by Democrats.
Fact Check: TRUE
IwantRooseveltagain, your unwillingness to concede the fact only serves to demonstrate that the only further engagement with you should be to remind you that you are dishonest.
Fraudulent Flailing Ignored
Created:
Posted in:
Are crimes prosecuted by the city attorney or the attorney general?
/CNN and wbaltv would not be able to lie about something as basic as a prosecutor office being a matter of local election
/CNN and wbaltv claiming that the office of state's attorney for Baltimore is a locally elected position
//the office of state's attorney for Baltimore is a locally elected position
City
[Savant] All of those cities are run by Democrats.
Fact Check: TRUE
IwantRooseveltagain, your unwillingness to concede the fact only serves to demonstrate that the only further engagement with you should be to remind you that you are dishonest.
Fraudulent Flailing Ignored
Created:
Posted in:
Are crimes prosecuted by the city attorney or the attorney general?
City
Fraudulent Flailing Ignored
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
No liberty is denied if no future generation exists.Future generations exist unless you destroy them in the present. Simple really.
Simply false, by definition.
Potential has no rights?
Correct.
So rights are only given to those you choose?
Rights arise from the nature of a cognizant mind. No brain means no mind. No existence means no brain.
Therefore nothing that does not exist has rights.
Werent you also the potential?
No. The moment I existed is the moment the potential was realized.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The difference is the fact of existence.Existence, you mean in the present? So I can destroy your future liberty, but not your present liberty? The results of both are same.
You can't destroy the future, the future is a concept and can't be destroyed. All you can do is act to alter a predictable outcome.
You can plan to destroy my liberty, but that would be destroying my liberty in the present at the moment of execution.
Existence, you mean in the present? So I can destroy your future liberty, but not your present liberty? The results of both are same. If you value liberty, why only value it in the present but not in the future? Why deny the future generations of their liberty? If you only value liberty of present generations, then the liberty is a privilege, not a right.
The results and the path are both morally relevant.
There implication of denying future generations liberty. No liberty is denied if no future generation exists. The potential for life and the potential for liberty exist, but potentials do not have rights, even if we may choose to value them.
Created:
Posted in:
It is a good idea, but an easy fix would be giving us access to the underlying quote code. On other sites, you can fully save a post with the [QUOTE] tags, here you cannot so you can't work on it outside of the site.
This could also be accomplished without maintaining a database, just using cookies and JS.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I thought "black people" was a conceptually useless abstract collective.
- Let's agree it is a conceptually useless abstract.
Done, color blindness has always been the only rational policy in my lifetime.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I define killing as the act of ending the life of an organism or functional system. If you define it as not acting to create an organism or functional system we are not talking about the same thing.And what is the difference between ending and not creating, when their results are the same?
What is the difference between life and death when in the end death is the outcome?
The difference is the fact of existence.
which is the greater crime: To rape an unwilling woman on a deserted island or to kill all the children you could have?Killing all the children you could have is a greater crime. We could use an example that the man and woman are last humans on Earth. If they are unwilling to reproduce, humanity ends there. If they reproduce by force, some liberty is violated but humanity continues to exist and their children get the liberty and life.
No need to bring the fate of humanity into it. Your theory holds that any failure to reproduce is equivalent to murder, thus any rape is justified so long as it could conceivably result in children.
Created: