Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alexandertnt]

Fuck raw utilitarianism.

Thats it?

1. Does the public consent?
2. Do they consent?
3. Do they consent?

What if a minority doesnt concent? What if the discomfort of the minority heavily outway the benefits to the majority?

[XXSockXX]

Completely "wiped out" by government control of expression, Allowing for 20% of course.
I still believe questioning it is better than repressing it.

I said "pretty much", not "completely". Also the 20% could very easily be construed to be mostly the immigrant part of the population (which is about that number), as the statistics don't say anything about ethnic or religious affiliations.
Of course questioning is better than repressing, but I tend to think that in the 50s repressing might have been necessary.

Then you begin equally suppressing everyone, and it really isn't looking like it's worth the cost.

I'm just for equal laws for everybody.

Holy cow, even blasphemy is illegal.
[/quote]
Blasphemy laws are pretty lax. The church has lost a lot of lawsuits against satirists and artists. I could wear inverted crosses as pendants and earings to school without anyone giving me shit about it. And that was almost 20 years ago. Also this shirt - no problem in school :

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

1. Agreement to listen.
2. Anyone capable of acting independently.

But still we have to regulate this by law. As in "no animals". And some age that is seen as appropriate (I think it's 14 here now), even if it isn't perfect for everybody, you have to draw some lines.

[Loud Whispers]

What if a minority doesnt concent?

Then don't whip out the proverbial soapbox and find a venue for your analogying.

[scriver]

I'm saying lust and hate are unavoidable, therefore we should find constructive outlets for these feelings, instead of trying to suppress them. Go ahead, masturbate! Go ahead, speak your mind!


Statement: "We should kill all homosexuals!"

Wrong response: "Silence him!"
Right response: "Why?"
Optional response: "..."

Yeah. Try that at your local fag-bashing or racist centre if you wish. You will not be met with silence and lack of arguments.

[MonkeyHead]

Nah, in all probablity you will get accused of being one of them, and having either bible verses or ignortant arguments shouted at you before the violence starts.

[Loud Whispers]

Nah, in all probablity you will get accused of being one of them, and having either bible verses or ignortant arguments shouted at you before the violence starts.

I find it's become less about Deuteronomy and more about shouting 'DEGENERACYYY' these days.

Yeah. Try that at your local fag-bashing or racist centre if you wish. You will not be met with silence and lack of arguments.

All three were optional responses, not a sequence of statements. I don't seem to have seen a single fag-bashing or racist centre in my life, only hateful individuals - and it's great when they provide arguments, because it provides a basis for their belief which can be questioned.

[Frumple]

... lucky you? If you're saying you've never actually been in an area that had congregations of violently bigoted people, anyway. I've been living in and around them all my life, and I've seen the results of what happens when you do pretty much anything but join in or stay silent -- and sometimes not even the latter'll save you. Still places in the states where asking "why" would literally get you killed and definitely get you shitkicked, and plenty of places elsewhere.

E:

How about masturbation in public? Masturbation at someone? How about masturbating, taking a photo of you doing it from the waist down, and then passing it around to people telling them it was your mutual acquaintance?

That last one sorta got away from me just a little bit, but to be honest as well fitting as this sex analogy is, it sadly just doesn't fit everything.

1. Does the public consent?
2. Do they consent?
3. Do they consent?

Wouldn't that heuristic render public speaking or broadcast a complete impossibility? There's pretty much always going to be people that don't consent, to pretty much anything, caught in the proverbial crossfire. Not that I'd exactly complain about the removal of background radio or waiting room TVs and suchlike, but yeah.

[Loud Whispers]

... lucky you? If you're saying you've never actually been in an area that had congregations of violently bigoted people, anyway. I've been living in and around them all my life, and I've seen the results of what happens when you do pretty much anything but join in or stay silent -- and sometimes not even the latter'll save you. Still places in the states where asking "why" would literally get you killed and definitely get you shitkicked, and plenty of places elsewhere.

Lucky me indeed, for a few things at least. When you are getting people lynched and such, that is physical assault and should be dealt with the law. When asking 'why' leads to statements of 'I'm going to kill you,' that is also the time for the police to get involved, as clear intent of an upcoming crime has been given.
Secondly, you really don't need to live near the local bigot's meeting spot where they dastardly plot the next way to insult everyone to live near local bigots. It is just a matter of distinction that you don't need to form everything into groups and cabals for it to be harmful.

Wouldn't that heuristic render public speaking or broadcast a complete impossibility?

In such cases where it is spoken through a private medium, it is very easy to show that you have consented when you change the channel to watch that show, or attend that speech. The consent-ideal would be to void the validity of being able to harass individuals or start shouting at strangers in public, whilst also preserving their right to express themselves.

[Nadaka]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/in-supreme-court-brief-ken-cuccinelli-warned-of-a-slippery-slope-from-gay-marriage-to-polygamy/

And? He says that like its a bad thing.

[kaijyuu]

We discussed it before here, but polygamy would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Divorces are already a huge headache; take it to the x'th power (x being the number of spouses - 1).

Past that polygamy is a-okay~

[GlyphGryph]

Ideologically, I don't see why people would be opposed to polygamy.

Practically and historically, there's good reasons not to recognize it federally, though I could see some of the benefits being good to extend out in general.

[10ebbor10]

Just do it the way the Romans did.

Marriage is no longer a governemental business. Divorce is simplified to sending you ex the following message "Grab your stuff and get out*"

*Free translation

[XXSockXX]

Ideologically, I don't see why people would be opposed to polygamy.

Practically and historically, there's good reasons not to recognize it federally, though I could see some of the benefits being good to extend out in general.

Traditional polygamy (as in Islam or historically in Mormonism) is a pretty misogynistic affair.
And in terms of "modern" polyamory, where everyone involved can have multiple relationships at once, that would be a huge mess figuring out who is legally tied to who in what way. Divorces involving 15 people should be interesting  .

[kaijyuu]

Divorce is simplified to sending you ex the following message "Grab your stuff and get out*"

He/she can simply reply with:

"What's mine is yours, what's yours is mine... so if I take my stuff, I get your stuff!"

Then they drive away into the sunset cackling madly while 100 dollar bills trail in their wake, leaving you poor and homeless.

[10ebbor10]

There's a reason the Romans didn't believe in shared goods when marrying. In practice, everything belonged to the man, except for the rather large dowry*.

*Large enough to live of comfourtably in most cases, and in fact often large enough to ruin the man if he couldn't pay it back.