dangerous territory/devil's advocate

[Nephew Twiddleton]

3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.

YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."

Conservatives tend to be religious.

Here's the thing. Conservatives exist in the US. They're actually reactionaries who are all about government intrusion when it comes to things they find unappealing, like human rights for non-Americans. Am I conservative about stuff? Yeah, there are too many stupid laws being argued, debated, passed, vetoed, revoted on. We shouldn't propose any changes to the law unless it's necessary. Unfortunately, America's fucked up enough that we need to pass more legislation to deal with all of the legislative bullshit already piled on top of us.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.

YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."

As someone who comes from a country that doesn't have guns and has never had any school or even child shootings, I always find the right to own rat a tat toys baffling.
To me it just seems like an excuse to arm the stupid and lower the value of human life, I can understand OTHER countries wanting america to persue this policy but I cannot understand why there is such a large domestic love of guns.

It depends on where you live. In Boston, people don't generally need a gun for anything.

The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the citizens would be armed in order to protect the state. The word militia is written into that particular one.

The US is also a pretty large place of mostly rural terrain with predators. To be fair, the only predators Ireland has is humans, dogs and cats. Here you get coyotes, wolves and bears, sometimes even near major cities in heavily urbanized regions. I'm rather indifferent about guns. I don't really need them. I'd like to shoot one someday at a range for shits and giggles, but I would never really feel the need to own one.

[Faust]

3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.

YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."

As someone who comes from a country that doesn't have guns and has never had any school or even child shootings, I always find the right to own rat a tat toys baffling.
To me it just seems like an excuse to arm the stupid and lower the value of human life, I can understand OTHER countries wanting america to persue this policy but I cannot understand why there is such a large domestic love of guns.

It depends on where you live. In Boston, people don't generally need a gun for anything.

The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the citizens would be armed in order to protect the state. The word militia is written into that particular one.

The US is also a pretty large place of mostly rural terrain with predators. To be fair, the only predators Ireland has is humans, dogs and cats. Here you get coyotes, wolves and bears, sometimes even near major cities in heavily urbanized regions. I'm rather indifferent about guns. I don't really need them. I'd like to shoot one someday at a range for shits and giggles, but I would never really feel the need to own one.

I always forget other countries have natural predators. Australia scares the shit out of me. It seems like a continent that was created exclusively to kill people.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.

YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."

As someone who comes from a country that doesn't have guns and has never had any school or even child shootings, I always find the right to own rat a tat toys baffling.
To me it just seems like an excuse to arm the stupid and lower the value of human life, I can understand OTHER countries wanting america to persue this policy but I cannot understand why there is such a large domestic love of guns.

It depends on where you live. In Boston, people don't generally need a gun for anything.

The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the citizens would be armed in order to protect the state. The word militia is written into that particular one.

The US is also a pretty large place of mostly rural terrain with predators. To be fair, the only predators Ireland has is humans, dogs and cats. Here you get coyotes, wolves and bears, sometimes even near major cities in heavily urbanized regions. I'm rather indifferent about guns. I don't really need them. I'd like to shoot one someday at a range for shits and giggles, but I would never really feel the need to own one.

Text of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's important to remember that at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the US had no permanent standing Army. Defense of the States was entrusted to state militias, composed of citizen-soldiers. As such, it was necessary to ensure that no legislation was passed which would hamper these militias' ability to do their jobs. But common defense wasn't thought of in those days in the same way we think of it now. It was much closer to home and each citizen had a personal investment in the his military security. We didn't outsource our defense to "the Military" as we do now - each person was responsible for their own security and the security of his/her neighbors in a very community-centric system.

Still, it's part of the American psyche also that people should have the right to arm themselves against an oppressive government. While I understand that is a dangerous can of worms to open, it's been fairly integral to American psychology for a long time (albeit decreasingly so).

And if you make guns illegal, it won't stop people who have no regard for the law from owning guns. What exactly, then, are you preventing? Making guns illegal doesn't get rid of guns, just like making abortion illegal doesn't get rid of abortion and making drugs illegal doesn't get rid of drugs. It sounds nice, until you consider reality.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.

YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."

As someone who comes from a country that doesn't have guns and has never had any school or even child shootings, I always find the right to own rat a tat toys baffling.
To me it just seems like an excuse to arm the stupid and lower the value of human life, I can understand OTHER countries wanting america to persue this policy but I cannot understand why there is such a large domestic love of guns.

It depends on where you live. In Boston, people don't generally need a gun for anything.

The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the citizens would be armed in order to protect the state. The word militia is written into that particular one.

The US is also a pretty large place of mostly rural terrain with predators. To be fair, the only predators Ireland has is humans, dogs and cats. Here you get coyotes, wolves and bears, sometimes even near major cities in heavily urbanized regions. I'm rather indifferent about guns. I don't really need them. I'd like to shoot one someday at a range for shits and giggles, but I would never really feel the need to own one.

I always forget other countries have natural predators. Australia scares the shit out of me. It seems like a continent that was created exclusively to kill people.

I believe it, though I've never been there. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

For me, I find that I agree with several positions that are often considered 'right wing' by US standards. For example, I don't think that the US should have an offensive army, only defensive. I think that most laws should be up to individual states (except where they deprive an individual of their rights). I think that government should be small and limited in what it can control.

I don't identify with 'Conservatives' in the US though because the overall positions taken by Republicans and Libertarians are a mishmash of nationalism, populism and religious nutbaggery.

I don't identify with 'Liberals' because I think having a Mommy until I was 18 is more than enough.

However, I do find that many 'thinking' people tend to cheer for the Dems more than the GOP, mostly because the Dems appear to be trying to play politics from the 3rd/4th circuit while the GOP seems firmly entrenched in the 2nd circuit and the overwhelming Monkey behavior is pretty annoying.

As for the welfare issue... I think the right solution is simple:

Make sure people have food, medical attention and a place to live. Probably this could be handled by States, as long as they met that minimum.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.

YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."

Conservatives tend to be religious.

Here's the thing. Conservatives exist in the US. They're actually reactionaries who are all about government intrusion when it comes to things they find unappealing, like human rights for non-Americans. Am I conservative about stuff? Yeah, there are too many stupid laws being argued, debated, passed, vetoed, revoted on. We shouldn't propose any changes to the law unless it's necessary. Unfortunately, America's fucked up enough that we need to pass more legislation to deal with all of the legislative bullshit already piled on top of us.

Conservatives only hate government intrusion whan it's THEM being intruded on.
It's the Ayn Rand thing. "I got mine, fuck everybody else."

[Nephew Twiddleton]

3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.

YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."

Conservatives tend to be religious.

Here's the thing. Conservatives exist in the US. They're actually reactionaries who are all about government intrusion when it comes to things they find unappealing, like human rights for non-Americans. Am I conservative about stuff? Yeah, there are too many stupid laws being argued, debated, passed, vetoed, revoted on. We shouldn't propose any changes to the law unless it's necessary. Unfortunately, America's fucked up enough that we need to pass more legislation to deal with all of the legislative bullshit already piled on top of us.

Conservatives only hate government intrusion whan it's THEM being intruded on.
It's the Ayn Rand thing. "I got mine, fuck everybody else."

Oh yeah. See, and welfare's fine for them if THEY need it as an individual. There's an exception there.

[Faust]

3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.

YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."

As someone who comes from a country that doesn't have guns and has never had any school or even child shootings, I always find the right to own rat a tat toys baffling.
To me it just seems like an excuse to arm the stupid and lower the value of human life, I can understand OTHER countries wanting america to persue this policy but I cannot understand why there is such a large domestic love of guns.

It depends on where you live. In Boston, people don't generally need a gun for anything.

The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the citizens would be armed in order to protect the state. The word militia is written into that particular one.

The US is also a pretty large place of mostly rural terrain with predators. To be fair, the only predators Ireland has is humans, dogs and cats. Here you get coyotes, wolves and bears, sometimes even near major cities in heavily urbanized regions. I'm rather indifferent about guns. I don't really need them. I'd like to shoot one someday at a range for shits and giggles, but I would never really feel the need to own one.

Text of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's important to remember that at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the US had no permanent standing Army. Defense of the States was entrusted to state militias, composed of citizen-soldiers. As such, it was necessary to ensure that no legislation was passed which would hamper these militias' ability to do their jobs. But common defense wasn't thought of in those days in the same way we think of it now. It was much closer to home and each citizen had a personal investment in the his military security. We didn't outsource our defense to "the Military" as we do now - each person was responsible for their own security and the security of his/her neighbors in a very community-centric system.

Still, it's part of the American psyche also that people should have the right to arm themselves against an oppressive government. While I understand that is a dangerous can of worms to open, it's been fairly integral to American psychology for a long time (albeit decreasingly so).

And if you make guns illegal, it won't stop people who have no regard for the law from owning guns. What exactly, then, are you preventing? Making guns illegal doesn't get rid of guns, just like making abortion illegal doesn't get rid of abortion and making drugs illegal doesn't get rid of drugs. It sounds nice, until you consider reality.

No it doesn't get rid of gun crime you are right. It minimises it.
It doesn't make a difference initially, no criminalisation rarely if ever does.

[Placid Dingo]

I don't have a lot of 'conservative' views but I do believe in censorship, especially of hate speech and of what can be produced commercially.

Say again?  You approve of censorship?

Absolutely. When Alan Jones reads out racist shit on radio that leads to Lebanese people getting bashed, that's something that we say as a society is unacceptable and I'm inclined to agree.

We also don't, and I should think, shouldn't, allow commercial sale of things like snuff pornography, beastiality, the guide to being a successful pedophile etc.

I'm commenting on being ok with censorship, generally as far as current practice is concerned.

I can't help reading this as reading that you include violence as a form of expression similar to speech. How exactly do you come to that conclusion?

I will say that snuff porn, if it includes real snuff, should be illegal because it infringes on another being's right to live. Bestiality should not be illegal, but animal cruelty should be. A written guide to being a successful pedophile should not be illegal, nor should anyone be prosecuted for being a pedophile unless they act on those urges. Then they should be prosecuted for the action, not the thought.

It's not a society's job to protect its people against things that make them go "ew".

I'm tAlking about censorship, not just freedom of speech. So yes, violence that's then commercially exploited commercially is a censorship issue.

I'm not interested in protecting people from feeling uncomfortable, and I hope that you're just making a misjudgent there, not misrepresenting my view. There are real consequences for allowing promotion of hate speech (People getting bashed) or normalising and assisting child abuse (kids getting abused) or pornography portraying rape (normalising rape, but more importantly, incentivising the industry to develop more exploitative content that maltreats their workers).

I'm really pointing out that my main concern here is production or distribution of content commercially.

Also Pent says you can't draw a line. Why not? People draw lines all that time. You can't draw one objective line that exists forever in all circumstances, but you can draw a line, that's all the law does.

[Triple Zero]

And if you make guns illegal, it won't stop people who have no regard for the law from owning guns. What exactly, then, are you preventing? Making guns illegal doesn't get rid of guns, just like making abortion illegal doesn't get rid of abortion and making drugs illegal doesn't get rid of drugs. It sounds nice, until you consider reality.

Or rather, explain to me why we have so much less criminals shooting or threatening people with guns over here? (Or owning guns, for that matter, but it's not the owning but rather the shooting and threatening that bothers me)

It sounds nice, until you consider reality.



Also comparing the right to abortion with the right to own guns is completely retarded. Both happen to be hot topics in the US doesn't mean they're similar in arbitrary ways. And making rape illegal didn't get rid of rape. However, making Kinder Surprise eggs illegal in the US did in fact successfully almost entirely get rid of those pesky Holy Trinities of Confectionary: chocolate, excitement AND something to play with!

[The Johnny]

I don't have a lot of 'conservative' views but I do believe in censorship, especially of hate speech and of what can be produced commercially.

Say again?  You approve of censorship?

Absolutely. When Alan Jones reads out racist shit on radio that leads to Lebanese people getting bashed, that's something that we say as a society is unacceptable and I'm inclined to agree.

We also don't, and I should think, shouldn't, allow commercial sale of things like snuff pornography, beastiality, the guide to being a successful pedophile etc.

I'm commenting on being ok with censorship, generally as far as current practice is concerned.

I can't help reading this as reading that you include violence as a form of expression similar to speech. How exactly do you come to that conclusion?

I will say that snuff porn, if it includes real snuff, should be illegal because it infringes on another being's right to live. Bestiality should not be illegal, but animal cruelty should be. A written guide to being a successful pedophile should not be illegal, nor should anyone be prosecuted for being a pedophile unless they act on those urges. Then they should be prosecuted for the action, not the thought.

It's not a society's job to protect its people against things that make them go "ew".

I'm tAlking about censorship, not just freedom of speech. So yes, violence that's then commercially exploited commercially is a censorship issue.

I'm not interested in protecting people from feeling uncomfortable, and I hope that you're just making a misjudgent there, not misrepresenting my view. There are real consequences for allowing promotion of hate speech (People getting bashed) or normalising and assisting child abuse (kids getting abused) or pornography portraying rape (normalising rape, but more importantly, incentivising the industry to develop more exploitative content that maltreats their workers).

I'm really pointing out that my main concern here is production or distribution of content commercially.

Also Pent says you can't draw a line. Why not? People draw lines all that time. You can't draw one objective line that exists forever in all circumstances, but you can draw a line, that's all the law does.

Then dont complain when the line gets drawn by the conservatives that yell louder, thats all the USA has been for the past 40 years.

A bunch of very vocal screaming yahoos that push legislation their way and nobody stops them.

Did you forget about Wikileaks already?  Wasnt there a case where criticism of the reality of events in the bible called hate speech and it proceded to court?

Just remember, the arbitrary line you are comftable with in separating what is right or not right to be heard/said, is in reality chosen by others, not you.

[Cain]

Wasnt there a case where criticism of the reality of events in the bible called hate speech and it proceded to court

An Indian skeptic is likely going to get thrown in prison very soon for "upsetting the Catholic Church" by showing how it faked certain miracles at an Indian shrine.  Three years, for "blasphemy".  The Vatican backs the Indian Catholic Church to the hilt, because the skeptic, Sanal Edamarku, "hurled false allegations against the Church" and "upset" them. 

"World's largest democracy"?  Hah!

[The Johnny]

Wasnt there a case where criticism of the reality of events in the bible called hate speech and it proceded to court

An Indian skeptic is likely going to get thrown in prison very soon for "upsetting the Catholic Church" by showing how it faked certain miracles at an Indian shrine.  Three years, for "blasphemy".  The Vatican backs the Indian Catholic Church to the hilt, because the skeptic, Sanal Edamarku, "hurled false allegations against the Church" and "upset" them. 

"World's largest democracy"?  Hah!

I didnt recall where i had heard it, yes, that case.

And you know what? There's censorship laws in my country about talking badly and/or criticizing ANY and ALL government officials, candidates in all levels. This isn't enforced -YET-, but this law passed about 3 months ago.

And no, its not like the UK where its about being vindictive and spreading unfounded rumours, no, its about CRITICIZING.

I have WONDERFUL ideas about where the line should be drawn as does anyone with an opinion, but you know what? its always gonna boil down to what is convenient or not to someone, and the only ones that have the power to enforce their opinion, is well, POWERFUL people.

Remember those laws for the internet about outlawing trolling?

Well, trolling is spreading lies or whatever and can be misleading and can hurt somebodies little princess heart. Does that mean it should be outlawed? Some people think it should.

[P3nT4gR4m]

You can't draw a line under free speech - you draw a line though it. As soon as you do that, it aint free speech anymore. Free speech is not for the fainthearted. It's implicit that you're going to hear a lot of shit that annoys, insults, threatens or even scares the shit out of you. This is the reason they did away with it in the first place.