Politics and Porn

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Bramblethorn]

Another pointless post, Bramblethorn.

You are saying now that women never assault and hit men? Or what? What's the point?

No. Your post is there just to look smart.

Nezhul, at your invitation I've already given you free education on a range of topics ranging from English grammar to statistical analysis. But I'm starting to feel that this is not a productive use of my time, so if you want me to keep on explaining stuff to you then I'm going to have to start charging.

My consulting rates start at USD100/hour, payable in advance. It is entirely up to you to judge whether that's good value; unless I hear otherwise I'll assume the answer is 'no', and in a day or two I'll put you on ignore. But given how this discussion started, I think it's fitting to remind you that you're not entitled to other people's attention.

If anybody other than Nezhul is having trouble understanding the point I was making with that quote, I would be happy to explain it for free.

 

[tairaruth]

I think we have to consider that not all want to ban / restrict porn from a morality point of view but because there is porn made in some dubious manners and not all sex workers are happy uncoerced sex workers ( this industry is international for a start) so sometimes to get a round view it's not about restricting our rights but trying to give rights to others.

*****

To follow this type of reasoning ...

Do we ban all touch because not all touch is tickling and sometimes it's violent and the recipient isn't willing?
Do we ban all medication because sometimes it's taken incorrectly & causes problems?
Do we ban all cars because sometimes accidents happen?

Always, banning the supposed 'item' rather than dealing with the problem at the human cause, has proven to do nothing to correct the problem and only bring about other problems. (ie prohibition years).

Not all porn is professional. Do we after banning 'porn' then ban the couple who choose to take pictures of their wedding night and post it in the amateur site? Where does the line get drawn? Who draws it?

Or .. do we go after those who use the 'unhappy forced sex-workers' rather than the gals who are paying their way through college in hopes of becoming the next administrators to the governments?

Just thoughts.

 

[tairaruth]

I have been watching this argument from a distance for a while, but I can no longer stay silent. When I learned to drive, the teachers in our class taught us to be a "defensive driver," meaning that you had to treat EVERY OTHER VEHICLE as the one that could potentially take your life, and then be ready to take precautions so that didn't happen, i.e. provide yourself with safe "exits" for any potential situation, realizing that unfortunately, a safe exit was not always available.

My wife and I raised four daughters; we told them the same things that are being said on this thread - you must protect yourself from everyone, and that means expecting that the behavior of boys their age wasn't always appropriate, and in fact could be dangerous. It was not a lesson for just a few years - it needed to be a standard by which they carried themselves going on in life. Now that they are grown and out of my house, it doesn't mean the risk they face is any less than when they lived at home.

A friend of mine sent me a link that describes exactly what the fear is. Nezhul, I hope you read it word for word, in the understanding of the mother who fears for her daughter as she heads into puberty. Then tell me how this mother is all wrong, and she's making a big deal out of nothing.

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/...lise-our-young-daughters-20170201-gu2z5b.html

I used to think the greatest threat my daughters faced was the males who might approach them with dangerous thoughts on their mind. Now I'm thinking it's guys like you who believe that we are sensationalizing the threat women face in society everywhere - including in Russia.

I learned that predators, true predators, are not the ones you meet in the street who whistle or make a catcall. They are typically not the loud, uncouth construction worker who leers or the guy walking home, along, from the library (or where-ever) at night.

The true predators are the ones who befriend, cajole, cosy up to someone; the friend of a friend or the teacher, babysitter, boy-scout leader. These are the predators to watch out for because these are the people who use the one weapon that they can to lure and to ultimately betray. That weapon being trust.

So, I taught my girls (and my sons), to learn to listen to that part within themselves which some call intuition. To learn to trust their 'gut' so to speak and to govern their own behaviour rather than to place the blame on someone else. Basic rules for going out .. stay with the group, hold your drink, and most of all -pay attention-, if something is making you uncomfortable .. heed that warning. But, the necessity of listening and heeding that warning isn't to change someone -else's- behaviour because one can never, ever truly change another's behaviour.

Sure, we can legislate against things, bring in more and more laws and what not .. throw more people in jail or bootcamps, whatever. Non of this, however, will really work at keeping the kids/victims safe....because it all goes towards changing someone -else's- actions. I teach my girls and my boys .. that the only persons behaviour that they can govern is -themselves- so if they get a 'uh oh' feeling about someone .. then they need to listen, observe, step back, pay attention .. and basically, to listen and to change -their own- behaviour.

I included sons in the last paragraph. Why? Because after paying attention myself to certain things, I have learned that whilst some men can be and often are abusive ... so, too, are women. We aren't just talking about the odd slap here, but physical, mental, emotional, sexual, financial .. abuse .. all the same ways that men can be abusive towards women .. women can and -are- towards men. It happens every day .. all around us .. and we hear one side of the story and often completely miss the other side.

 

[Blue]

Politics.

The cybersecurity guy in Bill Maher's interview with Milo Yianopolis really pissed me off.

He's some hotshot at the USA's counter-terrorism department and right at the end of the panel he stated some absolutely disgusting and blatant BS that I know he knows is BS and is an excellent example of why you can't trust anything the government tells you.

Quote:
Maher: "What do you think the relationship is between Wikileaks and the Trump administration?"

Guy: "[Wikileaks] are a laundromat for Russian intelligence. They were the conduit for all of the stolen emails, and they were pretty open about it. Now what's really funny about this, something I read in my book, is for the number of emails that were hacked, all the voicemails, everything for 10 months that was stolen from the DNC and then all these other things.
I've done operations of a similar size, it would take 300 people working 24 hour shifts, 3 8-hour watch shifts, to analyze all that data. And then they were doing these precision data dumps. Trump would talk about Pennsylvania, within 96 hours every single email about Pennsylvania that had ever been sent to the DNC was released.

It was [Russian operatives], human intelligence officers, political warfare officers a massive effort had to take place."

All BS. Every single thing he said. Not one single truthful statement was contained in that small lecture.

Breakdown, sentence by sentence:

>"[Wikileaks] are a laundromat for Russian intelligence. They were the
conduit for all of the stolen emails, and they were pretty open about it."

Wikileaks publishes open-source unaltered data.
There's no opinion pieces done on it, they don't write articles, they are simply a (physically) unassailable medium for whistleblowers and journalists to publish their findings.

Of course they were the conduit for all the emails and were open about it! That's what they do! They did their job just like they've done in thousands of other cases and had absolutely no demonstrated Russian interference in doing so. He's literally attacking the neutral messenger, poisoning the reputation of the outlet of the information by fallaciously framing it in an implication that Russia must have had something to do with it, which has yet to be demonstrated in any way, shape or form.

>"Now what's really funny about this, something I read in my book, is for the number of emails that were hacked, all the voicemails, everything for 10 months that was stolen from the DNC and then all these other things.
I've done operations of a similar size, it would take 300 people working 24 hour shifts, 3 8-hour watch shifts, to analyze all that data."

In relation:
"And then they were doing these precision data dumps. Trump would talk about Pennsylvania, within 96 hours every single email about Pennsylvania that had ever been sent to the DNC was released.

It was [Russian operatives], human intelligence officers, political warfare officers a massive effort had to take place."

Any of you ever done any programming of any sort? If you have then you probably picked up on this BS, for those who haven't: This is just straight up misinformation, he's deliberately explaining the single most inefficient (and now practically obsolete) method of simplistic digital analysis. Specifically he's saying it would take hundreds of people working round the clock to read through the email files and find those relating to e.g. Pennsylvania and publish them. This would be true if we were living in the 70's and all the data was text on paper, buuuut...

This is pure codswallop, because as anybody familiar with the most basic fundamentals of any programming language will be able to confirm, creating an algorithm to search through files for keywords/sentences/syntax is an extraordinarily simple project. I know it to be so because I've made hundreds of them in my life. It wouldn't take more than 10 minutes for just me to write a customized search algorithm and it would take a handful of hours for it to sift through and document hundreds of thousands of files.

These so-called 'precision data dumps' would be exactly that. A publishing of a mass of unaltered data that was found and stored by a somewhat complex search algorithm, not by human hands. Nothing a teenager with basic HTML skills couldn't do.

He's over-complicating it because he knows the vast majority of people who hear what he's saying won't have any programming experience and so won't pick up on him massively, dishonestly, inflating the actual amount of manpower that would be needed to sift through all that data. Which obviously a small organization like Wikileaks wouldn't have access to. So...Russian assistance!!!

This whole ridiculous Russia-x-Wikileaks nonsense is just a huge misinformation campaign by the Democratic party to perform the age-old fallacy of poising the well. They want to discredit the apparent validity of the leaks rather than address what's actually in them because then they'd have to acknowledge their scummy, corrupt actions.

If anybody's confused about what's going on with the whole controversy (if you are, that's kind of the whole reason it exists) here's some simple facts that you can use to center your BS meter regarding it:

Julian Assange (Wikileaks founder) denies the source of the emails was the Russian government.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politics/assange-wikileaks-hannity-intv/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...nt_was_not_source_for_podesta_dnc_emails.html
http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/03/ju...was-not-the-source-for-wikileaks-dnc-e-mails/

The joint report published by the FBI on the supposed Russian interference contains absolutely no presentation of evidence .
https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf
I encourage you to read that. A short summary:
Possibly somebody or some people somewhere that could have been in Russia, who may or may not be related to the Russian government, might have sent a Phishing email scam to the DNC which the fools were stupid enough to open and give their login information to.

In fact, the entire recommended strategies segment boils down to staff training to not fall for such obvious email scams and upping the cybersecurity a bit!

The USA government does not give two pixels about interfering in elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
It's the ultimate example of Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Russia didn't hack the voting booths as has been implied by the media.
The claim being made is that Assange helped sway public opinion in favour of Trump. But it's been framed in a way to make it more sensationalist.
The public opinion part isn't even true. Hillary lost demonstrably due to a poor 'ground game', she received 2.8m more votes than Trump and has higher approval ratings but lost because she mainly campaigned in valuable, high-pop states and ignored the smaller flyover states which cumulatively lost her the election.
She literally never stepped foot in Wisconsin for the entire campaign...

~ ~ Edit ~ ~

Not to mention he didn't actually answer the question either.
Because of course he didn't.

 

[Bramblethorn]

For what it's worth: I live in JA's old stomping grounds. I have several friends who knew him quite well, long before Wikileaks was a thing. The stories they tell paint a picture of an extremely creepy and vengeful personality who doesn't respond well to being told "no" by women.

If anybody's confused about what's going on with the whole controversy (if you are, that's kind of the whole reason it exists) here's some simple facts that you can use to center your BS meter regarding it:

Julian Assange (Wikileaks founder) denies the source of the emails was the Russian government.

He does. Which would seem to conflict with some of his previous statements about source anonymity:

At the start of a talk being streamed live on the Frontline’s website, Assange was asked by an audience member whether he knows the identity of the person who sent WikiLeaks the Afghan war documents published by three media outlets on Sunday.

“We never know the source of the leak,” he said, adding that WikiLeaks’ systems are set up so that documents are always submitted anonymously.

However, Assange said, sources sometimes get in touch with WikiLeaks to tell the website they have documents to share. In such cases, WikiLeaks instructs the person to please submit whatever they have anonymously. When the document shows up, it’s never ultimately clear who sent it, Assange said. “We could make a guess. But it would only be a guess and not evidence.”

Assuming he was telling the truth then, how could he now be so positive that these leaks didn't come via .gov.ru? That seems like it'd be a very difficult thing to verify.

I agree that the "expert" you mention doesn't do a good job of selling his argument, and that there's a shortage of hard evidence to connect any one leak to Russia. But the pattern of what does and doesn't come out of Wikileaks is, to say the least, suggestive. When's the last time they leaked info that would run significantly against Russian interests?

Or, put it another way: let's suppose you're the head of the FSB. Why on earth would you not be looking to run something like this?

She literally never stepped foot in Wisconsin for the entire campaign...

That's not quite correct. She didn't visit it after confirming the Dem nomination, but she seems to have made at least one visit earlier in the campaign that I found: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/loc...cle_6c4aabe2-46da-52c0-a9ae-2dda5e73a2be.html

(may or may not have been others, I didn't go through her entire schedule to check!)

 

[Blue]

Sorry for such a long post!
I need to learn to summarize better...

For what it's worth: I live in JA's old stomping grounds. I have several friends who knew him quite well, long before Wikileaks was a thing. The stories they tell paint a picture of an extremely creepy and vengeful personality who doesn't respond well to being told "no" by women.

It's not worth that much, I've been labelled as a hardcore creep for years but that doesn't say much about whether I care about political consistency or not.
But yeah I've also heard before that he's a bit of a loon, I didn't write that piece in partisan defence of Assange, Wikileaks or the Russian government, I'm just trying to call out that one example of *ahem* "alternative facts".

He does. Which would seem to conflict with some of his previous statements about source anonymity:

Assuming he was telling the truth then, how could he now be so positive that these leaks didn't come via .gov.ru? That seems like it'd be a very difficult thing to verify.

There is an abundance of potential sources that the emails could have been leaked through that have no connection to the Russian government whatsoever, even morally offended DNC staff could be the potential whistleblowers.

It's due to the anonymity that we are presented with that nobody but the staff at wikileaks can make any sure statements as to the source. They may have made their real identity fully apparent to Assange, or they may have skewed the details or remained entirely anonymous. I'm not willing to entertain any theories as to who the source was since this event was potentially entirely unrelated to any previous leaks and/or political alliances that Wikileaks staff may have and due to the lack of any group or 'faction' presenting any evidence for their claims as to the identity of the source, including Wikileaks. Blindly speculating (which this is, given the utter lack of evidence of Russian involvement in the leak) doesn't help anybody.

I'd also like to note that we both seem to have fallen into the exact trap that this cybersecurity guy was setting up. We're debating the source of the content which is essentially entirely irrelevant, the content has been effectively demonstrated to be factual by the actions of the DNC in response to it and even if it the most morally corrupt and Machiavellian psychopath in the world were the one who leaked the data, all they did was perform journalism. I could be wrong but I haven't heard of any of the released data being worthy of prosecution for treason or something smaller like breaking confidentially. The source of the leaks is in the right as far as I know.

I agree that the "expert" you mention doesn't do a good job of selling his argument, and that there's a shortage of hard evidence to connect any one leak to Russia. But the pattern of what does and doesn't come out of Wikileaks is, to say the least, suggestive. When's the last time they leaked info that would run significantly against Russian interests?

Or, put it another way: let's suppose you're the head of the FSB. Why on earth would you not be looking to run something like this?

Excellent question. I'd be looking to publicize anything that could help Trump become elected for a variety of corrupt financial reasons, but also because Trump spent the campaign stating that he would build diplomatic bridges with Russia, rather than militarily escalate with them in Syria like Clinton was doing. What he's doing now (His staff recently released his strategy plan for Syria which was essentially an exact duplicate of Clinton's plan that she stated while campaigning) is horrible, but that would have been the information any potential Russian operatives would have been getting at the time.

Although there are also reasons that an FSB operative would not want to run the story. For example: Russia's security and economic stability, just like almost every other country, rely on the USA being headed by somebody who is not a complete apolitical dumbass. Even if the US government didn't want anything to do with Russia, Russia is still pretty much under the thumb of European economic interests, countries generally closely allied and influenced by the USA. Clinton would be a far more stable and predictable advocate of status-quo business interests than Trump.

Either way, simply postulating that Vladamir was given a risk assessment that decided supporting Trump's campaign would be beneficial, doesn't at all give any credence to the people claiming that actually happened. Especially so since the existence of said risk-assessment is itself an unknown variable.

Again, I'm not trying to defend Wikileaks. I don't believe for a second their organization doesn't have some dubious ties and biases, no political body doesn't have them. I'm attacking the spurious Red-Scare claims made by the guy in question and other media and DNC figures.

That's not quite correct. She didn't visit it after confirming the Dem nomination, but she seems to have made at least one visit earlier in the campaign that I found: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/loc...cle_6c4aabe2-46da-52c0-a9ae-2dda5e73a2be.html

(may or may not have been others, I didn't go through her entire schedule to check!)

Oops on my part.
*Campaign against Trump.

It was still a very silly move to be so light on the 'Rust Belt' region since that's an area stacked with disenfranchised voters. I guess they just saw that it was a Democratic stronghold in 08 and 12 and arrogantly assumed they had it locked.

 

[Netzach]

Why hack the voting machines when you can just hack the candidate (which everyone in NYC over the last 35 years with an IQ over 12 has been trying to tell you, but you told us to fuck off to our "liberal bubble" LULZ) and then simply rely on American idiots to idiot?

Who needs data when you (Russia, FSB, various connected parties, just read a freaking NY deep dive article, oh sorry, that news has been fake for 40 years, right) literally are the people who lent this giant twat every cent he's been waving around like monopoly money for people who act like they've never seen money to believe in?

Enjoy the mafiaocracy. I'm glad you straight folk are worried about your sexual expression, some of us have to worry about getting shot or beat up in restrooms for your peeing paranoia now. Some of us have to scramble to maintain healthcare so we can you know, metabolize our foodstuffs, not bleed out, not go into diabetic comas, stupid trifling stuff like that.

It's been a flawed, imperfect, imperialist, hypocritical republic, but it still was one. Nice while it lasted. I hope sticking it to the professional pols will be worth Caligula, and I'm not a nice person, so I hope this hurts you more than it hurts the rest of us.

It won't. But I hope it does anyway.

 

[Netzach]

It was still a very silly move to be so light on the 'Rust Belt' region since that's an area stacked with disenfranchised voters. I guess they just saw that it was a Democratic stronghold in 08 and 12 and arrogantly assumed they had it locked.

You know, you're right, it was stupid. There's a deep playbook of stupid to pour over.

However, disenfranchised and unheard and forgotten - what the ever loving fuck?

Know who's disenfranchised? LITERALLY? Urban black voters. Urban Latino voters. The fucking state of CA. Gerrymandered voters in maze-shaped first tier suburban districts. And guess what, they still managed to hold their noses and vote not to burn everything that functions to the floor because OOOO NO ONE LISTENS TO MEEEEEE!

I'm not buying "economic anxiety" not for a second. It's xenophobia, racism, knee jerk entitlement, and raw sexist child rage, and as far as I'm concerned they OWN it.

 

[cascadiabound]

You know, you're right, it was stupid. There's a deep playbook of stupid to pour over.

However, disenfranchised and unheard and forgotten - what the ever loving fuck?

Know who's disenfranchised? LITERALLY? Urban black voters. Urban Latino voters. The fucking state of CA. Gerrymandered voters in maze-shaped first tier suburban districts. And guess what, they still managed to hold their noses and vote not to burn everything that functions to the floor because OOOO NO ONE LISTENS TO MEEEEEE!

I'm not buying "economic anxiety" not for a second. It's xenophobia, racism, knee jerk entitlement, and raw sexist child rage, and as far as I'm concerned they OWN it.

Stands up and applauds. (through my tears)

 

[MeekMe]

 

[Primalex]

Once upon a time, the government tried to ban alcohol. We all know how that turned out.

Yes - a lot of people died for something that became legal 13 years later and people who were imprisoned stayed imprisoned after the law was changed.

Iron bars severely limit the consolation I can get from the fact that I was "right" and the government was "wrong".

 

[Nezhul]

Yes - a lot of people died for something that became legal 13 years later and people who were imprisoned stayed imprisoned after the law was changed.

Iron bars severely limit the consolation I can get from the fact that I was "right" and the government was "wrong".

Thing is though, the government was never "wrong" on that one. They banned alcohol, temporarily. They didn't say it was always and forever wrong, they just banned it consumption. They were not wrong when putting those who broke the ban into prison.

To be fair the result allowed US economy to stabilize, because while there were people who found their way around, a lot of other people suddenly started coming to work sober.

But the example is not very correct though, because porn does not hinder economy and doesn't make people to be less effective workers, as alcohol does. You probably never had the enjoyment to deal with a drunkard coming to work and trying to execute it in any form.

 

[Primalex]

But the example is not very correct though, because porn does not hinder economy and doesn't make people to be less effective workers

This just shows that you have no idea how many people get warnings or fired for watching porn at work instead of working.

 

[cascadiabound]

Thing is though, the government was never "wrong" on that one. They banned alcohol, temporarily. They didn't say it was always and forever wrong, they just banned it consumption. They were not wrong when putting those who broke the ban into prison.

To be fair the result allowed US economy to stabilize, because while there were people who found their way around, a lot of other people suddenly started coming to work sober.

But the example is not very correct though, because porn does not hinder economy and doesn't make people to be less effective workers, as alcohol does. You probably never had the enjoyment to deal with a drunkard coming to work and trying to execute it in any form.

You also seem to miss the fact that by criminalizing alcohol, and forcing it into illegal enterprises, that lots of money was made that was not taxed (robbing the government and its citizens of income), and lives were lost by people needing to cover their now illegal activities. Also. Alcohol and those who consumed it were deemed to be immoral. So there was a moral judgment on the activity not unlike the moral judgment against those who consume pornography (even in doses that do not interfere with work or home life)

And, just as now - the people who were most likely to go to jail were the people at the lowest income levels, not necessarily those who were most egregious in their use of alcohol. People of means continued to be able to obtain and consume alcohol without fear of being jailed.

 

[Bramblethorn]

[tw for discussion of stalkeriffic behaviour]

Sorry for such a long post!
I need to learn to summarize better...


It's not worth that much, I've been labelled as a hardcore creep for years but that doesn't say much about whether I care about political consistency or not.

I suspect what you mean by "hardcore creep" may be a little different from the sort of stuff I'm talking about. (At least, I certainly hope so.)

For instance, some DEFINITELY HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLES which are not in any way based on incidents from the early life of a well-known fugitive:

- Has any of your ex-girlfriends ever come home to find her CD collection smashed up and used to spell out "I love you" with the shards?
- Has any of your ex-girlfriends ever come home to find you inside her wardrobe, holding a screwdriver, for no adequately explained reason?
- Has your ex-girlfriend's new partner ever been raided by the police on an anonymous (and false) tip-off of child porn possession?

I'd also like to note that we both seem to have fallen into the exact trap that this cybersecurity guy was setting up. We're debating the source of the content which is essentially entirely irrelevant, the content has been effectively demonstrated to be factual by the actions of the DNC in response to it and even if it the most morally corrupt and Machiavellian psychopath in the world were the one who leaked the data, all they did was perform journalism. I could be wrong but I haven't heard of any of the released data being worthy of prosecution for treason or something smaller like breaking confidentially. The source of the leaks is in the right as far as I know.

Getting unauthorised access to a computer system and obtaining private data is a criminal offence in the USA, AFAIK. And I feel like we established back in the 1970s that committing criminal acts in order to obtain intelligence on a political party was a big fucking deal.

Although there are also reasons that an FSB operative would not want to run the story. For example: Russia's security and economic stability, just like almost every other country, rely on the USA being headed by somebody who is not a complete apolitical dumbass. Even if the US government didn't want anything to do with Russia, Russia is still pretty much under the thumb of European economic interests, countries generally closely allied and influenced by the USA.

...do I need to talk about Russia's (and WL's) involvement in current EU politics?

Clinton would be a far more stable and predictable advocate of status-quo business interests than Trump.

In general, yes. But when you're thinking about Russian politics, think petrochemicals.

Russia's oligarchs have a huge amount of money tied up in fossil fuels. Any effective climate-change response requires acknowledging that we can't afford to burn everything that's extractable. A US president who views climate change as a myth buys them at least four years of inaction, which is worth a fortune.

It was still a very silly move to be so light on the 'Rust Belt' region since that's an area stacked with disenfranchised voters. I guess they just saw that it was a Democratic stronghold in 08 and 12 and arrogantly assumed they had it locked.

On this (and much else): what Netzach said.

 

[Nezhul]

You also seem to miss the fact that by criminalizing alcohol, and forcing it into illegal enterprises, that lots of money was made that was not taxed (robbing the government and its citizens of income), and lives were lost by people needing to cover their now illegal activities. Also. Alcohol and those who consumed it were deemed to be immoral. So there was a moral judgment on the activity not unlike the moral judgment against those who consume pornography (even in doses that do not interfere with work or home life)

And, just as now - the people who were most likely to go to jail were the people at the lowest income levels, not necessarily those who were most egregious in their use of alcohol. People of means continued to be able to obtain and consume alcohol without fear of being jailed.

No, I'm just saying that the government can install any permanent or temporary regulations that they see fit. If you strongly disagree with those regulations - initiate an impeachment, or have an open referendum - any citizen can initiate those things, provided he makes effort. It's another thing that un-banning alcohol would probably be hard, because a lot of people will support the ban, and not the addicts.

Anyway, when the regulations are in place, the government has full right to jail anyone for breaking them or punish them otherwise. And this doesn't meant the punishment needs to be undone when the regulations are lifted.

I'm not discussing pros and cons of banning alcohol here, and how many lives it took (and how many lives it saved), how many untaxed dirty money it generated (and how many money did it generate through increasing workers productivity).

I'm just saying. The government CAN do regulations, that's what they DO. And they CAN punish people for disobedience, that's what they do to keep public safety.

They are not "wrong".

and lives were lost by people needing to cover their now illegal activities.

You are looking at a problem from only one perspective. "Lives were lost because of the ban." True. In fact, any and every change will result in lives lost for SOME reason.
The real question is, how many lives are lost because of alcohol addiction anually? How many families are ruined? How many fires are started by drunkards, that would be otherwise sober if not for availability of alcohol? How many car crashes happen because of intoxicated drivers? If you add here the health issues that result from drinking and shorten people's lives, the jobs / houses lost because of being drunk, all the poor decisions made - I would argue that the green snake in itself is more scary than the ban.
Lives are always lost. I'm too lazy to try and pull up numbers and compare how many. I would just say that I think that lives lost because of the ban figure is dwarfed by the numbers of lives lost because of alcohol availability.

 

[Primalex]

No, I'm just saying that the government can install any permanent or temporary regulations that they see fit.

Yes. And some might violate the Constitution and some might not.

And 2+2=4.

Any more fascinating facts?

If you strongly disagree with those regulations - initiate an impeachment

You cannot initiate an impeachment because you disagree. An impeachment requires an offense in office. The impeachment of Clinton was not because people disagreed with having blowjobs in the oval office, but because of the intentional swearing of a false oath in office.

Anyway, when the regulations are in place, the government has full right to jail anyone for breaking them or punish them otherwise. And this doesn't meant the punishment needs to be undone when the regulations are lifted.

You are stating the current facts but fail to see that this is a decision made by humans to handle it this way. Of course it would be completely possible to create a judicial system where such punishments have to be undone.

The real question is, how many lives are lost because of alcohol addiction anually?

The real question is what the price for freedom is. How about a nationwide curfew order to reduce the number of deaths at night? The government is never wrong, so let's go for it.

This is not a discussion about facts from an encyclopedia, this is a discussion about morals.


Dumbfuck.

 

[tryn2Bgood]

long post . . . sorry

Initially I was not going to participate in this thread because I thought it was about porn in politics, which I will admit to knowing little to nothing about. I checked it out anyway . . . Maybe I could learn something. But as I read through the thread, I noticed most of the posts were pertaining to women and their reactions to strange men approaching them (amoung other things) and I felt like I should add a few comments.

A few details about myself that may or may not lend relevance to what I am about to share: I am a woman over 40. College educated. Published author (I have a book coming out next spring - fiction based on real events. 100% of the proceeds will go to domestic violence charities) I do volunteer counseling at a crisis center. I own my own business, but have also done contract work for the government. (Almost my entire family works for the gov) I have written training manuals and given presentations for businesses on such matters as workplace conduct and sexual harassment. I have traveled a lot, mostly eastern half of the US. That being said:

Regarding posts by Nezhul: There is very little I disagree with. But I would like to correct one particular opinion where he shared a comment with Meekme apologizing for any ordeal that she may have gone through, but doubted that most women have had anything like that happen to them. In fact, the complete opposite of that is true.

Not all, but, ALMOST all, of the women I know personally have experienced some form of sexual abuse by someone very close to them (step-parents or the equivalent, distant relatives, teachers, very close friends of the family, close coworkers, boyfriend/girlfriend, etc) Women AND men have been victims to such crimes. But it is more prevalent with women because they are the 'weaker sex' - more easily overpowered.

Most sexual crimes are committed by people who are close to the victim. Many more than sexual crimes reported by strangers. There are a number of reasons for this, and to explain them all would take too much of this post. Also, most of these crimes go unreported. Again, too many reasons to list.

However, MOST of the women I know from these situations lead perfectly happy and healthy lives. Yes, there are always lingering effects of such trama, but we learn how to successfully manage them. That being said, many survivors have a much harder time trusting people they get close to, rather than a stranger. (Strangers we can keep at arms length; people close to us have the potential to hurt us.)

Also note that statistics are bullshit. The data is rarely accurate. Polling pools are censured. Research data is incomplete. Hundreds of factors influence the results. And most basically, people lie. So, my observations are based on personal experiences and interactions.

Now, regarding the topic of women being approached by strange men on the street: EVERYONE should be cautious around strangers or in unfamiliar situations or places. Normal precautions should always be taken. I would advise everyone to participate in a self defence course and educate themselves on reducing the risks of being targeted. Empower yourself with the skills and knowledge learned! But, it is equally important not to live in fear of those things!

As far as women being 'freaked out' by being approached by strange men, I have not found that to be a problem at all. Yes, there are some instances where a guy creeps you out. You are probably correct to avoid those people. Your intuition usually guides you in the right direction.

I have been approached by, literally, over a thousand men. I have had some negative experiences (The guy was outright crude in his comments, some were too straight forward, some awkward, some left me feeling a little uneasy) but I have never been attached by a stranger. I'm not saying it doesn't happen in this world. Obviously, it does. But, in general, everyday life is not that dangerous. (At least not the part of the world I live in) I don't presume to know how everyone in the world feels. But, I , and the women I know, do not have a problem with strange men approaching them. Of course, it does depend on the situation and the manner in which you are approached.

Also, I noticed some comments about being offended when a strange man tells you that you are beautiful, pretty, etc. Why would that offend you? Because they don't know you? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right? Most of the time it is just meant as a compliment. But, be offended if you want to, I guess.

Some personal examples below:

Strange man approaches me while I'm pumping gas. (Happens a lot) he wants to borrow money? I make an excuse and they leave. Different guy wants my phone number? I say: "Sorry, but I'm already taken". He says, "Too bad", and leaves. Different guy says,"Hey, don't I know you from somewhere? What's your name?". I say, "No, sorry. Don't think so". He persists, "No, I'm sure we've met before." I respond, "Yeah, I get that a lot, but I'm sure we havent. Sorry." Most guys realize they're wasting their efforts and leave nicely.

I'm in line at Starbucks. An attractive man behind me says,"Has anyone ever told you how beautiful you are?"
Assessment: He appears to be a nice guy giving me a compliment
Response: "All the time. Thank you." I smile and move forward to place my order. He chuckles but does not pursue it any further. No harm done.

I approach the counter at an easy order restaurant and ask the guy for a refill of ice water. He says, "Sure, anything for a pretty girl like you." Assessment: The guy is an idiot. It's an inappropriate comment because he is at work and me being 'pretty' or not should have no bearing on whether I get my cup of water. Reaction: I stare at him with that look and wait patiently for my water.

I'm in my car at a stoplight. Guy next to me smiles, rolls his window down and asks for my phone number. Assessment: The guy is 'really fucking hot'. He's giving off good and confident vibes. I'm interested. Response: I give him my phone number. (Maybe not the smartest thing to do, but when he called me, we met up at a public place during the day. Several of my friends had the details of where I would be; I called them if there were any changes in plans. We had several dates like this before moving forward. We ended up dating for about 8 months.)

Strange guy approaches me on the street. He's eyefucking me, liking his lips while asking me out. Assessment: The guy's a dick and just looking to get laid. Response: I decline with a quick 'no thanks', head into the nearest store and wait until he leaves before I do.

I've also met a few guys at the park. Their football lands near the blanket I'm reading on. They strike up a conversation. We meet a a bar later on for drinks, along with a few of my own friends. We have a fun time socializing, but that's it. My point is: Every situation calls for a quick assessment and response. Some people are worth getting to know. Everyone is a stranger until you get to know them. Stay within your comfort zone, but don't fear everyone because bad things CAN happen at any point in our lives. (Doesn't mean they're destined to though.) And I would be much more inclined to date a stranger I met on the street before I would ever meet up with someone I met online.

As for the views on politics that were mentioned: I have to agree with most of Nezhul's responses. There is A LOT of corruption in government. Which highly contributes to the reasons Trump won the election. The public will NEVER have all the information the government does, thus are unable to fully understand why certain decisions are made. That's not to say we shouldn't try to stay informed and always stand up for the rights you are willing to fight for.

Regarding the people who have been fired for watching porn at work: They're fucking stupid and deserved it! As do the people watching videos of cute cats or playing Angry Birds. It's called work for a reason.

And . . .Bramblethorn does seem like she likes to argue with Nezhul. But the lesson on grammer and punctuation wasn't needed. I think you misread his comment. Clearly, he understands how to use a comma.

Okay, that's it. Hate me and disect my post if you kike. Your opinion count too ☺

 

[Bramblethorn]

And . . .Bramblethorn does seem like she likes to argue with Nezhul.

Not at all.

I feel obligated to challenge certain things that I consider harmful. Doesn't mean I enjoy doing so.

If I did, I wouldn't have quoted him $100/hour to continue the conversation

 

[Nezhul]

Dumbfuck.

Don't be hard on yourself. I'm sure you are not fully deserve such a signature to your post.

tryn2Bgood
That's exactly the kind of experience that I've had with approaching women. Many brush you off. Many you can see just don't find you interesting or are taken. Some will give you a phone number.

But I've never actually saw someone freaked out by me.

I don't know if it's the part of the word that matters, or is it just so happened that women who responded here think otherwise... But I can relate and understand your post more than theirs.

And . . .Bramblethorn does seem like she likes to argue with Nezhul.

He likes to prove he's right. Likes to have the last word and "win" an argument. The support from other women in this thread of his opinion gives him the justification to be a dick about it. That's all.

 

[Netzach]

Thing is though, the government was never "wrong" on that one. They banned alcohol, temporarily. They didn't say it was always and forever wrong, they just banned it consumption. They were not wrong when putting those who broke the ban into prison.

To be fair the result allowed US economy to stabilize, because while there were people who found their way around, a lot of other people suddenly started coming to work sober.

But the example is not very correct though, because porn does not hinder economy and doesn't make people to be less effective workers, as alcohol does. You probably never had the enjoyment to deal with a drunkard coming to work and trying to execute it in any form.

They poisoned people with wood alcohol, possibly thousands, even, and then tried to cover it up and ignore it.

Still gonna go with "everything legal is moral?"

But I can see your grip on US macroecon of the 20's is a little shaky if "people stopped showing up at work drunk so the economy got terrific" is your foundation, so maybe your ethics are about the same.

 

[MeekMe]

Prohibition caused more harm than good. It forced people in the alcohol business to either find lower paying work or become criminals by continuing their profession. It created a mass network of corruption and didn't actually stop people from the production, sale and consumption of alcohol. Because everyone was still drinking the law became something to disrespect, and it still had a negative impact on the lives of people thrown in jail. On top of that some people died or suffered long lasting health conditions (as Netzach mentioned) and the country developed a rather unhealthy relationship with drinking (cue the binge drinking!). About all prohibition did was take a chunk of the economy and set it on fire.

 

[cascadiabound]

They poisoned people with wood alcohol, possibly thousands, even, and then tried to cover it up and ignore it.

Still gonna go with "everything legal is moral?"

But I can see your grip on US macroecon of the 20's is a little shaky if "people stopped showing up at work drunk so the economy got terrific" is your foundation, so maybe your ethics are about the same.

Prohibition caused more harm than good. It forced people in the alcohol business to either find lower paying work or become criminals by continuing their profession. It created a mass network of corruption and didn't actually stop people from the production, sale and consumption of alcohol. Because everyone was still drinking the law became something to disrespect, and it still had a negative impact on the lives of people thrown in jail. On top of that some people died or suffered long lasting health conditions (as Netzach mentioned) and the country developed a rather unhealthy relationship with drinking (cue the binge drinking!). About all prohibition did was take a chunk of the economy and set it on fire.

Thank you...This is essentially what I was getting at earlier.