L
La damnee elle la licorne
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
WSJ said: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.”
She literally never stepped foot in Wisconsin for the entire campaign...
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
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!)
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.
Once upon a time, the government tried to ban alcohol. We all know how that turned out.
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.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".
But the example is not very correct though, because porn does not hinder economy and doesn't make people to be less effective workers
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.and lives were lost by people needing to cover their now illegal activities.
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
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.
The real question is, how many lives are lost because of alcohol addiction anually?
And . . .Bramblethorn does seem like she likes to argue with Nezhul.
Don't be hard on yourself. I'm sure you are not fully deserve such a signature to your post.Dumbfuck.
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.And . . .Bramblethorn does seem like she likes to argue with Nezhul.
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.
Thank you...This is essentially what I was getting at earlier.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.