Total posts: 2,831
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
There's a difference between immodesty and indecent exposure.
Its not like the boys control themselves
Actually, you can just not rape someone. It's not difficult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Children of either gender should probably dress properly. I find it worrying how many minors are posting themselves half naked on social media, when they're way too young to understand the long-term consequences of that decision. When it comes to adults though, a woman who dresses immodestly knows that it may increase the chances of rape (though I'm not sure it actually does) and is willing to accept that risk. That's not to say the victim is responsible for rape, it's simply acknowledging that some factors may increase the chances of being assaulted. I say "may," because I'm not sure the data is actually there to show it makes a difference.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
According to Catholic teaching, or strict Arminianism, yes. Some Protestants would probably say that being saved makes you the kind of person who wouldn't give up salvation and that free will occurs in the decision to be saved. Calvinists believe you can't lose salvation, but they don't believe in free will in that regard.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Don't worry. Kaitlyn has plenty of opinions more absurd than that.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I think the post was meant to be sarcastic.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
It's a joke. You know, because the topic is education?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Blacks such at education.
*suck
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Agree to disagree
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So far I've listed 13 more examples than you have.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
"Most famous," then. Instead of arguing about what qualifies as "big," perhaps we should agree that hypocrites can be cherry-picked from either party.
Created:
If they were American citizens it’s their duty to object, protest, and make their voices heard.
How does that have anything to do with whether FDR was a hypocrite?
And they do.
One of their biggest donors didn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
just wanted to ban porn without dealing with 1st amendment challenges
Well that's what the Supreme Court is for. I think my proposal is much more reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It required uploading an ID every time the site is visited. I don't think the law was very practical. PH wanted to identify users once and greenlight devices, which I think is reasonable.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Forgot to tag you
Created:
You haven’t demonstrated any credible examples.
I can repaste the definition of hypocrisy if you want.
I noticed you did not respond to what your parents and grandparents did to protest the internment camps.
Because it had nothing to do with whether FDR was a hypocrite.
Epstein has donated $147,426 to various Democrats and $18,250 to Republicans
So he donated 8x more to Democrats. This especially hurts your overly broad claim that "Republican hypocrisy never ends!" because you are holding the parties to a different standard. If neither party is clean, that proves my point.
How is this an example of hypocrisy?
The Democratic party claims to support children.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Christians are split on this, and it largely depends on what you mean by "forgive." Human forgiveness is not always the same as God's forgiveness. Forgiveness might require acceptance by the offender by definition, or it could simply mean no longer holding the offense against that person. I would say to forgive to the extent that it is in your power, but do not expect that the offender will necessarily accept it. We cannot always determine if repentance is genuine, but repentance of the offender is not something we can control anyway.
As we forgive those who trespass against us
I would default to being generous in forgiveness, since it will determine whether we are forgiven. Better to forgive too much than too little.
Created:
I’m sure he donated to both parties.
Strong feelings are known to be reliable evidence.
And you can’t compare donating to a party to the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House who molested teenaged boys.
Actually, I don't need your permission to compare two things.
What is the hypocrisy exactly?
Maybe FDR claiming to support freedom in WW2 while locking up Japanese people?
Recall that you said: "Republican hypocrisy never ends!" I then provided 13 links with examples of hypocrisy from the Democratic party.
hy·poc·ri·sythe practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense
You don't seem to hold Democrats and Republicans to the same standard here, which seems, dare I say it, hypocritical.
Created:
Posted in:
Not much of a risk
A lot of people will assume it is a risk. People are very hesitant to break the law. The fact is that the police do find new ways to catch criminals. I'm arguing that human error will help criminals get caught, not necessarily flawed technology. So far, the perception of the FBI's ability to find criminals has discouraged a lot of would-be criminals. I think the FBI can adapt as much as the criminals can. It seems you would be arguing that eventually, it will be impossible for the police to find anyone who produces CP. I doubt they're going to let that happen.
why did the Utah law drive them out
The Utah law required age verification and did not provide a good way of doing that. You linked to a new verification system that PH is currently using to prove that uploaded content is consensual. That's pretty much my proposal. That other companies are forced to do what PH is currently doing with regards to verification.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This would NOT be an example of hypocrisy dummy.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You have something better than a haircut?
Internment camps. Judging by your username, you seem to be a fan. Aside from that, I posted 12 separate links in my original response.
Any child molesters like Denny Hastert?
Jeffery Epstein was a major Democratic donor.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
"Republican hypocrisy never ends!" is the assertion we are discussing. Perhaps you shouldn't have made such a broad claim. I will simply refer you to the fallacy you are committing in changing your position to something else.
I will be happy to repost all of the links I gave you listing examples of hypocrisy by Democratic politicians. I'm sure Greyparrot will as well.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Created:
Posted in:
Illegal but unstoppable doesn't mean much
It does if people don't want to risk being arrested.
Sounds an awful lot like your suggestion, and it was two years ago
So you've just linked to something proving my plan works? This proves my point that companies will cooperate if forced to. But PH is not the only adult entertainment company, and I'm not sure we can rely on their goodwill to continue the policy indefinitely. Things change when laws aren't explicit. I'd be in favor of making the law clearer in this regard, and I don't think it's beating a dead horse.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
One example?
female Democrat who was a pro- life hooker and had two abortions
That's an oddly narrow definition of hypocrisy.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I assume that if I can provide one example of a Democratic politician being hypocritical, you would say "Democratic hypocrisy never ends!" Right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
hosting American content from Brazil
No, because American content hosted from Brazil would be illegal if not verified. PH will host verified content as well in order to not cut out a huge market.
What happens when that distributor leaks a database or simply sells your info for blackmailers?
I'm pretty sure porn isn't anonymous.
Created:
Posted in:
pornhub moves its servers to Brazil
That seems to be the crux of your argument, but why would they do that when plenty of people in the US can still legally upload? Is no one going to serve the US market?
Created:
Posted in:
Are you talking about a license to view as well as upload
No, just to upload. But you could only legally watch explicit content that's licensed.
When the FBI gets someone, it's because that someone made a tactical error
Human error is so common that it's practically inevitable. That's why scammers get caught. The FBI is very good at latching onto a single error in order to take down a large network of criminal activity.
I think you're misunderstanding my main point. Illicit content will still exist, but it will be easier to identify, and law-abiding citizens won't watch it unintentionally, hence reducing demand and protecting the privacy of human trafficking victims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
True, but that's the Nigerian government's fault
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
once the government goes too far
That's the point. They're not going too far. If a license is easy to get, the vast majority of people won't go outside the law to view illicit content. Why risk getting caught?
with the right crypto technology no one can stop or trace
I don't think anyone has better tech resources than the FBI. Every time scammers think they're one step ahead of the US government, they're not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If users can find illicit content, so can the police. And most law-abiding citizens would choose to watch legal content over illegal content, so it ensures people don't watch nonconsensual content accidentally.
totally anonymous internet
Tell that to Jared Fogle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In terms of legality, I don't think my proposal would have trouble getting passed. In terms of principle, I think preventing human trafficking is a good thing, and the reduction in liberty is minimal. If you're the kind of libertarian who opposes driver's licenses, you might have a problem with my plan in principle, but practically speaking, it's a good law.
Created:
Posted in:
it isn't illegal to upload non-child porn until it's proved to be non-child porn
I get what you're saying with regards to burden of proof—under my system, a permit is required for everyone whereas under the status quo anything without a permit is presumed to be legal. However, I don't think that's an issue with regards to constitutionality. With most other rights, even constitutional ones, it's usually considered reasonable for the government to require some sort of inspection to make sure actions fall within the purview of the law (voter ID, to give another example). Requiring a permit to exercise a particular constitutional right isn't unwarranted if anyone wanting to exercise that right can get a permit.
obscenity wasn't protected... JK
Actually, you're right. By legal precedent, that's a bad example due to possible sexual interpretation, but just apply to other sorts of demonstrations for other political causes.
of extremely questionable constitutionality
Most courts have historically ruled them as constitutional, so that shouldn't be an issue for my proposal. Courts give a lot of discretion if a right isn't outright banned, so they will probably favor me here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
the government should control content
Nonconsensual pornographic videos of human trafficking victims are not protected by the first amendment. Neither is any kind of obscenity, actually, but I'm willing to set that point aside in favor of a moral argument. My policy allows any consensual video to be filmed but ensures the content is not illicit. Similar to laws regarding child porn. It's like gay pride parades—they're protected by the first amendment, but you have to go through the proper channels to organize them. Also comparable to gun permits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
to controll free speach
I want them to prevent human trafficking, which is not protected by the first amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
In order to upload content you'd need a government approved license and photo ID based on signing something in person at a government office. That's one way.
Created:
Posted in:
Morally? Porn is bad for society. In addition to the age requirement issues the law is meant to address, there's so much human trafficking that's connected to it, and I don't think it's properly regulated. There's no way to tell the difference between consensually uploaded and nonconsensually uploaded content. Less people watching porn, just because it's difficult to access, is probably a net gain, even if the decline is somewhat mitigated by VPN use. I don't think porn should be illegal if properly regulated, because of freedom of expression, but we have no reason to believe the government is properly avoiding the human trafficking issue right now or really has any idea how much of an issue it is. That's quite worrying. Prostitution is banned in most places, but it seems easier to regulate than porn, at least. Something distributed on the internet is harder to track. It's also not great that 8 year olds have easy access to something that may be harmful and highly addictive—and even if it doesn't meet the scientific bar for "addiction", heavy porn use certainly functions very similarly to addiction in many ways.
Legally? The law is poorly written and doesn't address the main issues with the current system, although it probably weakens the porn industry, which is a net gain for society. It's a bad precedent though with regard to freedom of speech since it sets an unreasonable standard for proving the age of the viewer when lesser regulations would probably suffice. And there's also freedom of expression to consider, since the majority of content being restricted is probably being viewed by adults and not from human trafficking.
There's more explicit content online than anyone could watch in 10 lifetimes. Supply isn't much of an issue. As such, I think the government would be justified in heavily limiting the production of new content to be certain it's not obtained illegally.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Circumcision doesn't apply biblically anymore. Same with most of the Old Covenant, and Best.Korea is a Christian.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Some may think you're making an argument for sacrificing more freedom. In my opinion you're making an excellent argument for the inverse.
I could see this used as an argument for either. Whether the ends do justify the means is a complex question, but it's clear that intuition is inconsistent and not always reliable.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Whereas one will/might judge a policy with consideration to possible outcomes.
Judging something based on outcomes is still utilitarianism. Most people judge hypothetical proposals based on principle, even if the outcome is essentially certain.
Created:
-->
@b9_ntt
Not sure what you mean here. There were riots against the draft during the Civil War.
Few people today argue that it was unjustified, even though many were against it at the time. The difference in how we judge things retroactively is precisely my point.
Created:
If you ask most people whether they support having a universal DNA database, they will say “no,” even though such a system is likely to reduce crime. People rarely judge hypothetical government policies on the basis of utilitarianism, and they often have a strong bias toward the status quo. Yet I think that if a universal DNA database were to be implemented, it would eventually gain broad support. We accept all sorts of government programs that violate greater freedoms for lesser results. Any attempts to repeal this program would likely be met with scorn.
Now, why do I think this? Well, if you'd asked people ten years ago if people should be forced to wear masks or social distance in the event of a global pandemic with a relatively low death rate, I think that almost everyone would say no. Similarly, if you'd asked most people 400 years ago if the US government should implement the amount of taxation we have today, most of them would oppose it. When asked about a hypothetical government policy, almost everyone seems to think that the ends don't justify the means.
Take the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an example. If such a decision were being considered today, it would be extremely controversial, even if it was guaranteed to prevent a greater loss of life later on. People would be horrified at the prospect of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Yet when these actions are judged retroactively, I've never heard anyone on either side advocate for a moral framework other than utilitarianism. Even those opposed to the bombings argue that they were unnecessary, not that killing some people to save a greater number is unjustified. Everyone seems to agree that if the bombings of these two cities was necessary to prevent a greater loss of life, then they were justified. Similarly, a draft order today would be very controversial, but no one seems to oppose the Civil War conscription order or any draft order that was historically successful in helping achieve some desirable outcome.
You've probably heard the phrase “Nothing is as permanent as a temporary government program.” Once high taxes and social distancing policies were implemented, no one was willing to accept the costs of removing these programs. It would likely be the same with any other sort of program that achieved a net benefit, so long as the benefits were very easy to observe.
So which standard should we use? Do the ends justify the means? I'm not sure that they always do or always don't, but I find it interesting that people judge policies retroactively by a different standard than they judge policy proposals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
You've changed your argument from causation to mere correlation, so my argument here doesn't apply anymore.
No, it's causation with low elasticity.
U.S. public opinion actually negatively correlates with U.S. policy
Um, no. Policy positively correlates with the interests of the wealthy, but people voting for a law does not make that law less likely to get passed. People don't support rape, and rape is illegal, to give one example.
You also still haven't addressed how race is a better predictor of poverty than crime
I gave the most likely explanations for why race correlates with crime. You seem to be arguing for a "criminal gene" for which there's no evidence (essentially, God of the gaps). The factors I listed are known to be the strongest predictors of crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Quality > quantity, imo. Better to have an in-depth discussion with one opponent than repeat the same arguments multiple times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
If you're going to argue with every person who posts here, you'd be better off just instigating a formal debate.
Created:
Posted in:
I fixed the links almost 10 minutes before you responded; see my more recent post.
If fatherlessness (and poverty) is "statistically prominent" in their communities, that would be evidence against your bare assertion
You're going to have to explain this better—I'm not sure why crimes being committed by a small number of people means that fatherlessness can't correlate with higher crime. Did you think I was saying that literally every child who grows up without a father becomes a criminal?
Your argument hinges on the reality of police getting less funding, not the mere support of it.
People vote, actually, so the two are correlated.
You can also see that the 0-10 U.S. income percentiles for White people (from the OP) aren't sky high, despite being as poor as the 0-10 Blacks. In fact, none of the divisions had Blacks being as murderous or less murderous than Whites: Blacks were always more murderous.
I didn't drop that. I said, "You only accounted for one of those factors," which is still true. I also never said that these factors explain 100% of the discrepancy, but you seem to be repeating that strawman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Apologize, I copied some of the links wrong and the post doesn't let me edit.
Created:
Posted in:
criminal genes that make them commit more crimes
That escalated quickly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Fatherlessness is a consistent predictor of violence. Poverty is a consistent predictor of crime. Black Americans are more consistently against police funding. You only accounted for one of those factors.
Even if they don't explain the entire discrepancy, they explain a lot of it. Did you want me to give an answer based on statistical evidence or just make something up?
Created:
Posted in:
The causes have been known for quite some time. Homicide correlates strongly with poverty and fatherlessness, both of which are more statistically prominent in black communities. Then there's distrust of police going back to the civil rights era, and decreased police funding leads to higher crime.
Created: