ParanoiA

And no one has suggested any as far as I can tell. The link above on video games has to do with a school hosting an event that involves an M rated game - or rather keeping the event out of the school. I see no first amendment infringement there, any more than not allowing cussing in school. I wholeheartedly agree.

Well you know...I was listening to the radio tonight waiting on my kids and stumbled across some woman who called into the radio station and was on a roll laying this whole thing out. She made the point that there are black people speaking out about this - something about Al Sharpton and a coordinated, voluntary 90 day ban on rap music? She mentioned several community gatherings and such that Sharpton and Jackson get invovled in, focused on rap music and the culture that's taking over the youth. Anyway, her point was that the media doesn't report this stuff. In the same way they don't report missing black girls nationally, just cute white ones. I have to agree with that, or at least it's plausible given the double standard with the press. I hope that's true, and we'll start seeing more of it.

Nicely put. That's my only beef with my employer really. They're blocking the opportunity to move with the technology.

That is quite bizzare and I guess that latest development was why I heard something on the radio about it. I'm actually kind of impressed. I'm having a hard time mustering up any sympathy for them though. Sex crimes are murder. Whoever the victim was, before the attack, is dead and gone.

Yeah, I've never heard of that either. How depressing...

Excuse my ignorance, but what is whitied?

Great points ecoli. I don't have any background on Imus, so I don't know what he's done good or bad in his career. I know that this one incident is retarded and overblown for little more than drama's sake. Really people. Of all the problems with racism and so forth you really expect us to believe this is how you fix it? Calling out people who make a "mistake" and letting the real racists continue unabated. Like the KKK, black panthers, Islamic terrorism, snoop dog...

Well, I won't waste any more web space repeating myself. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it all comes down to the fact that I simply choose to err on the side of personal freedom whereas you choose to err on the side of personal safety. That's a fundamental thing that I doubt we're going to resolve on this thread. Funny though, I'll bet we'd have a great time toking and joking...

There's nothing racial about it though, other than the lame attempt at using language he isn't familiar enough with to be using. Keep in mind though, I'm a big believer in what offends you is usually your problem. They've debased far more than black women. The anti-intellectual prison culture embraced by rappers and the youth that look up to them is the bigger problem. No streching necessary. Actually, the point wasn't in each separate sentence that you commented on, it's the whole paragraph. Bad ass may sound negative when you analyze the words independent of pop culture or societal norms. However, when you are more than familiar with its usage - like we are - it's a positive statement. I've seen "bitch" become a term of endearment. Women wearing shirts that brag about being the biggest bitch and so on. Females, particularly younger ones, are quite taken by this culture as well. They don't seem to have too many issues with being referred to as bitch or ho - desensitization I guess. That's the only point I'm making. To an old white guy, none of this makes any sense - so when that same old white guy tries to use it (ie..trying to be relevant to the youth) he screws up. Slip of the tongue doesn't mean he harbors misogynistic views. Although he may, I'm just saying this one incident doesn't. However, I don't run around using these terms because I don't really understand and don't entirely agree with it. Ok, that's really great but I hardly see the point in hanging white dudes that slip up ever now and then while those who make money off of doing 24/7 get a free pass. Snoop is far worse than Imus. Oh come on. You haven't heard the classic "That's miss bitch to you" in response to being called one? You don't have to agree with the positive to recognize that others see it that way. And you're being a little stuffy about it too. My wife has half-jokingly called herself my bitch. She gets all my respect and has plenty of respect for herself - but not so much we can't loosen up a little. True, but my point was that Imus is the cause of it and has effected it, when he should have had nothing to do with it at all. Anyone who uses it to redirect attention to themselves and relive the 60's and wallow in victimhood. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton. They've done good things in the past, but their need has diminished and like all activists, they don't know when to stop. They're pefectly content in keeping the country divided and constantly overreacting to make themselves relevant.

yeah me neither. To me that falls under the laws that drive them. That's not a law now, so why would it suddenly become a law when we get all techy with cameras? If you're saying that with this technology, the human psyche and the politics that follow will be more oppressive and invasive, I'd like to see the connection. You know, I hadn't thought of that. Good point. Might be nice to have all of that tracking going on when you have no alibi yourself. I will, however, entertain Haezed's hesitation in that I worry about faulty technology as well. Fact is, computers can do funny things sometimes - things we told them to do - and we can't figure out why. I could easily see a computer gliche causing false imprisonment and so forth, and no one considering it plausible since "computers don't make mistakes". Arrogant computer techs could perpetuate that as well.

I'm suggesting a balance between freedom and personal responsibility. Yes people make crap choices - but that's subjective. Real freedom means accepting the fact that people are free to be stupid and make crap choices. Otherwise you're cherry picking freedom. For some, freedom means living dangerously. For some, life is about risk, a little or a lot - who are you to deny me that? Who are you to judge me and decide I'm not allowed to risk my life a little? Who said life is supposed to be smooth sailing and risk-free for all? What a boring world that would be. That's why I keep using mountain climbing and parachuting as examples. These things aren't needed - they are desired. And participants usually refer to the thrill and risk involved - it gives them the joy they're looking for in life. Drugs are similar in that we know there is risk in using, but we'd rather risk and enjoy the experience than to play it safe and dull. I don't force you to take risk, so why do you feel justified in forcing me not to take a risk? Not sure I agree. The reason we, as parents, forbid our children from such things is because we are shaping them as we want. They aren't old enough to be accountable for their own actions either, in terms of punishment. No, we don't believe they can make as good of decisions as adults, but it's more about "mental capacity" in my mind. If you aren't of the mental capacity to to fairly judge risk in your life, then we have an obligation to stop you. As a society we have agreed that magically at 18 years old, you suddenly have the mental capacity to be responsible for your own actions and held accountable. Then why isn't sugar and starch banned or controlled? My country has demonstrated total stupidity to the point that drugs are the least of our problems. We are the most obese nation. Everyone is over weight. I walk around passing people like a car weaving through slow traffic, because they're mostly fat and slow with no intention of exercising or correcting their lifestyle. This is the epidome of stupidity. But, hey, it's not a drug so it doesn't count?

Yes! Which is exactly why I keep reiterating that their governments didn't have any problems doing business with us. If they have a problem with it - they should take it up with thier government! Quit selling out to America!! I don't go bomb britain because I don't like the business america does with them. That's asinine! That's also a result of redirecting the problem via class envy. As for the rest, I'll have to read that for myself and comment later. I sense a lot of spin in that recital of yours. Somehow, I'm betting there's more to the story than what you've shared. Yeah, I gave it a quick look over again and I forgot how they get all fluffy about how America's Leadership is good for america and the world - WTF? I don't want to lead nothing. In fact, I'd like to go back to isolationism, back when Europe was giving us shit for NOT getting involved. Maybe they'll remember all this and not ask us anymore - haha! But anyway, I agree. It does smack of imperialism disguised as "leadership". I love how they throw that word around trying to soften the verbiage. I just like the whole military spending and development thing. I think it's important to be the strongest militarily - with the intention of never using it.

Yeah, I guess I lost my way. I don't think drugs themselves is a black and white issue, I just think that their legality is. Realistically, drugs cause a lot of problems. It's certainly the last thing our kids need to dive into at adolescence. I know a handful of people that have lost their life to meth. I don't mean death in the traditional sense, I mean dead people walking. So, it's not like I don't recognize issues with drugs. And in that sense, they most certainly aren't victimless. In a legal sense though, they are. And that's where it is a black and white issue to me. I agree, when it's a clear danger. So far, the main scenarios involving drugs and danger is related to their illegality. I realize someone on LSD next door might make you wonder about your safety - but how many reports do we get on LSD nuts hurting people? Alcohol on the other hand...oh my...

No, you're not getting what I'm saying. You said we NEED controls - and I'm saying but it's NOT being controlled and the sky ISN'T falling. So how bad then do we really need controls? My whole point is that the things you are concerned about don't change whether it's legal or not. The things that do change upon legalization, improve things. A parachuter or hang glider can be a liability to me. The millions of cars on the road are a liability to me. Do I really need to go on here? All of us are free to do crap that has the potential to hurt everyone else. That's not realistic, to me.

The US is being attacked by Zimbabwe? I think you ought to read my quote again or something because I'm not putting 2 and 2 together here...

But you realize, despite all you've said, these drugs are available everywhere. Illegal as hell and a thriving black market - which is where the shooting, gangs and violence is located. If we got rid of the drug dealers and violence associated with drug use, by restoring personal freedom, then you have a better off society - a safer society. Right now the drug war is a joke. You're not controlling anything. All of these drugs are quite lumped together and being used at peak levels. Your scenario is in motion right now. Legalizing these things changes very little in that regard. The same addicts as before. The big change happens up high. No matter how the black market gets around the law, no company can set up shop and just start making recreational drugs. When you legalize these things, that's the part that changes. Law abiding, regulated capitalists make the drugs and put the black market to shame. There goes your violent drug dealers.

Careful how you phrase that. Maybe I need to read it again, it's been awhile since I've looked it over, but I thought the global military domination was about equipment and technology - not physcially going out and dominating the globe. The funny thing about PNAC is it feeds more conspiratorial minds than anyone else. It doesn't really say anything that you wouldn't expect. Of course we want to be the biggest, baddest country on earth forever and ever - duh..who doesn't? Of course we need to deal with NK, Iran, Syria and so forth. There's nothing revolutionary in it's context. It's just a basic plan, open for all to see, to remain a superpower and limit the possibilities of war. You may disagree, but there's nothing freaky about it.

But we already know this. There's nothing incriminating here. Most countries fight to protect their "monetary" and "material" assets, no matter where they are, if they can. You're anti-capitalist, but you're still materialistic. Your country has to be if it's going to do business with the world. You also war for profit. See, you read that paragraph and focus on "business this" and "profit that" and "companies there" - but I read that paragraph and focus on the fact that those businesses and companies serve people. People work there. People's lives improve with economic growth. He made things safe for people to work and live. People's lives revolve around resources, and those businesses are resources. I have no shame in profit or capitalism. So, snipets like that don't mean anything. You have to throw in an argument or else we're just going to nod and wait for the next sentence...

I don't want to derail the thread, but we're going through this same mechanization thing here at work. Obviously, when you're on the business end of automation, it sucks. But, I have to admit, advancement is good. My co-workers can't stand my attitude because they just want to be pissed at the big evil corporation (and they are evil) rather than see the sense in automation. Everybody's livelihood gets hit at some point with mechanization and consolidation. Have to move on...

But it would though. I guess I don't see how it wouldn't. I'm thick like that... No, no. Our constitution was written with the intent that our rights do exist naturally. That it's the restriction of these rights that is the necessary evil for a society to function. That's why the legislative method is to open all behavior, and only restrict as necessary. At least originally it was that way. The piece of paper will actually stop them as long as the government remains by the people. The force and will of the people will see it so. That's where rights come from - us.

I don't get how you think this is consistent and can't be argued with. It's not consistent that you can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. You don't get to rape your kids, or kill visitors or any other violation of someone else's rights. We have rights in privacy AND in public. There are rights associated with privacy that protect you on your turf, but that's it - no free for all behavior allowed privately any more than publicly. If I can't transport my stuff from A to B, then that's an infringement on my rights. Rights come from the public / government and are applied to private and public property. I don't see the jurisdiction partition you're trying to use here. When we talk about rights, civil rights, personal freedoms, we're talking public and private. The constitution gaurantees rights everywhere - they don't give the government this grand role of dictating all rights in public and nothing in private. The partition doesn't exist - and shouldn't exist.

I'm already there. I was there before 9/11. Only makes sense to me. Why have laws if you're not willing to enforce them? Cameras don't invade my privacy, as I have no privacy in public. Anything outside of your private space - your home, property - can be littered with cameras and chips as far as I'm concerned. I'm only concerned with the laws that drive them. When I can be detained, indefinitely, under the suspicion of "terrorism", then I have a problem. I have no issues watching my behavior and questioning me if I'm acting oddly. No harm, no foul. When I can be detained solely due to odd behavior, then I have a problem.

This is a great example of what I mean about rights that others don't understand or have an interest in. Notice how Dak has no issues with dictating your wearing a helmet. He believes his judgement of forcing you to wear a helmet is superior and should supercede your judgement of choosing to enjoy the helmet free effects in trade for extra risk. But this isn't consistent. If we're going to outlaw stuff for people's own good - in the name of safety - then why is driving legal? Why is parachuting or flying legal? These things aren't needed - they simply desired. People inherently trade a little risk for the convenience of motorized transport. The reason why is because those who advocate outlawing things, are outlawing things that don't interest themselves. It's easy to say "you have to wear a helmet" when you don't ride a motorcycle or go without a helmet yourself. Smoking bans, anti-drug advocates, fatty foods police - filled with people who don't have a genuine interest themselves - people who don't have to give up anything, or already gave up long ago for other reasons. I completely agree with this. Most want to point out that premiums are figured by pooling everyone together. So, even though that one guy pays more for his insurance, we all pay a little more regardless - due to guys like him that make bad decisions that effect my wallet. But the insurance company isn't the government. They can figure premiums however they want. What if tomorrow they come up with a whole new scheme to figure premiums? What if some companies do and some companies don't? They're not government, so they can't be controlled on how to figure premiums. That would be a business decision left up to them. So, basically, it's not the helmet-less guy's fault that the insurance company wants to pass off his extra costs to everyone else. Their practice, a private practice, shouldn't dictate my freedoms.

I don't get where you got that I'm supporting the present situation in Guantanamo. I've stated in several posts now that I don't agree with letting these people rot. I've also stated the process should be obligated to prove itself and that we have a duty to get those people processed fairly. The west response is basically "give us more time" - to let our wheels go round and round. I have to agree, I wouldn't care much for that answer out of any other country, so I don't think it's right for them to be held all of this time without a chance for the innocent to be found and released. I also said, and this may have seemed like I don't care, that at the end of the day they are still POW's. How is that any different than gathering german prisoners of war and keeping them until after the war is over? Well, the only difference I've found is they're not wearing uniforms, so the innocent CAN be caught in the net. That's why I don't support the present situation in Guantanamo.