[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Okay, what about the nanny law outlawing child pornography?[/quote]
Production or possession?
Real children or computer animated ones?
Would you agree that it is a form of a nanny law? Is there any aspect of the anti child pornography laws that you find legitimate?
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Would you agree that it is a form of a nanny law? Is there any aspect of the anti child pornography laws that you find legitimate?[/quote]
Sure, you cannot fuck children for money since they cannot consent.
Well, you cannot fuck children, period.
I do not consider that a nanny law though.
I have a feeling that this thread is now being watched by the FBI so be careful what you say 
What about owning child porn? How can you argue that this is more harmful than owning illegal drugs? Children are harmed in both. I’d argue that impact that illicit drugs, if legalized (and thus more accessable), would have on children would be just as harmful as child porn. They both have lasting pschological and physical impacts.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
I have a feeling that this thread is now being watched by the FBI so be careful what you say
What about owning child porn? How can you argue that this is more harmful than owning illegal drugs? Children are harmed in both. I’d argue that impact that illicit drugs, if legalized (and thus more accessable), would have on children would be just as harmful as child porn. They both have lasting pschological and physical impacts.[/quote]
oh sort of like alcohol, and tobacco, and being fat, and …
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
I have a feeling that this thread is now being watched by the FBI so be careful what you say
What about owning child porn? How can you argue that this is more harmful than owning illegal drugs? Children are harmed in both. I’d argue that impact that illicit drugs, if legalized (and thus more accessable), would have on children would be just as harmful as child porn. They both have lasting pschological and physical impacts.[/quote]
We had a whole thread on child porn. You might want to look it up.
I do not consider the possession of child pornography as a crime, only as a very disturbing hobby, since it does not hurt anyone.
Maybe that damages the owner of the material, as do drugs, but that is his business and therefore his problem.
I think we’re getting off topic. I believe there are certain moral issues that the government must step in to uphold, murder for example.
Nanny Laws/Taxes are also morally based. Excess smoking taxes (I think) go to pay for anti-smoking adds for children. I think the liberty taken away from smokers is justified in this regard, as cigarrettes are addictive and children are vulnerable.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
I think we’re getting off topic. I believe there are certain moral issues that the government must step in to uphold, murder for example.
Nanny Laws/Taxes are also morally based. Excess smoking taxes (I think) go to pay for anti-smoking adds for children. I think the liberty taken away from smokers is justified in this regard, as cigarrettes are addictive and children are vulnerable.[/quote]
good for you. what would the founding fathers think? what does teh consitution tell us?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
I think we’re getting off topic. I believe there are certain moral issues that the government must step in to uphold, murder for example.
Nanny Laws/Taxes are also morally based. Excess smoking taxes (I think) go to pay for anti-smoking adds for children. I think the liberty taken away from smokers is justified in this regard, as cigarrettes are addictive and children are vulnerable.
good for you. what would the founding fathers think? what does teh consitution tell us?[/quote]
Considering our nation was basically half-built on tobacco farming?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
dhickey wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
I think we’re getting off topic. I believe there are certain moral issues that the government must step in to uphold, murder for example.
Nanny Laws/Taxes are also morally based. Excess smoking taxes (I think) go to pay for anti-smoking adds for children. I think the liberty taken away from smokers is justified in this regard, as cigarrettes are addictive and children are vulnerable.
good for you. what would the founding fathers think? what does teh consitution tell us?
Considering our nation was basically half-built on tobacco farming?[/quote]
good point. especially those from virginia. They didn’t think too much of taxes on their tobacco that equaled the market value of the tobacco itself. 2 pents a lb or bushell or something like that.
The war against taobacco is good indication of how far we have strayed. excellent point.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
I’d argue that the pot smoker does cost you indirectly in that a nation of pot smoking tv watchers do not contribute to the capitalistic ingenuity that this country was founded on.[/quote]
Bullshit.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
I’d argue that the pot smoker does cost you indirectly in that a nation of pot smoking tv watchers do not contribute to the capitalistic ingenuity that this country was founded on.
Bullshit.[/quote]
Well, hmm. Nothing against pot smokers. There’s a lot more to be said about this than I had originally wanted to write like the weakening socio-cultural controls that once were effective at preventing excessive use of substances, laziness, etc, etc. At the time our nation was founded, the country were much stricter socio-cultural controls in place over the excessive and regular use of mind altering substances, largely due to the religious ancestry our nation (US) is based upon. These socio-cultural controls are becoming a less and less effective means to keep people in check. This is a sign of a weakening country. Obviously this has far greater implications than just smoking some herb.
I don’t think that government regulation is the most effective means of prevention in the slightest, so don’t get me wrong. If you want to smoke pot, then smoke it. If you want to steal from investors of your company though, then I have a problem. While one is not as bad as the other, the increased occurence of both are caused by one in the same reasons.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
I think we’re getting off topic. I believe there are certain moral issues that the government must step in to uphold, murder for example.
Nanny Laws/Taxes are also morally based. Excess smoking taxes (I think) go to pay for anti-smoking adds for children. I think the liberty taken away from smokers is justified in this regard, as cigarrettes are addictive and children are vulnerable.
good for you. what would the founding fathers think? what does teh consitution tell us?[/quote]
I don’t think government regulation is a good thing at all, but what do you think our founding fathers would think of the state of our nation? Do you think they’d really have envisioned such a weak set of morals? Don’t you think that what they based the foundation of our country on was a strong set of moral values and the government intervention would not be necessary?
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
I don’t think government regulation is a good thing at all, but what do you think our founding fathers would think of the state of our nation? Do you think they’d really have envisioned such a weak set of morals? Don’t you think that what they based the foundation of our country on was a strong set of moral values and the government intervention would not be necessary?[/quote]
irrelavent. maybe you need to read a bit more about them.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
I don’t think government regulation is a good thing at all, but what do you think our founding fathers would think of the state of our nation? Do you think they’d really have envisioned such a weak set of morals? Don’t you think that what they based the foundation of our country on was a strong set of moral values and the government intervention would not be necessary?
irrelavent. maybe you need to read a bit more about them.[/quote]
Give me something to read and I’ll read it.
Founding father Benjamin Franklin, who was no religious fanatic once stated ?Only a moral and virtuous people are capable of freedom; the more vicious and corrupt a society becomes?the more it has need of masters.?
From WSJ: Barack Obama's Expensive Domestic Agenda Will Cost America's Middle Class - WSJ
“Obama’s 2% Illusion”
President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end “tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans,” and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won’t see their taxes increased by “one single dime.”
…
Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and “the wealthiest 2%.” Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That’s about 7% of all returns; the data aren’t broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% – about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 – paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.
…
But let’s not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let’s go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That’s less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable “dime” of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
dhickey wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
I think we’re getting off topic. I believe there are certain moral issues that the government must step in to uphold, murder for example.
Nanny Laws/Taxes are also morally based. Excess smoking taxes (I think) go to pay for anti-smoking adds for children. I think the liberty taken away from smokers is justified in this regard, as cigarrettes are addictive and children are vulnerable.
good for you. what would the founding fathers think? what does teh consitution tell us?
I don’t think government regulation is a good thing at all, but what do you think our founding fathers would think of the state of our nation? Do you think they’d really have envisioned such a weak set of morals? Don’t you think that what they based the foundation of our country on was a strong set of moral values and the government intervention would not be necessary?[/quote]
Is a strong moral foundation caused by a government are is it slowly eroded by a government that passes one law after another to codify our behavior?
Do you really think that people will learn if government bails every idiot out? Strong mores were the result of times were you suffered because of your mistakes and therefore tended to avoid making them.
Erosion of morals has less to do with government policy and more to do with what is learned in the home. I don’t think the former has the greatest impact on the later either.
Just because times used to be tough, you suppose people were faith abiding/morally strong? It could just as easily be argued that if you used to have to work hard, you’d be more inclined to steal, etc. While that was a problem, it is more of a problem todat when times are easier. Sure the amount of manual labor is less due to advances in technology, but these same advances in technology bring with them new chalenges, not forseen by our forefathers.
Times are changing. Either there needs to be a moral revival or the government must evolve, while limiting intrusion of personal liberties.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Erosion of morals has less to do with government policy and more to do with what is learned in the home. I don’t think the former has the greatest impact on the later either.
Just because times used to be tough, you suppose people were faith abiding/morally strong? It could just as easily be argued that if you used to have to work hard, you’d be more inclined to steal, etc.
While that was a problem, it is more of a problem todat when times are easier. Sure the amount of manual labor is less due to advances in technology, but these same advances in technology bring with them new chalenges, not forseen by our forefathers.
Times are changing. Either there needs to be a moral revival or the government must evolve, while limiting intrusion of personal liberties.[/quote]
Well that people learned it at home hardly takes anything away from what I wrote doesn´t it? Yes, people learned from their mistakes and tried to teach their children how to avoid them.
Today they teach them how to let others pay for their mistakes via government and so the social capital capitalism has built is slowly eroding.
I do not think that there is any point a government can evolve into if failure is no longer punished and success no longer rewarded, especially since I do not know where these enlightened creatures to form that government should come from? Are these politicians not also men of their times?
I’m sure that 15 or whatever years of listening to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright provides appropriate enlightenment necessary to govern wisely.