At 9/9/09 12:55 AM, milinko959 wrote: This topic has just as much legitimacy as saying "Well if a scouter's power level is over 9000, exactly how high is it? Over 10,000 even?"
I haven't heard it confirm or deny that statement. Sounds fishy.
At 9/9/09 12:40 AM, milinko959 wrote: Ahaha. Liberals...
Even more hilarious than conservatives.
There's nothing funny about rape and murder. If you were accused of such heinous crimes, wouldn't YOU deny it?
Also, Bill O'Reilly is even distancing himself from Glenn Beck. This isn't a "haha, librahls, har har conserbatihvs" issue. Not even hardline conservatives are associating with him. Come back when you have something to say.
I don't know if any of you had heard, but there is a major controversy over the abject refusal of Glenn Beck to deny or confirm persistent rumors that he may, or may not have, raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
Now, you can read all about the controversy from the good, unbiased folks at didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin199 0.com. However, the fact remains, there is no proof that Glenn Beck did not savagely and repeatedly rape and then brutally murder a young girl in 1990. Further, he has yet to deny these rumors.
More suspiciously, he is aware that such rumors exist and is attempting to silence the discussion. Hasn't Glenn Beck championed the right of free speech and the importance of open discussion over such important, controversial matters? It seems to me, and it might just be me, let me know if I'm way off base here, but wouldn't the uncovering of a horrific rape/homicide cause someone to do a complete 180 degree turn from their stance on free speech?
I know that if I had raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, which I vehemently and most utterly deny having any part of, I would certainly want to rape and murder any discussion concerning it, as well.
Those are the facts, Newgrounds, as always, you decide.
At 5/25/09 07:46 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I go along with the 'experts' who don't believe criminals whose refusal to provide information necessary to protect lives have any rights. By not doing everything possible to find out what they need to know about others or any plans etc. I also agree with those who would rather fuck with the persons mind.
IF you have the time & believe that will work fine.
If not hard & fast & make sure they know your serious. I have never met a guy yet who wasn't attached emotionally as well as physically to his dick !
Again, this mythical ticking time-bomb scenario where we have somebody in custody that we inexplicably have enough information to be able to know, for sure, he's guilty, but not enough to know what he's up to.
Policy isn't driven by ridiculously improbable action movie scenarios.
The people who have been tortured in Guantanamo haven't even been charged with any crimes. Simply rounding up suspects and torturing them for information is a dangerous precedent to set. Especially when it's shown that torture can absolutely cause people to simply say what the interrogator wants to hear, how much conflicting evidence do you think this creates? How many different versions of similar stories are told by people who might not even know anything?
I'm sure they do get some intelligence out of people through torture. I'm also sure that they don't even know they have some of it because it's so bogged down in uncertainty because of the conflicting stories by multiple people who just simply want the torture to end. Further, this blatant disregard for human rights fuels fanaticism in the Middle East. If a country was rounding up our citizens to torture without due process, everyone would rally around swift and brutal retribution.
Torture, as a policy, is a horrible idea for so many reasons. I'll even grant that it's mediocre, at best, as an interrogation method. Even with that in mind, why the hell would we give an insurgency any extra reason to keep killing our soldiers? Do we honestly decide that they needed more incentive to hate us? To say nothing of the precedent it sets. Torturing suspects based on suspicion alone is a frightening power to allow a government to have. Due process exists for a reason. Human nature hasn't changed since the Constitution was written and I think the framers knew a thing or two about exactly which powers the government would abuse, if allowed the opportunity.
Bog this down in absurdly specific hypothetical situations if you want, but don't try to apply them to real-world scenarios where innocent people are getting beaten around to extract information they don't have.
At 5/27/09 05:34 AM, RebeliousShadow wrote: Try reading the bible from a political point of view. How much of whats written do you think could possibly be designed to create and support the power of the church?
This bishop is inclined to agree with that statement. He makes some rather solid points on the matter and, really, it absolutely makes sense.
An all-forgiving God that will let people suffer for eternity with no chance for redemption simply because of their human failings? Sounds like a human construct to me.
At 5/23/09 01:52 PM, morefngdbs wrote: So say someone's planning on blowing up a building or shooting down military aircraft with some other like minded people & we catch a couple in the act & the others get away. Torturing them hard & fast is IMO a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Yes, in your opinion. This is an opinion that isn't shared by people who actually know what they're talking about, namely some of America's top interrogators and generals.
Torture is one of the least effective methods for getting information, not only "IMO," but as backed up by the experience of people who actually know what they're talking about.
TheMason:
I'm not a fan of nested responses, so I'll hit this on a spirit-of-the-argument basis.
It seems the most contentious point my pointing out the relationship between gun deaths and gun ownership. The disconnection is that this is merely a starting point. The idea that, yes, more guns means more gun deaths is something anyone can agree on as a specific statement. What I do throughout my statement is create more and more uncertainty that these gun deaths are a result of loose gun control. By starting on a point of agreement, it becomes easier to make the case that we shouldn't be focused on the guns themselves.
Using suicide statistics to show how most are gun-related and then showing how total suicides are unaffected by the availability of guns, I took the pre-accepted relationship between gun ownership and gun deaths and pointed out explicitly that gun death figures are useless. Further, pointing out how violent crime, as a whole, isn't affected by gun control takes those already uncertain statistics and makes them useless in determining gun control's benefit to society.
You will note that I was confused when you seemed to argue that point with me using the same form of evidence that I did.
From what I gathered, you also disapproved of my word choice. I prefer to use the word "unclear" in the relationship between gun control and violent crime, because I don't have to prove anything. When it comes to civil liberties, the burden of proof lies on the person who wants to take them away. If there isn't any clear indication between taking away gun privileges and violent crime, then that's it, argument's done. Polarizing the issue or starting a new argument, that gun control actually leads to more crime, is needless at that point and weakens my position.
After rendering the relationship between gun deaths and gun ownership useless with suicide rates useless, I muddied any relationship with those gun ownership rates and violent crime. At this point, I make another readily acceptable statement: based on the accepted statement that gun deaths go up with gun ownership and the evidence shown that gun ownership simply changed how deaths were caused and not how frequently, there is no clear reason as to why guns, as a personal liberty imbued by the bill or rights, should be heavily controlled.
Finally, your critique of my using Switzerland. I don't quite understand what you gained by attacking that position so I'll clarify.
Here is a country with incredibly loose gun control and widely spread gun ownership. Nearly every household has an automatic weapon. Yet their instance of gun-related deaths is incredibly low. By creating common sense claims to illustrate their cultural differences, I provide the case that it might simply be our obsession with violent conflict.
Finally, the fact still remains that we can reduce the number of accidental deaths with mandatory education. Nobody has a legal right to be ignorant about gun safety and they certainly don't have the right to endanger their children because of that. Your argument, that just because we don't educate against every form of accidental death, then we shouldn't do it at all, is asinine. Drowning, suffocating, fires, crosswalks, falling, none of these can be traced back to a source. Household chemicals have labels and warnings all over them, that they need to be locked up if children are around. That's not even to mention that if you want to look at how many children per household WITH poisonous chemicals die versus how many children die in accidental shootings per household with a firearm would drastically change the numbers. Nearly all households have poisonous chemicals.
Of course, you never mention why parents shouldn't be required to be educated on gun safety, you just brought up other issues to obfuscate the issue. Your entire argument on that point revolved around mentioning that other things kill kids, too, without addressing the issue at all. Do you have a reason besides saying kids accidentally getting shot is okay because they drown, too?
At 5/22/09 02:02 PM, ReiperX wrote: Posting where every penny goes can cause some security issues. There are black projects in existence, and honestly we don't need to know how much money is being spent on these projects, and what they are.
Of course, this is the inherent problem in black projects. There are times when the government has to act in secrecy for legitimate reasons. Of course, like anything in a perfect world, this lends itself to abuse. Currently, the only practical method is to have oversight committees to make sure everything is ethical. Obviously, there are flaws with this system.
At 5/21/09 09:26 PM, adrshepard wrote: If it's a ticking time bomb, it's likely that all US agencies will be mobilized. That's a lot of resources at one's disposal. Plus, if he does give false information, it's unlikely that anyone would bother checking up on more than a few things he said. Finally, if it gets to the point where the only chance to stop an attack rests on what a single detainee says, then there's no reason not to torture him for information. There's a conceivable chance it would work, whereas doing nothing is guaranteed to fail.
Who's proposing we do nothing? Who has said anything like that here?
Officially, regarding detainees, the harsh measures were only used when incentive-based cooperation failed. I'm sure the detainees said otherwise, of course.
Bottom line, at this point there isn't enough information to conclusively say whether or not US techniques worked. Even the anti-torture articles on the internet couch their opinions in "may" and "possibly," and depend on third-party accounts as solid truth.
If using smarter interrogation methods than torture can get an Al-Qaeda ring leader to confess, then they're probably pretty effective.
"Alexander says torture techniques used in Iraq consistently failed to produce actionable intelligence and that methods outlined in the US Army Field Manual, which rest on confidence building, consistently worked and gave the interrogators access to critical information." Of course, what does the guy who got one of the most dangerous man alive to spill his guts and the Army Field Manual know about interrogation?
No, there's enough information. The link on that last word is even about a CIA report that denounced the effectiveness of torture. Interrogators for the CIA and FBI, generals, even the Army Field Manual, the soldier's Bible, all agree. Torture is not an effective method of interrogation.
Of course, that's not the issue for you, as I've already mentioned. You don't have time to listen to facts, you're Jack Bauer, goddamnit.
At 5/22/09 11:23 AM, Mr-Money wrote: Same goes for voting. Every member of the public's vote should be posted online, so that we the people can independently check that the voting has been rigged. We need a system where your vote only counts if you independently verify it once the results have been posted. That would completely prevent vote rigging. That is the ONLY way you can prevent vote rigging.
The sole reason this was created was to prevent vote rigging. If nobody knows who you actually voted for, then there's no way to coerce you into voting a certain way. Oh and, by the way, there is no federal law against discriminating against political affiliation. It wouldn't even matter if there was. If a large company knows which of their employees voted unfavorably, they could trump up any nonsense they wanted in order to fire them, it's not hard to do. If there was a distasteful ratio of employees who voted unfavorably within, say, a particular branch or department, you could cite cost-cutting measures and liquidate the whole lot of them.
At 5/20/09 10:29 PM, Stoicish wrote: While I honestly don't give a shit about Gay's being in the military I do believe that it is a strong hetero organization and a large percentage of the Military is against gays being let in. Also, I'm deathly afraid of abuse in the organization which I believe will happen.
What's startling is that gays in the military are actually treated less hostilely than atheists. Honestly, I think that statement is its own context.
At 5/15/09 09:49 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I've read the thread to what's now posted , I came back to this point.
Many of you seem to be looking at this from cases recently & in past 'war time' circumstances.
As to it being effective.
Missing child, caught kidnapper...child is in eminant danger of death somewhere. Suspect refuses to reveal childs location during normal questioning. Put bullet through knee cap of suspect.
Inform suspect when he regains composure, that his nuts are getting the next round, if the location of child isn't revealed.
Suspect gives up child's location.
Isn't this the crux of the issue? There are people who have watched enough bad TV to actually believe this is an actual "real-world" scenario.
Everything about this presupposed justification is absurd. We can tell enough about this guy to know, without a doubt, that he's a kidnapper and yet he is the ONLY way we can find out where the child is? Here's where this situation even gets more delusional. If you have a kidnapper in custody, you already have a good reason to have him there. Child kidnappers aren't hardened badasses and the only person they have to protect, especially in this circumstance, is themself. Anybody who is already in custody is going to do what they can to start playing damage control. Cooperating will not only ensure leniency, but the notion that someone is willingly going to let murder get tacked on to their rap sheet for no reason, except if they're tortured, is ludicrous. That sort of sociopathic personality isn't going to care what you do to them and they're certainly not going to finally break down before they know time has run out just because you hit them again.
That's not even to mention how long it takes to actually extract something useful from torture. The entire point of torture is to break someone's will to the point that they're willing to genuinely cooperate because their spirit has been completely beaten out of them. Anybody that's going to cave in to torture in an afternoon is also going to cave by throwing them a bone or promising that somebody's going to throw them a bone in federal prison. If someone is dead set on keeping their lips sealed and you're operating on a fixed time table (the notorious "ticking time-bomb" scenario that's so popular), what are the odds that someone's going to suffer through torture only to give up at the last minute? Even more likely, what incentive does your detainee have for not sending you on a wild goose chase simply to waste time? At a certain point, how are you going to differentiate the lies and the truth? If time's a factor, you can't follow up on every possible thing that could pop into his head to throw you off. A light isn't going to pop up over his head when he breaks down and tells the truth. Any indication he shows that he's broken and is actually cooperating this time could easily be another red herring.
What's going to get someone like that to help? You need to make it worthwhile for them to lead you in the right direction, not just to say words. Offering incentives for his cooperation in successfully locating the child and threatening harsher penalties if he doesn't. Under torture, the outcome of lying and telling the truth is basically the same. If you help, you've been tortured. If you don't help, you've still been tortured and any decent lawyer is going to get any case thrown out entirely. Tying his well-being to your success is the only way to assure useful intelligence.
Inventing special cases that are so specific as to be completely impossible without utilizing torture sounds like the wrong way to go about things.
What would be funny if it wasn't so sad, detrimental, deluded, or whatever you want to call it is that I know where this mentality stems from. You placing yourself in the interrogator's shoes pretty much gives you away as the type to fantasize about obscure situations in which you save the day. Hell yeah you would torture a guy to save the dame, you're just that kinda guy. No big deal, you wouldn't flinch or nothin,' bastard got what was comin.' Before you cry "dime store psychiatrist," go back and read your post. Ask yourself why even the way you typed reverted to some film noir detective cliche.
Come on, you can't be discussing whether or not torture is an acceptable form of intelligence gathering, especially in this modern era. Your mind isn't even on the real world when you post about it. Fuck no, man, you're Jack goddamn Bauer. You don't play nice with scumbags when you have to save the fucking day. But, you know, no big deal or nothin'. Just doin' what needs to be done.
At 5/19/09 08:39 PM, Patton3 wrote:At 5/19/09 08:35 PM, JanusGrayden wrote: As any true American should, I prefer my teeming masses of underpaid, second-class shit job workers Irish Catholic.I'm sorry, you must be confused. This is a serious, non-jingoist thread.
Just like the Good Lord intended.
I'm sorry, you must have mistaken a blatantly satirical post that parallels a time in our history where the US held a similar view towards a demographic as we do about illegal immigrants today, but yet look back upon fondly as an important part of our history, identifying a serious intellectual gap that calls to attention our own societal bigotry and historical ignorance in a biting, concise manner that maximizes the impact it has by using as few words as are necessary to fully criticize a glaring fault in our domestic policy.
This is a serious, non-illiterate thread.
As any true American should, I prefer my teeming masses of underpaid, second-class shit job workers Irish Catholic.
Just like the Good Lord intended.
At 5/19/09 06:18 PM, Jon-86 wrote: You do have a case. But it still stands that being homosexual was gonna stop you fighting in the world wars. Their were even whats known as 'conscious objectors' and a lot of them got the jail for their beliefs.
To say nothing of the courage it took to deface themselves before both the enormously popular war effort and the staunch societal sensibilities of the time. There was no gay culture to fall back on. An openly gay male at that time was the quintessential outcast.
Don't think I'm making light of the situation. It's parallel to every civil rights struggle in history. There are always the few that are far ahead of their time. They're those who voice their beliefs and refuse to compromise their morals for a sense of security and acceptance.
You have to assume that every one in that situation knows exactly how it's going to play out. There is no moral outcry in their favor, no popular support, no unified voice at their back. They object that their way of life is discriminated against simply because they don't have it in them to acquiesce to injustice. And they know that the full vengeance and vitriol of an ignorant society is going to hammer them into place.
You're right in pointing out my nonchalance in glossing over people who are greater heroes than the ones who lead their minorities into acceptance. Making society open to your views is difficult, but losing everything for them, knowing that you're going it alone has to be soul-crushing.
I may have been technically correct in the timing at which the gay-rights movement picked up steam, but no movement is without its forerunners who showed the rest that it was possible to stand up and refuse to be ignored.
At 5/19/09 04:04 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Exactly what the drug war is doing as well... making scumbags rich !
Yeah, I worded it to be applicable to the war on drugs, as well. The government is basically treating them both the same, sweeping them under the rug and spending billions to pretend they don't exist.
Damn this made me snort my beer out of my nose !
Funny line.
Our prisons have never been fuller.
America has approimately 21% of its prison population in for non violent drug possesion/use much of it personal. But the way the draconian laws are enforced you might as well be violent... they treat you the same !
If you liked that one, you'll love this. You always hear about how all of these vices are causing us to lose our moral compass and that if we would just return to our old fashioned values, things would be alright. It makes me wonder if they're talking about 50 years ago, when murder was sanctioned as long as it was against black people. Or if they're talking about another 50 years back when half the population couldn't vote. Or if it was 50 years prior to that when we murdered the Native Americans for the sole purpose of taking their land. Maybe they're talking about another 50 years back when we enslaved a whole race of people.
I've probably read through this topic 5 times in the past couple days and I just can't be objective about it. No matter what angle I want to take on this subject I just can't seem to overcome how sad this makes me.
Those parents honestly believe that God wants their child to die. If they had their way, he wouldn't have a chance. Up until the last minute they would praise God for His ability to heal the sick without the need of medicine. When his body finally gave out, they would stand firm and claim that it was part of God's infinitely wise plan. God needed their son to die.
I feel sad for the parents who, underneath their stout resolution, are just as scared as any parent with a sick kid. Even though he has a good shot at survival now, that boy has been severely crippled from fully enjoying all the wonderful things that this world, his fellow man, and life has to offer. He'll never be normal socially. His understanding of the world around him has been stunted. He's in an environment that will completely beat his humanity down until every ounce of creativity and rational thought has been squelched.
No, it's not a readily defensible position, I didn't trim it up nice and neat to account for obvious criticisms. I know that and I don't care.
This whole situation just breaks my heart.
It really seems that the looser you define "God," the more you start actually talking about "naturalistic processes." The trick with that is you can't say God is those processes and then turn around and say that He created them, it's a self-defeating statement. Using the ecumenical panacea of redefining God to fit the scientific mold no longer allows you to suggest that He is also magical. He's either natural or supernatural, you can't have it both ways.
What I find especially dishonest about claiming God to actually just be physical laws that we have yet to define is that it renders the definition of God worthless. Slapping labels on things and calling it a day is a lazy system of classification. Sure, you can call gravity "God," but then what do you refer to the Judeochristian deity as?
On the other side of the coin, what happens when we actually figure out more and more natural laws? Do they stop being God? When did lightning stop being God? When did the stars stop being heaven?
Warm and fuzzy though it may be, calling the things we don't understand God doesn't make them the attributes of a deity. Further, it lends itself to further, constant reclassifications. Why bother assigning arbitrary names to natural phenomena? It seems a lot more profitable to wonder how something works and work from there than it is to declare it to be the mystery of God until the guys in lab coats make you change what you define God to be.
At 5/19/09 01:59 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Vietnam wasn't the only ever draft. I'm pretty sure that during WW1 and WW2 in the UK anyway they didn't care about it as they needed everybody who was old enough to fight. And I don't think it mattered when America was fighting its war for independence as you guys were signing any immigrants up as soon as they stepped off the boat.
Something of a moot point. Back then, people were more closeted about homosexuality. It was only really until the 60s that it even started to eek through the cracks. Even then, it was still pretty downplayed for the most part.
At 5/19/09 06:32 AM, TheMason wrote:At 5/19/09 04:31 AM, JanusGrayden wrote: I don't feel comfortable comparing violent crime rates between countries as a strong case one way or another for gun control, simply because there are so many other factors involved that using it as hard evidence is intellectually dishonest. My intention is simply to demonstrate that the United States has a problem that needs to be addressed in some manner.
What this means is the link you post to and thus provides the primary assumption and support for your argument...violates several social science methodological norms. In short, the link lacks scientific rigor and actually is counterproductive because this argument is invalidated.
Excuse me? I made it painstakingly clear that I was only presenting those figures as proof that America, in general, has a problem with gun violence. I don't think I could have been clearer in mentioning that using those statistics to argue for or against gun control would be ludicrous.
The reason it becomes unclear is that gun control, above and beyond what we already have, has virtually zero-correlation with reducing violent crime or gun accidents. Things like education, job opportunities and post-prison prejudice correlates far more than gun laws.
Yes, I believe that's exactly what I say in my post.
In fact more strict gun control laws correlate with more crime. Chicago, DC, LA and NYC have the strictest gun control laws in the country...virtual bans. But look at the violent crime rates. 36 public-school aged minors have been killed thus far in Chicago. However, read the academic studies of Florida State University's Gary Kleck (Professor of Criminology).
Well, here's where I have to stop you. The strict gun control in these areas are a result of high amounts of violence. It's unfair to point at these specific examples and claim that it's the gun control laws, themselves, that result in an increase in crime.
That's not even to mention that I don't even know why you're bringing New York City into this. Their gun-related deaths have been dropping steadily. Granted, knife-related crime is rising in New York, but all that does is confirm what I was saying: violent crime and gun control don't seem to have any kind of direct relationship, positively or negatively. For every example of crime going up after stricter gun laws, there are counter examples.
As for the relationship between gun availability and total suicide rates have been shown to be a null (or non) relationship:
"This pattern of results supports the view that where guns are less common, there is complete substitution of other methods of suicide, and that, while gun levels influence the choice of suicide method, they have no effect on the number of people who die in suicides."
Linky
Again. This is what I said almost verbatim. I'm under the impression that you like to argue more than you like to read.
Why? Since about 1904 the rate of firearm accidents have decreased by 94%. Right now the number of accidental fatalities involving a firearm are 600 per year. About 50 of those are children under the age of 15. Ages 15-24 is the age group where all catagories of fatal accidents (except maybe poisionings) see a dramatic increase. This nulls out the notion that there is something that makes gun specifically dangerous to this group of 'children'.
If kids are killing themselves at 15-24, that indicates that proper gun safety wasn't instilled in them before then. The fact of the matter is that accidental shootings, diminished though they may be, are still the most preventable out of all other gun-related deaths.
Any parent that owns a gun needs to be able to prove they are not only competent, but that they can teach their children how to be safe around a firearm as well. Parents have no business owning a firearm without knowing how to be safe or how to keep their kids safe. It's one thing to lack proper gun safety when it's your own life at risk, but once you bring children into the picture, that goes out the window. This seems like nothing short of common sense.
In some ways I agree with you. And, as a gamer I do criticize violent video games. As someone who also serves in the military I have seen where infantry units are training with FPS-style simulators to train soldiers to overcome cultural (or basic human) hardwiring against taking human lives.
We are a country that idolizes violence and even dismisses our children's exposure to simulated violence in movies, TV and games (while we are shocked by sex).
It's not necessarily violence in video games that amazes me, it's the sheer number of war titles out there. For one, it's boring to play the exact same scenarios ad infinitum and it's lazy of producers to keep putting them out. The frightening thing about it is the glorification of war itself, which is grotesque.
I am all for respecting our soldiers and I hold them in the highest esteem, but isn't part of what makes them honorable the sacrifice it takes to be trained to kill your fellow man? The decision to go to war used to be a weighty decision that was seen as the worst possible way to go about things. Today, it seems to be relished in America. It's kind of surreal every time I think about that.
Also, please try to read more thoroughly, it wasn't clear whether or not you were arguing against me by repeating my points. Confusing, to say the least.
My stance on individual liberties has always been pretty simple. The government shouldn't suspend liberties unless it can prove that it is harmful to society beyond a reasonable doubt.
Despite what the gun lobby would suggest, there is a correlation between gun control and gun-related deaths. Generally speaking, the states with looser gun control also experience more gun-related deaths. The statistics might not be overwhelming, but a steady trend does exist. This trend is pronounced when considering other countries, with Switzerland being an outlier. I don't feel comfortable comparing violent crime rates between countries as a strong case one way or another for gun control, simply because there are so many other factors involved that using it as hard evidence is intellectually dishonest. My intention is simply to demonstrate that the United States has a problem that needs to be addressed in some manner.
There might be some factors to explain that. For instance, suicides are listed under gun-related deaths and someone with easy access to a firearm might choose that over an alternative method. While doing research for this post, I actually discovered that the majority of all gun deaths are suicides. The fact that the statistics aren't overwhelming could suggest that, in this case, correlation is not necessarily causation.
Further, when comparing violent crime to gun control the results are markedly less certain.
Based on what I've gathered, the discrepancies between violent crime and gun-related deaths, outright, boil down to suicides and accidental shootings. To be fair, I expected these to muddy the waters more. Suicides accounting for substantially more gun related deaths than even homicides? That was completely unexpected. For the second time today, I actually learned something new that challenged my assumptions while researching for posts. I'll call that a good day.
At any rate, the discrepancies between suicides and accidental shootings is enormous. When coupled with the much higher rate of suicide by gun in states with more lax gun laws due to a wider availability of quicker, more painless suicide methods, the actual effect that gun control has on combined gun crime and accidental shootings starts to become more and more unclear.
I'll admit, while I've always believed the Second Amendment to be an important part of the Bill of Rights, I was modestly more in favor of gun control than I am now.
I'll grant that gun control absolutely has a place. Restriction of automatic weapons and explosives helped stem gangland violence, after all. I also believe strongly that, if you have kids, you and your kids should be required to take a gun safety class. After that, it really seems to be more esoteric. Banning certain kinds of ammunition and assault rifles seems ridiculous as this has no effect on accidental shootings and nearly all violent crime is committed with handguns.
After all that exposition and comparative study, I believe that America needs to consider what Switzerland is doing right culturally. Their age distribution is roughly the same. They have more guns per capita than the US. Personally, I think it boils down to a couple major factors. First of all, enlisting in the Swiss military is mandatory and they are encouraged to keep their weapons. This instills proper gun training and safety in its citizens. Secondly, their culture has a tradition of favoring diplomacy over violence.
It doesn't seem to be any wonder that America, a country of war-obsessed armchair generals from Civil War reenactors to Call of Duty junkies, has such a dangerous combination of violent tendencies and practical inexperience.
And for fuck's sake, I'm not criticizing violent video games. I'm criticizing the mentality that we need to fight World War II every 4 months. Face it, we think war is awesome.
First and foremost: The fact that this is a topic for discussion is appalling. Sexual orientation doesn't affect the ability of a soldier to do their job. If that was really the case, then the military would only be comprised of heterosexual men. While there are those who don't see any problem with this, women have proven their capacity for war time and again. As a case in point, you can say what you want about Israel, but I don't think anyone can honestly criticize the effectiveness of their armed forces.
From the argument of maintaining an effective military, there's not much of a jump from having a heterosexual mixed-gender military to allowing homosexuals to serve. Of course, I doubt anyone who actually says they're concerned about the impact homosexuals have on military effectiveness sincerely believes that. Sounds like an excuse to keep out of military service, to me.
With that out of the way, I'd actually like to mention something I came across when researching this topic. Hoping for a novel way to approach the topic, I went to verify my impression that, under federal law, it is illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation while hiring. Apparently, this is not the case.
"Note: Many states and municipalities also have enacted protections against discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. For information, please contact the EEOC District Office nearest you."
From the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
I can understand the political affiliation exception, since requiring party-affiliated organizations would be understandably remiss in hiring supporters of other parties. Status as a parent and marital status I could potentially see, but I don't see it as clearly deserving of an exemption as party-affiliation. I'm sure there are some exceptions that make sense, though.
But sexual orientation? That's absurd. The only possible reasoning behind that is already covered under sexual harassment legislation, which is quite thorough.
Here's something that I've never seen answered.
Now, I don't have the arrogance to claim that it is unanswerable or that I'm the first to ask it, but it does throw some things out of whack.
If 1 Timothy 2:4 is to be believed, and I'm under the assumption that anyone attempting to reconcile this does, God desires all men to be saved and, further, to come to the full knowledge of the truth.
Even in the full context of Timothy, this is declared to be a hard fact. Nothing before or after would lead someone to believe it is a metaphor or an allegory.
Secondly, I understand that a lot of people like to play fast and loose with the Old Testament. There's a lot of horrifying stuff in there and, if I had to justify believing that a loving God wrote the Bible, I would, too. I'll even play that game.
What I gather from the Christian view is that the Old Testament serves to frame God in His attributes. I would go so far as to say that choosing a verse that has a very clear, defined meaning is fair game, even to the fastest, loosest acceptance of the Old Testament. Heck, the whole chapter is full of stuff that the modern Christian sensibility can get behind, King James and everything, since I know there are people out there who only accept the King's English:
Malachi 3
1Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
2But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
3And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
4Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.
5And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.
6For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
7Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?
8Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
9Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
10Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
11And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts.
12And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the LORD of hosts.
13Your words have been stout against me, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, What have we spoken so much against thee?
14Ye have said, It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the LORD of hosts?
15And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.
16Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.
17And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.
18Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.
If one didn't know better, it certainly would look like a pretty neat description of the coming of Jesus, God judging the evil and glorifying the good, blessing the chosen people, and pretty much all that good stuff Christians agree on. I would be shocked if aany Christian had any particular complaints about the entirety of that chapter.
If you accept that chapter, then you accept what is written, again, very clearly. In explicit language, Malachi 3:6 says that "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Even the following modification only serves to strengthen that statement. God does not change and, because God never EVER changes, the sons of Jacob, as God's chosen people, can rest assured that they won't be consumed.
That statement, according to the Bible, is a fact concerning God's nature.
If you're still bearing with me, then we have established two things that are clearly written in the Bible, in passages that any Christian can agree on, in language that is obviously not meant to be taken allegorically or metaphorically:
1. God desires literally all men to be saved AND to come to the full knowledge of the truth.
2. God NEVER changes.
The clear, absolute language in both of these verses directly follows in a third statement:
3. God has ALWAYS wanted ALL men to be saved AND to come to the full knowledge of the truth.
This is not a trilemma in the vein of the absurd "lord, liar, or lunatic" oversimplification. These are two verses that describe absolute situations that explicitly state the nature and the desire of God.
The low-hanging fruit, of course, is that not all men are saved. The vast majority of people who have ever lived are not and will not be saved. Even of the minuscule percentage of people who are and ever will be saved, fewer still will come to the full knowledge of the truth.
This alone is enough to demonstrate that God does not get what He desires. God has already failed miserably. It's not even a mitigated success. There is simply no getting around the fact that God desired all men to be saved and come to the full knowledge of the truth before He made them and yet, nearly every single man, woman, and especially child, wasn't, isn't, and won't be saved. And Jesus had the balls to say that children were precious to him. The nerve.
To cap off this huge diatribe (which has become mandatory due to the bullshit semantics apologetics use, I apologize to everyone else), I would like to point out the higher up, more rotten and putrid fruit on the tree.
God willingly prevented people from being saved. In Mark 4, Jesus said that He speaks in parables. Okay, fair enough, dude likes to tell a story, so what? The problem here is Mark 4:12, which states:
"That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."
WOAH, WHAT?!! God, who NEVER changes and desires ALL men to be saved and come to the FULL knowledge of the truth WILLFULLY prevented more than one person, at the very least, from being saved. Pharisees or not, they are still human beings and qualify under the blanket statement of 1 Timothy 2:4.
Explanation?
At 5/13/09 01:52 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:At 5/13/09 01:35 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Are the two equivalent?Of course they are.
However, we live under populist rule, and people seem to HATE prostitution for some reason.
PLUS the prostitution law is ancient, pornography hasnt been around long enough to have been subject to the same sexual hatred as the prostitutes.
Plus porn stars arent at the same risks of gonnorhea, murder etc.
And the porn trade isnt illicitly tied to drug crime, gang warfare etc.
I'm in full agreement.
I'd even say that pornography is like ultra-prostitution. Both parties are getting paid to have sex. LIKE WOAH!
On point, though. I do agree with all of these points, however, the latter issues are a direct result of prostitution being illegal.
Black markets, by virtue of the fact that they deal in illicit services, attract violent crime. Enforcement of contracts and protection of property is placed solely on the individuals. Without any form of oversight or regulation, it's rare that a system develops that's equitable. More often than not, slights and injustices are dealt with violently and vastly out of proportion. This causes battles of attrition where each criminal offense is met with a series of back and forth displays of force until a compromise is eventually met.
In the case of prostitution, the need for protection results in pimps. Fucking slime that they are, pimps provide the security that a black market necessitates. Of course, it's common knowledge this service comes at a disgusting, detestable premium.
That's not even to speak of regulation of the products and services themselves. The STDs, drug abuse, and ragged appearance that prostitutes have become synonymous with is unacceptable in any sanctioned service industry job. Of course, when your product is kept in artificially low supply and demand is driven by visceral human urges, you don't need to maintain very high quality to guarantee a healthy profit.
If eschewing safeguards and testing means a higher profit-to-loss ratio, then why bother when you don't have to care? It almost goes without saying that there are more than a few seedy assholes who will make a quick buck at the expense of anyone and everyone. Generally, the government sets up regulations that require certain standards of cleanliness and ethics. This, of course, is enforced by levying fines, the only thing aforementioned seedy assholes give a damn about.
All of this exposition is well and good, but the real proof is in the sweet, sticky pudding. Places where prostitution is legal, such as Nevada, don't experience much violent crime associated with prostitution. Not since court injunctions and lawsuits proved to be more effective than Tommy guns.
The women involved are spared from vile, limp-dicked, fucking abortions of life that call themselves pimps. Why bother with a walking cess-pool when your troubles are mediated by the police with established penalties for known infractions? Further, not only are brothels required to treat their employees well, but there are mandatory STD screenings.
Also thanks to the legitimate nature of legalized prostitution, competition drives the quality of service higher. When eliminating your competitors through violence is no longer an option, providing the best service becomes the only recourse. When quality of service is directly related to the employee, working conditions improve dramatically. Even if such measures weren't required by law, the only way to stay competitive is to make sure the prostitutes stay healthy and well kept.
The only downside I hear about any of this is some moralistic bullshit. Here's brass tacks, ladies and gentleman, legalization does not equate to endorsement. When you start developing laws around the sensibilities of people, you end up spending billions on fights you simply cannot win. Prohibition didn't work, the war on drugs is failing spectacularly, and the illegalization of prostitution has only resulted in making the worst kind of scum rich on the backs of abused women, so to speak.
Nobody has to worry about brothels near elementary schools. Doctors and teachers won't be consorting with prostitutes while they work. Our cultural morality, which has done such a tremendous job in keeping our violent crime, drug use, and prison population down, isn't threatened. After all, legalization isn't the same thing as endorsement. It simply provides safeguards in industries that provide their own demand.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
