|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:13 am
Mm... And once it's down to families/clans, you've got a government again. xd In fact, you've not only not gotten rid of governments, but devolved them to their most primitive form.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:30 am
My Italian blood yearns for a mafia society.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:48 am
I am going to tell my kids everything I know about sex, drugs, abortion, war and the death penalty. They might extract my opinions or make different ones, but either way I'd like them to have a balanced view. Plus I can then debate them. : D
Abortion I'd worry about if I ever had an abortion and my kids were pro-life...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:23 am
lymelady I'm willing to take the bet that any children you raise will be prone to thinking things through responsibly. But I'm not willing to bet that most children out there will, and you're not just talking about talking to your own children. Also, asking kids to think about things doesn't mean they'll think about things in an adult manner; in general, adults are better equipped to think things through due to experience and brain development. I didn't say it's right to teach children to blindly respect authority because it's authority, but to stop at saying "as long as you think it through, you can break a law you feel is unjust," is not giving them enough, in my opinion. I don't think most children will take that tiny piece of information and come to an adult decision, or gain an accurate picture of what civil disobedience is about, or the consequences of it. I disagree with this. For the same reason that in daycare I didn't say, "If you feel you deserve an extra cookie, take an extra cookie," because I figured kids were breaking that rule already. Because it really does make a difference. Because saying that honestly will make a difference. It will give people an example to follow. Because if I said that, I wouldn't have to deal with five little people trying to sneak chairs up to the shelf to reach the cookies, I'd have to deal with ten. You're right. I could see saying this almost as is to high school or college students. But I need to speak more on why it is important to wait, and really stress that the choices one makes early in life can greatly effect how one's later life turns out. lymelady But you can lose respect for a law without breaking it. If it's necessary, if other measures fail, I can see it, but even the greatest examples of civil disobedience did not start with breaking the law, it started with trying to change the law and gain support for changing the law. Drastic, jail-time earning measures were taken later, when the other methods were failing to work. Breaking the law and then hiding that you break the law with special shampoos and store-bought pee doesn't seem like an effective way to overturn the law to me. What really needs to be done to change a law is lose public support for that law, not just respect. If your movement is associated with lawbreakers and deviants who hide their crimes, deceiving their employers in the process and cheating the system, it's going to be harder to gain public support. I think that legalizing cannabis is slowly gaining more and more public support (a new law to legalize just barely failed in, I think, New Mexico). But people just breaking the law isn't what is doing it. Which is why I am also very active (more active than for any other cause) in protesting, petitions, and writing to my Congress people about legalizing cannabis (though medical marijuana more so than recreational use, I'll admit). I think that the shear amount of people who break this law shows that people have basically no respect for prohibitions of substances. I don't think that breaking this law does much to change it, but it does show that there is a reason it needs to be changed. Drug testing for a job is an invasion of privacy, and often inaccurate anyway (especially urine tests). I think it's fine for people to get around these tests because they violate civil rights, but I don't think that it does much to change that they are done. It does amuse me that there simply isn't a test out there that can't be fooled (there is, in fact, mouthwash to get around the saliva test - though that test only works for a few hours after use, so not too many people really should need a false negative on that one). lymelady I realize you said most people aren't ready to handle that sort of society, but that's the problem with it. We're not ever going to be able to handle it. If there is no authority over right and wrong, then everything can be right, and everything can be excused or justified. "Best" is relative. Most people will not do what is for the best, they will do what is for their own best, what will make them the happiest, and while most people wouldn't actively or purposely hurt others on the way to it, it's very easy to hurt people without realizing it. It's easy to have a few drinks, feel you're in control of your own body, and get behind the wheel of a car; heck, people do it now even with harsh penalties if you break the law. It's easy to grab an item off of a shelf in a store stocked full of things and think, "They've got so much, it won't hurt them at all." And then you have that minority that will actively and purposely hurt people to get what they want. This can be balanced out by which type of anarchy you've got going on, but not entirely, not to the extent of protection we have now. Sure, with anarchy, if someone insists on hurting me, I can hurt them right back, and I can hurt them with more force than necessary to just remove them for once. I can hurt them enough so they'll never, ever do it again, I can scar them for life. But can my 6 year old cousin do that? Can my 103 year old grandfather do that? Okay, scratch that, he can, but two years ago when my grandmother was 101 and alive, she wouldn't have been able to. Not everyone is going to be able to interfere back if someone interferes with them, and I suppose you can fall back on families, but that seems to devolve back to clans, and it doesn't help people without families who are unable to defend themselves. I think that it is possible that some day in the distant future people won't need laws anymore. But they probably would be far different than the people we live around today, so that really doesn't say much. *grin* There are too many people on this planet to go back to a family clan sort of government, unfortunately.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:52 pm
WatersMoon110 I think that legalizing cannabis is slowly gaining more and more public support (a new law to legalize just barely failed in, I think, New Mexico). But people just breaking the law isn't what is doing it. Which is why I am also very active (more active than for any other cause) in protesting, petitions, and writing to my Congress people about legalizing cannabis (though medical marijuana more so than recreational use, I'll admit). I think that the shear amount of people who break this law shows that people have basically no respect for prohibitions of substances. I don't think that breaking this law does much to change it, but it does show that there is a reason it needs to be changed. Mm, I'd disagree. It shows that people are ignoring the law, it doesn't show that the law needs to be changed. A lot, and I mean a lot, of people don't follow the copyright laws when it comes to movies, music, etc. but that doesn't mean that it is not a just law. In fact it seems to me that it's a fully just law. Quote: Drug testing for a job is an invasion of privacy, and often inaccurate anyway (especially urine tests). I think it's fine for people to get around these tests because they violate civil rights, but I don't think that it does much to change that they are done. It does amuse me that there simply isn't a test out there that can't be fooled (there is, in fact, mouthwash to get around the saliva test - though that test only works for a few hours after use, so not too many people really should need a false negative on that one). Again, I'd disagree. Totally random drug tests I would think are a violation of civil rights, but when an employee comes into work on drugs? Or their employer finds drugs in a workplace? It is entirely justified as it is a liability for the employer. Quote: I think that it is possible that some day in the distant future people won't need laws anymore. But they probably would be far different than the people we live around today, so that really doesn't say much. *grin* There are too many people on this planet to go back to a family clan sort of government, unfortunately. Mm, that'd be nice, but I highly doubt that will ever happen. I personally believe that, without conflict, humanity would become stagnant and die off. Conflict is what drives civilization, whether we like it or not. Not that I would try to start wars if they stopped, but I don't think humanity will ever stop fighting anyways. And it can always go back to a clan system. xd A clan system is so lacking in organization that it doesn't matter how many people are in it. It is nearly anarchy.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:57 pm
I.Am Mm, I'd disagree. It shows that people are ignoring the law, it doesn't show that the law needs to be changed. A lot, and I mean a lot, of people don't follow the copyright laws when it comes to movies, music, etc. but that doesn't mean that it is not a just law. In fact it seems to me that it's a fully just law. Because the law in question that needs to change isn't copyright law, but the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (which has much stricter punishments for illegally redistributing digital media than analog media), and the price for digital media needs to come down closer to production cost (really, $20 for a CD that cost mere pennies to produce). When most people don't follow a law, I feel that it shows that something needs to change. Because, really, doesn't society have to abide by a law for it to really become part of the rules of that society? I.Am Again, I'd disagree. Totally random drug tests I would think are a violation of civil rights, but when an employee comes into work on drugs? Or their employer finds drugs in a workplace? It is entirely justified as it is a liability for the employer. I'm talking about drug tests to get a job. Though totally random drug tests while at work are also pretty bad. If an employee isn't doing their work, for whatever reasons, they should be fired. If someone is on drugs (though responsible people NEVER go to work on drugs or use drugs at work) but gets their work done well and on time, why should an employer care? I.Am Mm, that'd be nice, but I highly doubt that will ever happen. I personally believe that, without conflict, humanity would become stagnant and die off. Conflict is what drives civilization, whether we like it or not. Not that I would try to start wars if they stopped, but I don't think humanity will ever stop fighting anyways. And it can always go back to a clan system. xd A clan system is so lacking in organization that it doesn't matter how many people are in it. It is nearly anarchy. A clan system, looking at the many different past clans that existed, actually has a lot of rules and only works for a certain sized group (though larger identity is possible, like the Iroquois Nation). However, like I said, I don't think it is possible for humans as they exist now to exist without some rules. I do think it is possible for humans to evolve into something that wouldn't need laws, however.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:42 pm
I think for grade-school aged kids, I might say something more like this about drugs:
"Every choice you make effects what sort of life you will have. More and more children your age are choosing to use drugs. But your brain is still growing and developing. Adding drugs into this can be very dangerous. The younger someone is when they first use drugs, the more likely they are to become addicted when they are older.
It is very important to think carefully before making any decision!"
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:42 pm
WatersMoon110 Because the law in question that needs to change isn't copyright law, but the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (which has much stricter punishments for illegally redistributing digital media than analog media), and the price for digital media needs to come down closer to production cost (really, $20 for a CD that cost mere pennies to produce). When most people don't follow a law, I feel that it shows that something needs to change. Because, really, doesn't society have to abide by a law for it to really become part of the rules of that society? No, actually, it doesn't. sweatdrop And as for CDs, it cost mere pennies to print that specific CD, it cost -millions- to produce it. While the price should definitely be less than it is, something like $10 is not unreasonable. But regardless, while I'm sure there are some who illegally download music etc. because of things like that, most kids and college students do it simply because they can't afford to buy the CDs. :shrug: And while that does mean that the record companies lose nothing by their downloading the products instead of, well, not purchasing them, I'm pretty sure most of those downloads will never be paid back. Honestly, I'll probably never buy half of the things I've downloaded. wink And the DMC -is- a copyright law. It's right there in the name. Quote: I'm talking about drug tests to get a job. Though totally random drug tests while at work are also pretty bad. If an employee isn't doing their work, for whatever reasons, they should be fired. If someone is on drugs (though responsible people NEVER go to work on drugs or use drugs at work) but gets their work done well and on time, why should an employer care? Oh no, I totally agree that there's no reason to do drug tests if a person's performance is still within the levels that would be demanded of a non-druggy. However, I do feel that drug tests to -get- a job are entirely understandable. If an employer feels that doing drugs will affect the applicant's work, than it's the employer's prerogative to test before hand. As it is, it is illegal. If it were legal, than of course it would be discrimination to check. But that's not the case, and any workplace that wishes to check has that right, and even if you feel that the law is unjust, it's my opinion that it's just not fair of you to act like they shouldn't test for it as long as the laws are in place. Quote: A clan system, looking at the many different past clans that existed, actually has a lot of rules and only works for a certain sized group (though larger identity is possible, like the Iroquois Nation). However, like I said, I don't think it is possible for humans as they exist now to exist without some rules. I do think it is possible for humans to evolve into something that wouldn't need laws, however. I disagree. :shrug: It's a lovely thought that it might happen, but I don't think it ever will, because, as I said, humans are driven by conflicts. If everything were peaceful, if there were no crime nor wars, there would be very few things left to do; I'd think that all disease will have been conquered by that time, and so humanity is basically down to... Nothing. With no conflict, including disease, crime, and war, art would become empty and meaningless, and there'd really not be much else to do except survive. And I'm not talking about one large clan system that works in harmony or some crap like that; I'm talking about multiple allied or opposed clans, where families look out for each other and anyone outside of the family is not to be trusted. Basically, it's a large Of course one large clan wouldn't work. xd
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:50 pm
I.Am WatersMoon110 Because, really, doesn't society have to abide by a law for it to really become part of the rules of that society? No, actually, it doesn't. sweatdrop Obviously, I disagree. I.Am And as for CDs, it cost mere pennies to print that specific CD, it cost -millions- to produce it. While the price should definitely be less than it is, something like $10 is not unreasonable. But regardless, while I'm sure there are some who illegally download music etc. because of things like that, most kids and college students do it simply because they can't afford to buy the CDs. :shrug: And while that does mean that the record companies lose nothing by their downloading the products instead of, well, not purchasing them, I'm pretty sure most of those downloads will never be paid back. Honestly, I'll probably never buy half of the things I've downloaded. wink Record companies tend to suck, all around. But I download things because I have no money. If I had money, I would probably pay for new songs (though not the music I already have, because I'm that sort of person *wink*). Though I have gone to using Pandora rather than downloading, for the most part. I.Am And the DMC -is- a copyright law. It's right there in the name. I meant that all copyright law doesn't need to be changed because of this, but that particular act does need to be changed. I.Am Oh no, I totally agree that there's no reason to do drug tests if a person's performance is still within the levels that would be demanded of a non-druggy. However, I do feel that drug tests to -get- a job are entirely understandable. If an employer feels that doing drugs will affect the applicant's work, than it's the employer's prerogative to test before hand. As it is, it is illegal. If it were legal, than of course it would be discrimination to check. But that's not the case, and any workplace that wishes to check has that right, and even if you feel that the law is unjust, it's my opinion that it's just not fair of you to act like they shouldn't test for it as long as the laws are in place. Ummm...companies drug test because it is illegal to fire someone for being a drug addict, since it is technically a "disease". They are obligated to pay for rehab, so they drug test for insurance reasons. It has nothing to do with the supposed performance of drug uses (actually, for many types of jobs entering data into computers, being high has been shown to make one faster and better - weird, huh?). The clan/tribe system only works if the clans/tribes have skirmishes and such, to keep their population down. But there needs to be larger territories for each individual clan/tribe, and I don't think we have enough land for the amount of people we have on this planet.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:50 pm
WatersMoon110 I think for grade-school aged kids, I might say something more like this about drugs: "Every choice you make effects what sort of life you will have. More and more children your age are choosing to use drugs. But your brain is still growing and developing. Adding drugs into this can be very dangerous. The younger someone is when they first use drugs, the more likely they are to become addicted when they are older. It is very important to think carefully before making any decision!" That's better, but I really don't see why you can't just cut it down to, "Every choice you make affects what sort of life you will have. More and more children your age are choosing to use drugs. But your brain is still growing and developing. Adding drugs into this can be very dangerous," because, to me, the line about "When they first use drugs" makes it sound like everyone tries drugs. Gah. The idea of more and more grade school children doing drugs is traumatizing. crying
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:52 pm
I.Am WatersMoon110 I think for grade-school aged kids, I might say something more like this about drugs: "Every choice you make effects what sort of life you will have. More and more children your age are choosing to use drugs. But your brain is still growing and developing. Adding drugs into this can be very dangerous. The younger someone is when they first use drugs, the more likely they are to become addicted when they are older. It is very important to think carefully before making any decision!" That's better, but I really don't see why you can't just cut it down to, "Every choice you make affects what sort of life you will have. More and more children your age are choosing to use drugs. But your brain is still growing and developing. Adding drugs into this can be very dangerous," because, to me, the line about "When they first use drugs" makes it sound like everyone tries drugs. You're right. How about, "someone who uses drugs early on in life is more likely to get addicted later in life,"? I.Am Gah. The idea of more and more grade school children doing drugs is traumatizing. crying Seriously!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:42 am
I somewhat disagree that the sheer amount of people who break a law says something significant about showing it needs to be changed, though in this case, I think that the number can be used to your advantage given the stereotypes. I mean, I disagree with the point in all cases, is what I should say, because that argument could be used to say, "See? A large percent of people break drinking and driving laws anyway, it shows we need to change the law." Because it's scary how much damage drunk driving does, and how many people break that law. But in this case, I can see it because the reason it's illegal in the first place is that it's seen as an easily abused and dangerous drug, and the number of people breaking the law and using compared to the number of dangerous or criminal things resulting from using would show one way or another whether it's an outdated stereotype or a valid concern.
Your faith in humanity amazes me xd I'm pretty jaded I guess. I look around at this world. Right now, someone's being killed. Someone's being raped. Some child is being beaten. Actually, by the time I've finished this sentence, that's all happened again. Multiple times probably. Maybe not the child beating in this country, because it's pretty late at night and hopefully abusive parents need sleep too. And I'm lucky because in this country all of that is illegal; there are places where that's fine and there's no protection for those victims. Someone in this world is killing over race, or sexual preference, right now. Someone is selling children as slaves. And you know, when I think about it, as far as we've come, we haven't come very far at all. Sure, there are places now where it's illegal to do things that violate what we now say are human rights, but so what? That's been the case in the past too, then it went back to being legal again. I can see the good in this world, I guess the bad just makes me lose hope that times will ever be so good we can rely on a form of anarchy.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:45 pm
Ah, funny thought...
Pro-choice woman to a fetus-
Try to take away from MY youth, will you? TWO can play at THAT game!
Ah, irony
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:07 pm
lymelady I somewhat disagree that the sheer amount of people who break a law says something significant about showing it needs to be changed, though in this case, I think that the number can be used to your advantage given the stereotypes. I mean, I disagree with the point in all cases, is what I should say, because that argument could be used to say, "See? A large percent of people break drinking and driving laws anyway, it shows we need to change the law." Because it's scary how much damage drunk driving does, and how many people break that law. But in this case, I can see it because the reason it's illegal in the first place is that it's seen as an easily abused and dangerous drug, and the number of people breaking the law and using compared to the number of dangerous or criminal things resulting from using would show one way or another whether it's an outdated stereotype or a valid concern. I still don't understand how anyone can choose to drive while drunk. Though there are some aspects of the drunk driving laws that I do feel need to be reformed, you are right that the number of people who choose not to follow this law doesn't mean that it should be changed. I do feel that there are too many laws that people don't follow that do need to be changed, however. lymelady Your faith in humanity amazes me xd I'm pretty jaded I guess. I look around at this world. Right now, someone's being killed. Someone's being raped. Some child is being beaten. Actually, by the time I've finished this sentence, that's all happened again. Multiple times probably. Maybe not the child beating in this country, because it's pretty late at night and hopefully abusive parents need sleep too. And I'm lucky because in this country all of that is illegal; there are places where that's fine and there's no protection for those victims. Someone in this world is killing over race, or sexual preference, right now. Someone is selling children as slaves. And you know, when I think about it, as far as we've come, we haven't come very far at all. Sure, there are places now where it's illegal to do things that violate what we now say are human rights, but so what? That's been the case in the past too, then it went back to being legal again. I can see the good in this world, I guess the bad just makes me lose hope that times will ever be so good we can rely on a form of anarchy. But right now, someone is proposing, and some couple is overjoyed to find out they are pregnant, and someone just found out they got a new job, and someone is reuniting with their adult child, and someone who deserves it is being arrested. There are also good things happening all the time. Also, I'm on drugs (Imipramine) that force my brain to feel happy. So it's way easier to see that there are also good things in life than it used to be. It's almost like cheating. *wink*
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:56 am
WatersMoon110 lymelady I somewhat disagree that the sheer amount of people who break a law says something significant about showing it needs to be changed, though in this case, I think that the number can be used to your advantage given the stereotypes. I mean, I disagree with the point in all cases, is what I should say, because that argument could be used to say, "See? A large percent of people break drinking and driving laws anyway, it shows we need to change the law." Because it's scary how much damage drunk driving does, and how many people break that law. But in this case, I can see it because the reason it's illegal in the first place is that it's seen as an easily abused and dangerous drug, and the number of people breaking the law and using compared to the number of dangerous or criminal things resulting from using would show one way or another whether it's an outdated stereotype or a valid concern. I still don't understand how anyone can choose to drive while drunk. Though there are some aspects of the drunk driving laws that I do feel need to be reformed, you are right that the number of people who choose not to follow this law doesn't mean that it should be changed. I do feel that there are too many laws that people don't follow that do need to be changed, however. lymelady Your faith in humanity amazes me xd I'm pretty jaded I guess. I look around at this world. Right now, someone's being killed. Someone's being raped. Some child is being beaten. Actually, by the time I've finished this sentence, that's all happened again. Multiple times probably. Maybe not the child beating in this country, because it's pretty late at night and hopefully abusive parents need sleep too. And I'm lucky because in this country all of that is illegal; there are places where that's fine and there's no protection for those victims. Someone in this world is killing over race, or sexual preference, right now. Someone is selling children as slaves. And you know, when I think about it, as far as we've come, we haven't come very far at all. Sure, there are places now where it's illegal to do things that violate what we now say are human rights, but so what? That's been the case in the past too, then it went back to being legal again. I can see the good in this world, I guess the bad just makes me lose hope that times will ever be so good we can rely on a form of anarchy. But right now, someone is proposing, and some couple is overjoyed to find out they are pregnant, and someone just found out they got a new job, and someone is reuniting with their adult child, and someone who deserves it is being arrested. There are also good things happening all the time. Also, I'm on drugs (Imipramine) that force my brain to feel happy. So it's way easier to see that there are also good things in life than it used to be. It's almost like cheating. *wink* Unfortunately, that joy does not compensate for the pain of others. There are good things happening, yes, but they don't change the bad things. Edit- which makes me think... There should be debates on the GOOD things. "I think their new relationship is a good thing!" "What are you, mentally deficient? It's obviously not a good thing, it's a WONDERFUL thing!"
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|