New Testingstan

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:37 am**

adr wrote:I'd say when scoring if you should permit something, you want to look at 1) how much harm is done to people, 2) how many people can be affected by it, and 3) what the odds of harm are.

Any one aspect being high warrants caution, but if the other two are small enough, it might be ok anyway.

I'd say "Did this person consent in a meaningful fashion." is a bit more important than harm. Clinical trials can cause quite a bit of harm but most people would argue that they're important for society's advancing of medicine, for example.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:13 am**

eh i'd say failure to consent is doing additional harm

but consenting doesn't eliminate other hurt

consider this: let's say society forces you into poverty

you have the choice of continuing to live like that or sign some contract that waives a bunch of your other rights

you might say signing away your rights is ok because the person consented to it

let's say he was fully informed as to what it meant too

...but did he really have a choice given the rest of his environment and opportunities?

consent is important but it is so hard to find full consent not brought on by factors outside the person's control that you shouldn't let it override other stuff

besides even if a person fully consents and says yes to something awful

the moral person should be careful not to ask for something too awful in the first place; that's like using that person's willingness and that's a moral minefield too

but yeah consent matters too but even it shouldn't override the other considerations

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:57 am**

I think in this case you're just overthinking it dude.

No place in civilized society for pedophilia, even the thinly disguised kind that these sick fucks were defending.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:59 am**

overthinking is my middle name

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:02 am**

surely anything that has an insular internet community ready to declare it acceptable can't be all bad

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:21 am**

The problem with "lolicon" (which until today I assumed would be some sort of lollipop trade convention) is that in the US it is legal.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:24 am**

Flagg wrote:The problem with "lolicon" (which until today I assumed would be some sort of lollipop trade convention) is that in the US it is legal.

its legality is a bit of a gray area afaik

pedos on the sex offender list can still get re-arrested if they possess lolicon

but i don't know of anyone who's been arrested for just having it without a prior conviction

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:31 am**

All I know is that virtual images are protected by the first Amendment per SCOTUS. I'm sure the sex offender thing is probably for parolees and shit.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:57 am**

Zod wrote:pedos on the sex offender list can still get re-arrested if they possess lolicon

i wouldn't be surprised if convicted sex offenders were totally barred from pornography

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:16 am**

adr wrote:am i making sense here

ya but my position is, i like my debates the way i like my programming: generic

i mean constructing an argument for why something should be permissible is not difficult and avoids the various debaters from having to agree beforehand that opinion xyz should be the correct one by default

example: someone says "xyz should be allowed" and someone else says "why" and they answer "no you can't say that i am the default" that's a pretty shitty debate

indeed, saying that something is something because it has not yet been shown to be something else is fallacious

but if they say "xyz should be allowed because it causes no harm etc." that's an argument that can be debated; it can be debated whether it really causes no harm and whether the premise that "things that cause no harm should always be allowed" is sound and so on

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:18 pm**

brilliant

that's good stuffs

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:48 pm**

anyway moving on

so this morning i went over to jasmine's house for my daily dose of babies

they loud btw

but anyway before she left for work, her husband called to ask if she was taking one of the children to the doctor

she got annoyed

"it's like he thinks i just sit around here all day doing nothing"

i lol'd because there was an episode of EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND with almost this exact situation as the plot a couple days ago

sitcoms are great because they're just life

but on tv

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:54 pm**

speaking of sitcoms i gave that new cbs show "rob" a go again last night

and the main character there seems like a real fucking douchebag. in last night's one, he went through his wife's stuff and harassed her about some picture he found over secrets or something

now raymond can be ass at times

but with raymond he's an idiot who doesn't want to take sides against his mother but he cares; the stupid shit he does is still his way of showing affection to debra

even a bigger idiot like jeff from rules of engagement does his crazy shit but... well maybe he's a bit of a douche too but patrick warbutron is hilarious

but with this rob guy i don't get that feeling... i dont think i like him. he came around at the end but next week he's just going to be an ass again im sure

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:10 pm**

man im so happy two and a half men is drawing 17m viewers a night while community is on deaths door

fuck you america

fuck

you

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:24 pm**

the ratings are so weird to me

two and a half men is one of the top rated shows on tv (two and a half dick jokes as i like to call it. ashton kutcher's character is just one giant dick joke. literally. at least charlie sheen had something to him)

and the big bang theory isn't far behind

now they aren't terrible shows. i usually leave my tv on for them myself

but number one, really? blargh

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:46 pm**

Sitcoms. Ha.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:14 pm**

seaskimmer.txt

What I think its funny is the way people denounce the US for causing 'instability' if it overthrows a dictator, denounces the US if it doesn't overthrow one, denounce the US if it merely backs sanctions of one kind or another as interfering in internal affairs or 'hurting the people' more then the government, and denounce the US for treating different countries in different situations differently while claiming the US doesn't understand anything in the world. Yeah, that is all very funny to me. You wonder why nobody in the US really gives a damn about what the world says, that's why. Of course best and most funny of all, all you all can't do a fucking thing to stop us because even after the US imploded its own economy and spent two trillion dollars fighting random wars, it still leaves us an order of magnitude more powerful then any other crap hole on earth. Anyway like I was saying, the best the Shia in Bahrain can do is get the gulf states to turn a limited intervention into full scale war. The US could cut off all aid, and they'd just buy everything they needed from China to arm all the Pakistani mercenaries they already use.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:18 pm**

Kustra, BA wrote:seaskimmer.txt

What I think its funny is the way people denounce the US for causing 'instability' if it overthrows a dictator, denounces the US if it doesn't overthrow one, denounce the US if it merely backs sanctions of one kind or another as interfering in internal affairs or 'hurting the people' more then the government, and denounce the US for treating different countries in different situations differently while claiming the US doesn't understand anything in the world. Yeah, that is all very funny to me. You wonder why nobody in the US really gives a damn about what the world says, that's why. Of course best and most funny of all, all you all can't do a fucking thing to stop us because even after the US imploded its own economy and spent two trillion dollars fighting random wars, it still leaves us an order of magnitude more powerful then any other crap hole on earth. Anyway like I was saying, the best the Shia in Bahrain can do is get the gulf states to turn a limited intervention into full scale war. The US could cut off all aid, and they'd just buy everything they needed from China to arm all the Pakistani mercenaries they already use.

so basically sanctions don't actually accomplish anything

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:21 pm**

the entire fucking thread is basically "democracy is not for muslims"

and yet vympel was declaring that criticism of the intellectual crucible is pointless on facebook

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:26 pm**

to be fair we all go overboard sometimes

i think a lot of you assholes are assholes at points

and surely the feeling is mutual (hell sometimes i think im an asshole)

but it aint always that way

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:32 pm**

still, you have moderators declaring that muslims should not be allowed to determine their own fates because they're muslims

is that not worthy of criticism?

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:34 pm**

People will hate the US no matter what it does, thinking anything else is more then a little delusional.

am i delusional

i srsly believe most people are generally decent and if you're decent to them and/or leave them alone they generally won't hate you

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:34 pm**

Kustra, BA wrote:still, you have moderators declaring that muslims should not be allowed to determine their own fates because they're muslims

is that not worthy of criticism?

aye

edit: err i mean it is worthy not that it is not

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:39 pm**

i plan to try the ol' commie double-whammy on him

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:46 pm**

waah people are angry we are massive hypocrites in our "realpolitik" for saying it is about freedom when it's clear to any unfreedomised traitorist it's actually about our money interests

i mean how many democratic countries have the us fucked up again?

oh wait i forget it is impossible for democracies to do bad things to each other

New Testingstan

Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN