Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

Palomar · 2002-07-31 14:04:12

verytime you have sex in privacy, you obey regulations pertaining to sex.
Can you have sex in the middle of the street at 10AM in downtown traffic? No. It is a regulation.

*No, actually it's not a regulation for me and my husband; we wouldn't consider anything BUT privacy.

Exhibitionists may be regulated in this regard, however. But since not everyone is an exhibitionist, not everyone is regulated in this regard.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-07-31 14:05:57

I see, so you are claiming that the governemnt will start telling us what shirts to wear?! Now who is crazy. LOL.

Actually, I do recall a suburban father being arrested at a theme park - and his young child left unattended for hours - because some clever cop thought his wearing a baseball cap sideways was a gang symbol.

Certain color shirts are prohibited in certain locales as an anti-gang measure. Wear a red shirt or a purple striped shirt in the wrong neighborhood and you get arrested - which may be better than dead, by the way.

Being the cuddly, sweet fellow I am, I would prefer that clark make many of his points in a kinder and gentler way - but many of his points do have a fair amount of truth, IMHO.

Not that I agree with clark on everything, mind you. . .

Palomar · 2002-07-31 14:20:17

Actually, I do recall a suburban father being arrested at a theme park - and his young child left unattended for hours - because some clever cop thought his wearing a baseball cap sideways was a gang symbol.

*Sounds like abuse of police power, to me. What is this nation coming to, when people can be arrested for the way they wear a baseball cap, for cryin' out loud?! I hope this man successfully sued the local law enforcement agency, that this stupid cop had his badge taken away and his butt kicked out of the police force, and that he and/or his police department were brought up on charges of child endangerment. This is outrageous and ridiculous. Thanks for sharing, Bill. What was the outcome, do you know?

--Cindy

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-31 14:24:56

Skipping past all the "we regulate this, we regulate that" (which apparently serves no purpose than trying to get people to say, "why, control must be a good thing! Regulate everything!"), we go right to the first part that has any bearing on what I wrote:

As for regulating how much livestock and grain- you imply that I support or somehow endorse this statement. i do not. It is entirely you. Please site where I made this asserton (you asked me "right?" in confirmation). I cannot confirm your assertions, nor do I care to.

It's a Supreme Court ruling.

I see, so you are claiming that the governemnt will start telling us what shirts to wear?! Now who is crazy. LOL.

Merely illustrating that a great deal of power beyond what you intend can be wrenched out of that little word "regulate". Illegitimately, of course, but since when has that mattered?

And yes, if some politician were interested in shirt colors, "regulating marriage" would be as good an excuse as any.

But society does this now. Maybe not as overtly as you keep screaming about. The State has the authority to take children away from people shoe are deemed unfit to raise them. That in effect is the same thing. Really, have you thought about any of this at all?

This is interesting. In the next paragraph you write that I'm making it up, but here you're adding to the very argument I said would logically lead you to eugenics.

The "argument" itself is also interesting as a typical example of how statists think. Taking children out of abusive homes is abstracted into determining who can have children, which is taken as a warrent for parenting licenses (and eugenics, although you either haven't gone that far or won't admit to having gone that far). No notice is taken of the difference between reacting to specific crimes already committed, and enforcing blanket prior control over everyone, violent or not. And this lack of thought is then called "thought".

I never once posted that what you are ranting about is what should happen.

Of course not, but it is where your logic leads. After all, it's for the good of society, and society already determines who can procreate with laws against incest (and we used to have laws against miscegenation and laws forcing people determined to be retarded to be sterilized), and laws taking children away from abusive homes, and if you get your way there will be parenting licenses in place.

Let me put it another way: what argument can you use against it?

Phobos · 2002-07-31 21:07:44

I agree fully with everything you wrote AJ. Statists who think they have some inherent right to regulate everything in existence and yank our chains in every which direction they please merely view the individual as property of the state. I find it abhorrent that some two-bit politician has the right to order my family members drafted into some war to kill and be killed against their will. If you can't find enough volunteers to fight your wars for you then it's highly probable that either your war is unjust or the society itself isn't worth fighting for. I could go on and on but I'll keep it short.

Bill White · 2002-07-31 22:04:07

Re: the baseball cap - What was the outcome, do you know?

I believe - solely from memory - that no charges were filed, in part in exchange for an agreement that no lawsuits would be filed.

Apparently, there actually had been numerous on-going gang fights between guys who chose to wear ball caps turned left and guys who chose to wear ball caps turned right. The custom among these young punks indeed was this - if you wanted to fight, turn your cap sideways.

This poor father had no clue. . .

Big city gang crime units do crack down on folks wearing "colors" even if trumped up charges are later dropped - a variation on the criminal offense of "driving while black."

My own opinion, on the big picture, good regulations are a good idea, bad regulations are stupid. Requirements that stock options appear on corporate balance sheets is a good one, IMHO.

But I agree that telling good regs and bad regs apart is not always easy.

I also recall a Robert Heinlein novel about travellers between parallel worlds. One world shocked these folks greatly.

The people were such sheep that they would routinely obey colored lights hung over intersections. See a red light and stop. See a green light and go. Heinlein's characters wondered aloud at what failures in moral education caused such behavior.

The Number of the Beast, if I recall correctly.

clark · 2002-08-01 07:34:23

Merely illustrating that a great deal of power beyond what you intend can be wrenched out of that little word "regulate". Illegitimately, of course, but since when has that mattered?

II won't deny that there are those who look to use regulation to serve their own personal interests, in fact, Rosseau discuss this issue directly. I find it amazing that you continue to claim that I support this or I support that. What we have been discussing are generalaities which you take to "logical" extremes. Is what you point out possible, yes. Am I, or have I agreed with any of what you state at coming from me- no. You are making these false dichatomies, you are twisiting the generalities into these precise points- not I. This is an argument that you have hijacked and continue to set the framework by defining my argument for me. Is this the best you can do?

And yes, if some politician were interested in shirt colors, "regulating marriage" would be as good an excuse as any.

True, now I will ask you the next question that betrays your stupid rants for what they are, meaningless drivel. How did the politican get to a point where they could make the regulations? Who put them there? What was the manner in which they were chosen? What are the checks and balances that maintainn control and prevent abuse?

You see, I haven't discussed form in any of this- just the general framework- the general framework of Society is that we as individuals agree to abide by the rules of Society. How Society chooses the expression of it's will is a seperate, and UNTOUCHED discussion.

Taking children out of abusive homes is abstracted into determining who can have children, which is taken as a warrent for parenting licenses (and eugenics, although you either haven't gone that far or won't admit to having gone that far).

You are a reductionist. Put everything into nice little packets of black and white eh? I described an ACT- which is thee state deciding who can and cannot raise children. Are there legitimate reasosn for thjis- I sure as hell hope so. However, I defined an ability of the State- it is a precedent. Twist the issue all you want, I understand- it's hard sometiems accepting that you are out of your league.

Children are routinely taken from homes, irregardless of "abuse". There are numerous reasons. Cry all you want, but the FACT remains that Society has the legitimate right to determine who may raise a child. Deal with that STATEMENT. Of course you won't- you'll merely dance some more by showing us YOUR logical progression on how you interpret the facts and play it off as mine.

I know what I think and it sure as hell ain't what you are peddling.

Of course not, but it is where your logic leads.

No, it is where your logic leads... badly too. How can you honestly expect me to debate an argument you are having with yourself. Either limit yourself to what I say, or sod off.

After all, it's for the good of society, and society already determines who can procreate with lawsagainst incest (and we used to have laws against miscegenation and laws forcing people determined to be retarded to be sterilized), and laws taking children away from abusive homes, and if you get your way there will be parenting licenses in place.

Oh, I get it. You want to be able to sleep with your family. You would prefer children to saty in abusive homes. Progressive.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-08-02 13:47:56

If I'm "out of my league", how come you're the one reduced to saying things like, "You want to be able to sleep with your family"?

clark · 2002-08-02 14:12:36

You are out of your league for the simple fact that you continue to fail at proving your points and invariably say things that undermine the basis of your argument.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-08-02 20:41:22

Yeah, that's why I've run out of arguments and just say the other guys want to be able to sleep with his family.

clark · 2002-08-05 10:45:20

Okay AJ. You're right. I agree with you 100%. Your view is the appropriate one, and I am a better person for seeing it. Thank you for your insight, and your illuminating understanding of history and human nature. Please feel free to instruct me as to where else I am mistaken, because I could obviously use the instruction from someone who is able to discern the real issues with such clarity.

Obviously all opinions other than yours are the correct one, and really, the world would be a much saner place if we all simply just listened to you. Thank you, I am humbled that you would even dain to provide such insight as you have so far, and I look forward to the fountain of enlightenment that you represent.

Thank you again for demonstrating how right you are.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-07-31 14:04:12

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#27 2002-07-31 14:05:57

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#28 2002-07-31 14:20:17

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#29 2002-07-31 14:24:56

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#30 2002-07-31 21:07:44

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#31 2002-07-31 22:04:07

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#32 2002-08-01 07:34:23

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#33 2002-08-02 13:47:56

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#34 2002-08-02 14:12:36

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#35 2002-08-02 20:41:22

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

#36 2002-08-05 10:45:20

Re: Love, Divorce, & Etc: Marsian style - Familial issues on Mars

Board footer