gourimoko
Fighting the good fight!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 39,845
- Reaction score
- 53,645
- Points
- 148
Thanks for clearing things up.
No worries.. always glad to discuss.
I agree that it's sad, and not dissimilar from the way the internet became a great way to share porn (among other things).
I don't really find distribution of porn on the internet as sad. It's an expression of the deepest human desires, and it's perfectly natural in my views.
I think it's actually interesting because this is like the fourth time we've had a discussion like this and I've noticed your own personal tastes tend to bleed into your policy views. By contrast, let me explain my views...
With something like internet porn, I think it's great. It's free expression. People expend money, man-hours of work, etc, to create pornography, and people spend their time consuming it. It's free 99% of the time, and is paid for simply by viewing it.
Now, I break with much of American society in that I view the watching of porn as something of a moral quandary while in a relationship. Now, I say this while also saying that my own personal views have nothing to do with anyone else, and I neither advocate this view or state that it's either correct or incorrect; it's simply my personal view.
But that disconnect I'm demonstrating between my own personal choices and what I think is best for society is something that I don't think you're doing. Instead, again for example, since you wouldn't have sex with Kylie Jenner a month ago, then anyone who would should be imprisoned; or since you don't own any firearms, then anyone who wants to should undergo a psych evaluation; or since you wouldn't ever download a CAD file of a firearm (even for academic purposes), then the government should try to prevent anyone from distributing or downloading said files.
You see the problem with this?
Oh I know that living in a free society means that there are a whole host of things that I disagree with that are protected under the law.
Here's the thing. Disagreeing with something for yourself doesn't mean you disagree with it being legal; I think you're conflating those two concepts.
Example: I am a Catholic. I'm not an atheist, even though many here problem would assume such from my posts. That means I believe abortion is a sin; regardless of your reasoning, because Catholicism doesn't regard a logical form at it's core, but instead a universal command-driven ethics. Therefore, abortion is sinful - period.
Gay marriage... As a Catholic, religiously I cannot endorse marriage between two men in my own church. There is absolutely no basis for such a sacrament in Catholicism; it's expressly forbidden. However, as an American, the opposite is true - there is no basis to limit the freedom of two willing and consenting adults from being married. The paradigms are completely different.
As such, I separate my personal religious beliefs from my ethical understanding of policy that relates to the state. In essence, I'm separating Church and State, as well as personal prejudice and whatever cultural ingrained biases from the rational "real-world" policy platforms I think society should adhere to.
Talking about possible change, however extreme, isn't a bad thing in my opinion though.
It can be if it leads to negative consequences.
That's how the tide finally turned on gay marriage.
Gay marriage with respect to the state was a question of expanding freedom; like universal suffrage, abolition, repealing prohibition, ending the war on drugs, and decriminalizing/legalizing marijuana. All of these questions relate to creating a freer society, not imposing greater restrictions on individuals to create a less free society.
So those debates a fundamentally different than the one you propose, which is a surrendering of specific liberties through burdensome regulation.
I admit, my research on this issue was Wikipedia. That's why I asked you about this originally because you are way more informed on this. Anything about guns in general is about as much gobbledygook to me as half the stuff you talk about with Internet security.
Thanks again for the info.
Again, no worries..
Just keep in mind, I'm always going to operate from the framework of the Constitution and our social contract. When we talk about governments acting on their own to take or give away from the people, that discussion always needs to be in the context of that contract.
That surprises me, but I guess that figure from a purely economic stand point that there will still be plenty of people that are too lazy to finish building a gun on their own and will keep buying from them.
The NRA realizes this type of legislation often acts as a platform for expanded gun controls. The weapon ban you mentioned was the first of it's kind and ultimately led to the Assault Weapons Ban. The slippery slope they spoke of at the time was very real indeed.