or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › End regulation of genitals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

End regulation of genitals

post #1 of 212
Thread Starter 
Gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.
The right is against regulation of any kind when it comes to industry and finances. However they love to regulate who can play with who's genitals and what people should be allowed to do with their genitals.

Please someone explain how this makes sense. Thank you.

WTF.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #2 of 212
So when a 45 year old man touches the genitals of a 10 year old boy or girl, that should be unregulated?

Absolutes, absolutely suck.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #3 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

The larger issue here - and I assume your post is in reference to California obscenity - is that a homosexual-sympathizingl judge illegally overturned the California voter-approved Proposition 8; let's line up some former convicts to overturn all California felonies in like measure! Proposition 8 was legally approved and favored by the majority of California's voters; that a judge can render it invalid, and in turn, the whims of the state's citizens, should concern all. This issue has nothing at all to do with homosexuality or marriage, but the anarchy that our legal system has achieved. Such insanity as California routinely steps in will only be remedied, not by the clueless Ninth Circuit clowns, but instead by SCOTUS, who will inevitably slap down District Judge Vaughn Walker (G-San Francisco) and his decision here.
post #4 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.

I know, it's crazy.

First the government is telling people what they can't do, next thing you know they're telling people what they must do.

Where will it end?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #5 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So when a 45 year old man touches the genitals of a 10 year old boy or girl, that should be unregulated?

Absolutes, absolutely suck.

Yes, they do. Like the absolutely idiotic presumption that any change in regulation will create a slippery slope that will suddenly change the concept of consent.
post #6 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, they do. Like the absolutely idiotic presumption that any change in regulation will create a slippery slope that will suddenly change the concept of consent.

Is this like the slippery slope "arguments" that people who argue that taxes should be lower, government should spend and do less are arguing for complete lawlessness and anarchy?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 212
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So when a 45 year old man touches the genitals of a 10 year old boy or girl, that should be unregulated?

Absolutes, absolutely suck.

For the completely immature here I must add that I meant LEGAL genital play.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #8 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

For the completely immature here I must add that I meant LEGAL genital play.

And round and round we go.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Is this like the slippery slope "arguments" that people who argue that taxes should be lower, government should spend and do less are arguing for complete lawlessness and anarchy?

Touché, but you seem to be arguing for cutting taxes first, cutting spending later. Wrong order, dude.

I agree that we should cut spending, create a Bill Clintonesque surplus, pay off the highest interest portions of the national debt (more spending on interest), then we can cut taxes. Mkay? And obviously there's a great amount of spending that can't be cut without severe social consequences. You can't cut the social safety net without expecting an increase in crime-related costs, not to mention the humanitarian aspect of it all.

What you can cut, immediately, is military spending. Space exploration (temporarily). Tax cuts for the rich (no matter what you say, it hasn't created any economic boost whatsoever, so it is de facto spending).

And round and round we go.
post #10 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Touché, but you seem to be arguing for cutting taxes first, cutting spending later. Wrong order, dude.

Nope. I want them both cut. I'd like to see the budget balanced first so I'd argue for cutting spending first. But we seem to be going in the exact opposite direction.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I agree that we should cut spending, create a Bill Clintonesque surplus,.

I agree that the "surplus" delivered by the Republican Congress, with Bill Clinton's cooperation was a better time. Perhaps it will happen again if the Democrats get their asses handed to them this November. We'll see, if that happens, if Obama is as politically savvy as Clinton was and more attached to the power and the job than to any supposed ideals he has. If he is then we might see a drift back to center on some of his more liberal positions, and possibly some budget sanity. Divided government is the best option we have and I think I'd rather have a D President and R Congress.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And obviously there's a great amount of spending that can't be cut without severe social consequences.

No doubt that to balance the budget and get anywhere near starting to pay off the debt, there will be some short-term pain. But it's going to have to happen sometime. The longer we wait, the more painful it will be when we do it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What you can cut, immediately, is military spending.

I would agree up to the point where it begins reducing actual defense spending. But that's likely to be a rather small portion of what's spent for the military these days anyway. I'd guess maybe 30-50% of what we spend now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Space exploration (temporarily).

Make that permanently and you have my vote Senator!

If you have ever looked at the budget though you'll quickly realize it ill be impossible to address the US budget woes without addressing the so-called "social safety net" (welfare) programs. No other way to slice that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Tax cuts for the rich (no matter what you say, it hasn't created any economic boost whatsoever, so it is de facto spending).



But there are some things we appear to agree on, so all is not lost.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #11 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I agree that the "surplus" delivered by the Republican Congress, with Bill Clinton's cooperation...

Who proposed the budget? How many revisions did Clinton give Congress before they signed it? That should tell you who was responsible.
post #12 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, they do. Like the absolutely idiotic presumption that any change in regulation will create a slippery slope that will suddenly change the concept of consent.

Did you actually read the opening post?

Quote:
End regulation of genitals
Gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.....
......However they love to regulate who can play with who's genitals and what people should be allowed to do with their genitals.

What part of END REGULATION OF GENITALS is me creating a slippery slope?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

For the completely immature here I must add that I meant LEGAL genital play.

That whole English thing biting you in the ass again?

reg·u·late

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.


You just said to stop regulating what people are allowed to do with their genitals. That means you want to stop laws controlling or directing people what they can and cannot do with their genitals. You then say, oh but within the law of course, which means... REGULATED.

LEGAL genital play = REGULATED genital play.

It isn't mature to take your typed words and apply the definition to them. Show some maturity yourself and just admit you still want genitals regulated but just want it your own way.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #13 of 212
Yay, trumpet man is playing the semantics game again. It's clear what Wormhole tried to say, despite the fact that it could have been worded better. Of course Trumpet has to take it to the silly, insane extreme. Of course.


Prop 8 being overturned is a landmark ruling. I've wanted to believe that this conservative vocal resurgence is nothing but the death throes of the movement. This ruling gives me hope.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #14 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yay, trumpet man is playing the semantics game again. It's clear what Wormhole tried to say, despite the fact that it could have been worded better. Of course Trumpet has to take it to the silly, insane extreme. Of course.


Prop 8 being overturned is a landmark ruling. I've wanted to believe that this conservative vocal resurgence is nothing but the death throes of the movement. This ruling gives me hope.

Not only that, there's a bipartisan movement to decriminalize marijuana use. We are progressing forward as a species, slowly.
post #15 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not only that, there's a bipartisan movement to decriminalize marijuana use. We are progressing forward as a species, slowly.

The war on drugs causes so much crime and government bloat through excessive jailing of the populace. It's really time to end it. Legalize it all. The dangers of people doing drugs (who are just going to do it anyway regardless of legality, plus the small addition of those who would only try them if they are legal) are far far outweighed by the dangers of prohibition: organized crime, terrorism, and an awful government money pit.

I'll be voting Yes on 19 come November.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #16 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The war on drugs causes so much crime and government bloat through excessive jailing of the populace. It's really time to end it. Legalize it all. The dangers of people doing drugs (who are just going to do it anyway regardless of legality, plus the small addition of those who would only try them if they are legal) are far far outweighed by the dangers of prohibition: organized crime, terrorism, and an awful government money pit.

I'll be voting Yes on 19 come November.

Hear! Hear!

Though I don't really favor total decriminalization. Some drugs -- crack, heroin, Ketamine, are too dangerous to allow kids to experiment with.
post #17 of 212
Those drugs wouldn't be legal for kids just like tobacco and alcohol aren't. The kids that do want to try those drugs...let's not kid ourselves...they get a hold of them anyway.

And it's rather funny...those that claim to be so concerned with our freedoms just love to dictate what we can and cannot do to and put in our own bodies.

Legalize prostitution, too.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #18 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Those drugs wouldn't be legal for kids just like tobacco and alcohol aren't. The kids that do want to try those drugs...let's not kid ourselves...they get a hold of them anyway.

And it's rather funny...those that claim to be so concerned with our freedoms just love to dictate what we can and cannot do to and put in our own bodies.

Legalize prostitution, too.

Well, for all of these things, it's legalize, and regulate.
post #19 of 212
Yup. And the safety of those who partake will be much more ensured as the drugs will be pure (not laced or cut with anything harmful) and the prostitutes will be clean as a whistle and fresh as a daisy.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #20 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Who proposed the budget? How many revisions did Clinton give Congress before they signed it? That should tell you who was responsible.

We know who is responsible for the budget: Congress. This cannot be more clear. They are the one's responsible for passing all legislation. The budget is simply a piece of legislation. That Clinton was savvy enough to propose something close enough (you know it was revised many times before it was officially passed) that the Congress would pass it is definitely to his credit. Now let's see Barack Obama do the same thing. His first budget wasn't even close. In fact he and his buddies in Congress even re-openned Bush last budget, which had a deficit of $400 billion (approved by the Democrat-controlled Congress), and stuffed in another $800 billion in spending to make it look like Bush's last year had a $1.2 trillion deficit. Nice. And then Obama's first budget continued with a similar deficit (or higher). I dare say there's absolutely no way in hell he would have gotten a balanced budget passed by Congress...and they are the ones in control on that subject.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Those drugs wouldn't be legal for kids just like tobacco and alcohol aren't. The kids that do want to try those drugs...let's not kid ourselves...they get a hold of them anyway.

And it's rather funny...those that claim to be so concerned with our freedoms just love to dictate what we can and cannot do to and put in our own bodies.

Legalize prostitution, too.

Agreed. Along with these, based on the principle that people should be allowed to decide what to do with their bodies: let's end the bans on trans fats and salt which are either in existence and/or being proposed in certain places. Also...helmet and seat belt laws...those can go also.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #22 of 212
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Did you actually read the opening post?



What part of END REGULATION OF GENITALS is me creating a slippery slope?



That whole English thing biting you in the ass again?

reg·u·late

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.


You just said to stop regulating what people are allowed to do with their genitals. That means you want to stop laws controlling or directing people what they can and cannot do with their genitals. You then say, oh but within the law of course, which means... REGULATED.

LEGAL genital play = REGULATED genital play.

It isn't mature to take your typed words and apply the definition to them. Show some maturity yourself and just admit you still want genitals regulated but just want it your own way.

For the "I am going to spin this" people:
If you re-gu-la-t-e a person's rights on grounds of this persons preference in genitals, you in affect regulate what kind of genitals this person may play with to retain their rights.

For most priests 10 year olds are already over the hill.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #23 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

For the "I am going to spin this" people:
If you re-gu-la-t-e a person's rights on grounds of this persons preference in genitals, you in affect regulate what kind of genitals this person may play with to retain their rights.

For most priests 10 year olds are already over the hill.

What if a person prefers their cousin's genitals?
What if a person prefers their dog's genitals?
What if a person prefers the genitals of multiple spouses instead of merely one?

You are still regulating a preference.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #24 of 212
Polygamy, cool. Cousin? Well, depends on which cousin. Dog? Dogs can't consent.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #25 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Cousin? Well, depends on which cousin.

What depends? Age (i.e., minor vs. adult)?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 212
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

What if a person prefers their cousin's genitals?
What if a person prefers their dog's genitals?
What if a person prefers the genitals of multiple spouses instead of merely one?

You are still regulating a preference.

As long as they are of legal age (humans) what do I care..? They just have to take care of their retarded kids on their own.
If their dog let;s them do it ...?
If their spouses are OK with it ... If you want to marry five guys it's fine with me.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #27 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What depends? Age (i.e., minor vs. adult)?

Depends on the chances of genetic defects...i.e. how closely related. Which cousin matters.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #28 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

As long as they are of legal age (humans) what do I care..?

Should they be allowed to receive any special assistance or benefits from the government for any offspring they produce that are mentally or physical defective as a result of their actions?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #29 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Depends on the chances of genetic defects...i.e. how closely related. Which cousin matters.

Why does this matter to you? And why should you have any say, assuming they are consenting adults?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #30 of 212
I see what you're doing here and I'm not buying it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #31 of 212
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Should they be allowed to receive any special assistance or benefits from the government for any offspring they produce that are mentally or physical defective as a result of their actions?

They just have to take care of their retarded kids on their own.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #32 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

We know who is responsible for the budget: Congress. This cannot be more clear. They are the one's responsible for passing all legislation. The budget is simply a piece of legislation. That Clinton was savvy enough to propose something close enough (you know it was revised many times before it was officially passed) that the Congress would pass it is definitely to his credit. Now let's see Barack Obama do the same thing. His first budget wasn't even close. In fact he and his buddies in Congress even re-openned Bush last budget, which had a deficit of $400 billion (approved by the Democrat-controlled Congress), and stuffed in another $800 billion in spending to make it look like Bush's last year had a $1.2 trillion deficit. Nice. And then Obama's first budget continued with a similar deficit (or higher). I dare say there's absolutely no way in hell he would have gotten a balanced budget passed by Congress...and they are the ones in control on that subject.


Hmmmmm.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Forecast: Federal budget deficit will exceed $1.4T in 2010, 2011:

Quote:
"The federal budget deficit, which hit a record $1.4 trillion last year, will exceed that figure this year and again in 2011, according to a White House forecast released Friday.

The $1.47 trillion budget gap predicted for 2010 represents a slight improvement over the administration's February forecast. But the outlook for 2011 has darkened considerably, primarily due to a drop in expected tax receipts from capital gains.

White House budget director Peter Orszag noted in a conference call with reporters that the president's budget is still on track to cut the deficit in half, as a percent of annual economic output, by the end of his first term. As the economy improves, the White House forecasts that the deficit will be just over $700 billion in 2013."

Couple of things to notice:

1. 2012 is conspicuously absent from this news report.
2. The change in the meaning of cutting the budget deficit in half from "cutting the budget deficit in half" to "cut the deficit in half, as a percent of annual economic output". Clever. Wonder if that will fly in people's minds.

eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #33 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I see what you're doing here and I'm not buying it.

What am I doing there? What aren't you buying?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #34 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Hmmmmm.....




What's so funny?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #35 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

They just have to take care of their retarded kids on their own.

So they are responsible for their own actions. Got it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #36 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

They just have to take care of their retarded kids on their own.

Do you support withholding government services in other areas where a personal preference has caused the disadvantage?

Can the government withhold health care from smokers and the obese?
If a child is less than whole due to inutero exposure to drugs and alcohol, does the government give sole responsibility for that child to the parent(s)?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #37 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

As long as they are of legal age (humans) what do I care..? They just have to take care of their retarded kids on their own.
If their dog let;s them do it ...?
If their spouses are OK with it ... If you want to marry five guys it's fine with me.

What if the households do not have enough income due to such marriages? Is it the responsibility of the government to make up the difference due to the fact that people have a right to their choice?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #38 of 212
Here we go.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #39 of 212
So a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional?
post #40 of 212
Apparently it is when rule of law is no longer a concern.

Understand this, I voted AGAINST Prop. 8. I support homosexual marriage. However you don't burn down rule of law just to get to a goal. This issue would have moved along in time. Now instead of letting popular support build it could create a federalized decision against such marriages and that would be wrong as well because these things should be left to the states.

Wrongs all around though.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › End regulation of genitals