you have to face it...our society no longer promotes survival of the fittest (fittest mentally and physically)
that is the the idiot population has grown
This is something I've been saying for years. In fact, I?m proof we are no longer evolving: I wear contacts.
Some day, many eons after the last of the intelligent humans have wiped out decease and famine, the only people left will be mindless simians (not unlike those mentioned in the article above) gleefully roaming around the heaven on earth their predecessors have created, entertaining themselves by throwing fecal matter at each other.
I am a 'consenting adults' type when it comes to things sexual, but I wonder if this is really sexual at all, but rather just a promotion of violence against women.
I am a 'consenting adults' type when it comes to things sexual, but I wonder if this is really sexual at all, but rather just a promotion of violence against women.
I find this just appalling.
If the women voluntarily decide to partake in this, the government has no right to stop them.
If the women voluntarily decide to partake in this, the government has no right to stop them.
I am not sure that this is just a ?consenting adults / behind closed doors? thing, especially to the extent that it might promote violence against women. Whether things like this actually cause problems in real life is, I acknowledge, an open question, and I am not sure that the government should stop it. Just the same, I find it appalling.
As I theoretical question, here is an alternative paintball scenario: ?PaintBall Columbine? ? a paintball company leases or buys an old unused school, hires young-looking actors to pose as students, and invites the paying public to come in an play out their school massacre fantasies. Fun? Acceptable? Do the same ?consenting adult? principles apply?
Or here is another one: ?PaintBall KKK - Black Armageddon? ? a paintball company buys some old shanties in the country, hires some African Americans to pose as poor sharecroppers, and invites the paying public to come in and play out their racist fantasies. Fun? Acceptable? Do the same principles apply?
Or here is another one: ?PaintBall KKK - Black Armageddon? ? a paintball company buys some old shanties in the country, hires some African Americans to pose as poor sharecroppers, and invites the paying public to come in and play out their racist fantasies. Fun? Acceptable? Do the same principles apply?
Yes, I'd say the same principles apply. If the above were completely to involve only consenting adults, I don't see that the government should interfere.
Now... that's not the same thing as saying that no one should protest or work against such activities. If you don't like PaintBall KKK or Hunting for Bambi, don't do business with the organizers. Don't do business with anyone who does business with them. Express your disapproval loudly. Boycott any media company that advertises for these paintball games, and the products of other companies willing to advertise alongside the offensive paintballers. If you personally know anyone involved in these games, shun them for it.
Instead of expecting the government to restrict someone else's freedoms to get the results you want, use your freedoms to encourage the results you want -- and be ready to ultimately accept that you might not get whet you want.
Yes, I'd say the same principles apply. If the above were completely to involve only consenting adults, I don't see that the government should interfere.
Now... that's not the same thing as saying that no one should protest or work against such activities. If you don't like PaintBall KKK or Hunting for Bambi, don't do business with the organizers. Don't do business with anyone who does business with them. Express your disapproval loudly. Boycott any media company that advertises for these paintball games, and the products of other companies willing to advertise alongside the offensive paintballers. If you personally know anyone involved in these games, shun them for it.
Instead of expecting the government to restrict someone else's freedoms to get the results you want, use your freedoms to encourage the results you want -- and be ready to ultimately accept that you might not get whet you want.
In principle I agree. You might have observed that in my post I doubted that Bambi PaintBall is something that the government should restrict.
I do wonder, however, how far libertarian arguments can go. Would you say that actual murder should be unrestricted as a form of freedom of expression? Would you say, in that case, that we should not jail persons who murder women (or African Americans, or children), we should just shun them and boycott them? (And maybe shoot back at them too - victims would have the right to "express themselves" with guns as well, I suppose).
I realize that I have taken the argument to a ridiculous extreme in the last example. But how about, then, if you could show that activities like Bambi PaintBall - or my hypothetical examples of PaintBall KKK or Columbine Paintball - encourge acts of violence against women, blacks, or school children? I know that this would be difficult to prove, but what if you could? (Some women's groups, NAACP, and anti-violence groups would certainly make the argument). If you could prove this link - that it did encourage violence and killings - should the government restrict it in that case?
I do wonder, however, how far libertarian arguments can go. Would you say that actual murder should be unrestricted as a form of freedom of expression? Would you say, in that case, that we should not jail persons who murder women (or African Americans, or children), we should just shun them and boycott them? (And maybe shoot back at them too - victims would have the right to "express themselves" with guns as well, I suppose).
The chief principle in my argument so far has been what happens among consenting adults, not some strange mistaken extrapolation of freedom of expression.
I realize that I have taken the argument to a ridiculous extreme in the last example.
Taking libertarianism to an extreme isn't the problem... completely missing the concept of libertarianism is the problem. Anarchy, which is essentially what you're talking about, is a totally different thing than libertarianism.
More interesting extremes, still within the realm of libertarian concepts, would be volunteer gladiator fights, or "Bambis" who agreed for a price to allow themselves to be shot at with real, deadly firearms.
In practice, such things would be awful. In principle, however, when you get down the central issues, I see choosing what you do with your own life -- including choosing to greatly risk or even end your own life -- as being up to you. The tricky question is whether or not a person can give meaningful consent to such things. Does choosing to die automatically mean you're not sane enough to make such a decision, and therefore cannot provide meaningful consent?
I'm not a utopian. I'm prepared to accept that there's going to be ugliness in real life. (As if we aren't forced to accept that anyway.) I trust solid principles that protect individual liberties more than visions of "the good life" and ad-hoc rules designed in hopes of steering people and society towards such visions.
At the same time, I can see how allowing such things would be abused. The rich would feed upon the poor. Desperate people would greatly risk or give up their lives trying to pay debts, help sick family members, etc. I'm absolutely certain that if you started showing televised gladiator fights, actual live-on-TV fights to the death using volunteer combatants that you'd have no shortage of volunteers.
At least, unlike the bad old days of the Roman Coliseum, the combatants would be there by choice, rather than being captured slaves or excessively punished criminals.
I'm also certain that social pressure, without need for legal intervention, would stop any such show from ever getting on TV in the first place, or stop it soon after it started. Only by slowly creeping in that direction, slowly building social tolerance, would such things occur.
But how about, then, if you could show that activities like Bambi PaintBall - or my hypothetical examples of PaintBall KKK or Columbine Paintball - encourge acts of violence against women, blacks, or school children? I know that this would be difficult to prove, but what if you could? (Some women's groups, NAACP, and anti-violence groups would certainly make the argument). If you could prove this link - that it did encourage violence and killings - should the government restrict it in that case?
I think the link would have to be incredibly strong, and very greatly causal, before public interest trumped individual freedom. Why? Because if you start using mere encouragement as a standard, or start banning responsible people from doing some things because of what some irresponsible people might do, too much freedom that we value is at risk.
Alcohol causes many more deaths every year than big-story events like Columbine ever cause. Motor vehicles driven even by those who are straight and sober cause many more deaths per year than wacko racist groups. So why not ban the sale of both alcohol and automobiles?
Without even realizing it, people constantly tally up the real and potential damage cause by things they don't like, things that scare or offend them, and yet easily discount far worse damage caused by things they feel safe and comfortable with.
If prevention of death and tragedy are your real goals, and not stomping out something you don't like with potential associated problems as an excuse, there are a lot more things out there you would have to go after before worrying about your theoretical Columbine PaintBall.
Las Vegas officials investigated, and said Burdick admitted that the safaris were just a hoax intended to promote the "Hunting for Bambi" videos that Burdick sells. The videos are marketed as depicting nude women being hunted by men who have paid for the privilege.
The Mayor of Vegas is a real comedian too:
Quote:
"I'll do everything I can to see this man is punished for trying to embarrass Las Vegas," Goodman said.
Uh.. yeah. Sure thing, chief. A city with such high standards.
Comments
and you wonder why these guys can't hook up normally
Originally posted by BR
...consenting adults. None of my business.
True. I just hope those in power see it the same way.
Originally posted by Argento
Let the idiots weed out the idiots.
If that was true, then " idiots " would have died out years ago..
Instead they are breeding like rabbits.....
While the clever ones don't have time for babies..hence constantly on the edge of " distinction "
Originally posted by aquafire
If that was true, then " idiots " would have died out years ago..
Instead they are breeding like rabbits.....
While the clever ones don't have time for babies..hence constantly on the edge of " distinction "
They even have books to show them how:
that is the the idiot population has grown
Originally posted by ast3r3x
you have to face it...our society no longer promotes survival of the fittest (fittest mentally and physically)
that is the the idiot population has grown
This is something I've been saying for years. In fact, I?m proof we are no longer evolving: I wear contacts.
Some day, many eons after the last of the intelligent humans have wiped out decease and famine, the only people left will be mindless simians (not unlike those mentioned in the article above) gleefully roaming around the heaven on earth their predecessors have created, entertaining themselves by throwing fecal matter at each other.
It's not my bag.
I find this just appalling.
Originally posted by Chinney
I am a 'consenting adults' type when it comes to things sexual, but I wonder if this is really sexual at all, but rather just a promotion of violence against women.
I find this just appalling.
If the women voluntarily decide to partake in this, the government has no right to stop them.
Originally posted by BR
If the women voluntarily decide to partake in this, the government has no right to stop them.
I am not sure that this is just a ?consenting adults / behind closed doors? thing, especially to the extent that it might promote violence against women. Whether things like this actually cause problems in real life is, I acknowledge, an open question, and I am not sure that the government should stop it. Just the same, I find it appalling.
As I theoretical question, here is an alternative paintball scenario: ?PaintBall Columbine? ? a paintball company leases or buys an old unused school, hires young-looking actors to pose as students, and invites the paying public to come in an play out their school massacre fantasies. Fun? Acceptable? Do the same ?consenting adult? principles apply?
Or here is another one: ?PaintBall KKK - Black Armageddon? ? a paintball company buys some old shanties in the country, hires some African Americans to pose as poor sharecroppers, and invites the paying public to come in and play out their racist fantasies. Fun? Acceptable? Do the same principles apply?
Just curious.
Originally posted by Chinney
Or here is another one: ?PaintBall KKK - Black Armageddon? ? a paintball company buys some old shanties in the country, hires some African Americans to pose as poor sharecroppers, and invites the paying public to come in and play out their racist fantasies. Fun? Acceptable? Do the same principles apply?
Yes, I'd say the same principles apply. If the above were completely to involve only consenting adults, I don't see that the government should interfere.
Now... that's not the same thing as saying that no one should protest or work against such activities. If you don't like PaintBall KKK or Hunting for Bambi, don't do business with the organizers. Don't do business with anyone who does business with them. Express your disapproval loudly. Boycott any media company that advertises for these paintball games, and the products of other companies willing to advertise alongside the offensive paintballers. If you personally know anyone involved in these games, shun them for it.
Instead of expecting the government to restrict someone else's freedoms to get the results you want, use your freedoms to encourage the results you want -- and be ready to ultimately accept that you might not get whet you want.
Originally posted by shetline
Yes, I'd say the same principles apply. If the above were completely to involve only consenting adults, I don't see that the government should interfere.
Now... that's not the same thing as saying that no one should protest or work against such activities. If you don't like PaintBall KKK or Hunting for Bambi, don't do business with the organizers. Don't do business with anyone who does business with them. Express your disapproval loudly. Boycott any media company that advertises for these paintball games, and the products of other companies willing to advertise alongside the offensive paintballers. If you personally know anyone involved in these games, shun them for it.
Instead of expecting the government to restrict someone else's freedoms to get the results you want, use your freedoms to encourage the results you want -- and be ready to ultimately accept that you might not get whet you want.
In principle I agree. You might have observed that in my post I doubted that Bambi PaintBall is something that the government should restrict.
I do wonder, however, how far libertarian arguments can go. Would you say that actual murder should be unrestricted as a form of freedom of expression? Would you say, in that case, that we should not jail persons who murder women (or African Americans, or children), we should just shun them and boycott them? (And maybe shoot back at them too - victims would have the right to "express themselves" with guns as well, I suppose).
I realize that I have taken the argument to a ridiculous extreme in the last example. But how about, then, if you could show that activities like Bambi PaintBall - or my hypothetical examples of PaintBall KKK or Columbine Paintball - encourge acts of violence against women, blacks, or school children? I know that this would be difficult to prove, but what if you could? (Some women's groups, NAACP, and anti-violence groups would certainly make the argument). If you could prove this link - that it did encourage violence and killings - should the government restrict it in that case?
Originally posted by Chinney
I do wonder, however, how far libertarian arguments can go. Would you say that actual murder should be unrestricted as a form of freedom of expression? Would you say, in that case, that we should not jail persons who murder women (or African Americans, or children), we should just shun them and boycott them? (And maybe shoot back at them too - victims would have the right to "express themselves" with guns as well, I suppose).
The chief principle in my argument so far has been what happens among consenting adults, not some strange mistaken extrapolation of freedom of expression.
I realize that I have taken the argument to a ridiculous extreme in the last example.
Taking libertarianism to an extreme isn't the problem... completely missing the concept of libertarianism is the problem. Anarchy, which is essentially what you're talking about, is a totally different thing than libertarianism.
More interesting extremes, still within the realm of libertarian concepts, would be volunteer gladiator fights, or "Bambis" who agreed for a price to allow themselves to be shot at with real, deadly firearms.
In practice, such things would be awful. In principle, however, when you get down the central issues, I see choosing what you do with your own life -- including choosing to greatly risk or even end your own life -- as being up to you. The tricky question is whether or not a person can give meaningful consent to such things. Does choosing to die automatically mean you're not sane enough to make such a decision, and therefore cannot provide meaningful consent?
I'm not a utopian. I'm prepared to accept that there's going to be ugliness in real life. (As if we aren't forced to accept that anyway.) I trust solid principles that protect individual liberties more than visions of "the good life" and ad-hoc rules designed in hopes of steering people and society towards such visions.
At the same time, I can see how allowing such things would be abused. The rich would feed upon the poor. Desperate people would greatly risk or give up their lives trying to pay debts, help sick family members, etc. I'm absolutely certain that if you started showing televised gladiator fights, actual live-on-TV fights to the death using volunteer combatants that you'd have no shortage of volunteers.
At least, unlike the bad old days of the Roman Coliseum, the combatants would be there by choice, rather than being captured slaves or excessively punished criminals.
I'm also certain that social pressure, without need for legal intervention, would stop any such show from ever getting on TV in the first place, or stop it soon after it started. Only by slowly creeping in that direction, slowly building social tolerance, would such things occur.
But how about, then, if you could show that activities like Bambi PaintBall - or my hypothetical examples of PaintBall KKK or Columbine Paintball - encourge acts of violence against women, blacks, or school children? I know that this would be difficult to prove, but what if you could? (Some women's groups, NAACP, and anti-violence groups would certainly make the argument). If you could prove this link - that it did encourage violence and killings - should the government restrict it in that case?
I think the link would have to be incredibly strong, and very greatly causal, before public interest trumped individual freedom. Why? Because if you start using mere encouragement as a standard, or start banning responsible people from doing some things because of what some irresponsible people might do, too much freedom that we value is at risk.
Alcohol causes many more deaths every year than big-story events like Columbine ever cause. Motor vehicles driven even by those who are straight and sober cause many more deaths per year than wacko racist groups. So why not ban the sale of both alcohol and automobiles?
Without even realizing it, people constantly tally up the real and potential damage cause by things they don't like, things that scare or offend them, and yet easily discount far worse damage caused by things they feel safe and comfortable with.
If prevention of death and tragedy are your real goals, and not stomping out something you don't like with potential associated problems as an excuse, there are a lot more things out there you would have to go after before worrying about your theoretical Columbine PaintBall.
Promoter Who Offered Nude Hunting Trips Accused of Staging a Hoax, Faces Charges
Las Vegas officials investigated, and said Burdick admitted that the safaris were just a hoax intended to promote the "Hunting for Bambi" videos that Burdick sells. The videos are marketed as depicting nude women being hunted by men who have paid for the privilege.
The Mayor of Vegas is a real comedian too:
"I'll do everything I can to see this man is punished for trying to embarrass Las Vegas," Goodman said.
Uh.. yeah. Sure thing, chief. A city with such high standards.