|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On June 10 2016 04:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 14:20 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2016 13:56 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 13:12 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2016 13:03 oBlade wrote:In the past, when people have raised concerns about the control internet giants have over speech, in my experience the rebuttals have been how it's not an issue because private companies worth multiple billions have the right to do as they please - and if people don't like it, they should make their own social networks. And that seemed like a convenient deference to the free market to me, but whatever. Now the cartel of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft are explicitly working with the EU commission (in other words, government bureaucracy), and I'm being told this isn't an issue because it's up to a government to restrict "hate" speech. It's apparently a cause that just isn't important to some people. so you were okay with censorship as long as it was done for arbitrary or economic reasons but when it's the result of the democratic process in the form of government institutions it's somehow worse? No, I'm saying I don't like censorship. In prior instances when SNS control of speech was criticized, free speech advocates got dismissed with the rationale that companies can do what they want, and your rights are only an issue when the government is involved. Now the government is directly and publicly involved. The EC is an appointed bureaucracy with a less than stellar record - the same body responsible for a controversial handling of the migrant crisis coincidentally wants to expand censorship under the pretense of protecting people. Even if this was a policy by direct referendum instead of a convoluted international bureaucracy, "democracy" is hardly a singular descriptor of Europe. Embedded in the countries are other ideas, like liberalism, which are supposed to protect people from voting their rights away (which again isn't what this is, the EC are appointed officials). http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm again, it's not like it isn't consensus on the national level already. Even in the UK which is arguably the most classical liberal country in the Union hate speech, especially against the typical protected classes (religion, ethnicity, sex and so on) is clearly forbidden. This isn't a new thing. What's new is that it's actually being enforced in the digital sphere given that we've seen what can happen in internet echo chambers. There has been a certain degree of trust that companies like Facebook adhere to European standards on their own. They haven't delivered so now the European institutions get involved, but it's not in principle a top down thing initiated by 'the bureaucracy'. What countries seem to agree to is that it's part of their criminal code that incitement to hatred/violence by speech is punishable. Like a prosecutor takes a case to the courts and tries to convict someone of a crime under the law, right? Who agreed to appointed international executives partnering with megacorps to determine what "hate speech" is and then censor people for it? If it were TV and newspapers, maybe people would know it was wrong.
And who agreed that Boobies on Facebook aren't allowed? Because that actually wouldn't be the slightest Problem under the law in many (big!) european countries.
Censoring People from showing their own Body is somehow allright but censoring blatant hatespeak isn't?
Thats where i get problems with understanding american/anglosaxon "free speak"... We need to protect children wherever possible from seeing Boobies (or dicks/vaginas/whatever) but what they can hear or read? Who cares.
Its retarded beyond belief.
|
Zurich15362 Posts
On June 10 2016 18:17 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 04:09 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 14:20 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2016 13:56 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 13:12 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2016 13:03 oBlade wrote:In the past, when people have raised concerns about the control internet giants have over speech, in my experience the rebuttals have been how it's not an issue because private companies worth multiple billions have the right to do as they please - and if people don't like it, they should make their own social networks. And that seemed like a convenient deference to the free market to me, but whatever. Now the cartel of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft are explicitly working with the EU commission (in other words, government bureaucracy), and I'm being told this isn't an issue because it's up to a government to restrict "hate" speech. It's apparently a cause that just isn't important to some people. so you were okay with censorship as long as it was done for arbitrary or economic reasons but when it's the result of the democratic process in the form of government institutions it's somehow worse? No, I'm saying I don't like censorship. In prior instances when SNS control of speech was criticized, free speech advocates got dismissed with the rationale that companies can do what they want, and your rights are only an issue when the government is involved. Now the government is directly and publicly involved. The EC is an appointed bureaucracy with a less than stellar record - the same body responsible for a controversial handling of the migrant crisis coincidentally wants to expand censorship under the pretense of protecting people. Even if this was a policy by direct referendum instead of a convoluted international bureaucracy, "democracy" is hardly a singular descriptor of Europe. Embedded in the countries are other ideas, like liberalism, which are supposed to protect people from voting their rights away (which again isn't what this is, the EC are appointed officials). http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm again, it's not like it isn't consensus on the national level already. Even in the UK which is arguably the most classical liberal country in the Union hate speech, especially against the typical protected classes (religion, ethnicity, sex and so on) is clearly forbidden. This isn't a new thing. What's new is that it's actually being enforced in the digital sphere given that we've seen what can happen in internet echo chambers. There has been a certain degree of trust that companies like Facebook adhere to European standards on their own. They haven't delivered so now the European institutions get involved, but it's not in principle a top down thing initiated by 'the bureaucracy'. What countries seem to agree to is that it's part of their criminal code that incitement to hatred/violence by speech is punishable. Like a prosecutor takes a case to the courts and tries to convict someone of a crime under the law, right? Who agreed to appointed international executives partnering with megacorps to determine what "hate speech" is and then censor people for it? If it were TV and newspapers, maybe people would know it was wrong. And wo agreed that Boobies on Facebook aren't allowed? Because that actually wouldn't be the slightest Problem under the law in many (big!) european countries. Censoring People from showing their own Body is somehow allright but censoring blatant hatespeak isn't? Thats were i get Problems with understanding american/anglosaxon "free speak"... We need to protect children wherever possible from seeing Boobies (or dicks/vaginas whatever) but what they can hear or read? Who cares. Its retarded beyond belief.
signed by every continental European
|
On June 10 2016 18:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 01:11 opisska wrote:On June 10 2016 00:58 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm not prescribing what people are supposed to think. And this discussion is going to go nowhere before you accept that. I'm prescribing what expectations people should have when they apply for citizenship. Being granted citizenship in a country is a privilege - which is something that seems to have been forgotten. The immigrants need the host country to a far greater degree than the other way around.
The approach that more tolerance and freedom will prevail is idealistic but at the same time incredibly naive and trusting it to succeed flies in the face of all current available data - the past 20 years of immigration attempts in the EU have had less than stellar success. I do not pretend to have a magic bullet to fix it, but the reasonable approach sure as hell can't be more of the same. But then, what are the practical policies you would implement to these ends - short of just building a wall and letting the rest of the world pay for it? The abstract concepts you say about citizenships sound nice, but what does it mean in practice? How is that different from the current situation? What steps do you suggests in determining whether the immigrants have accepted the values you want them to accept? Opinions are worth nothing if they can't be translated into day-to-day reality. As long as the refugees enter Europe, there are exactly three things you can do: - accept them and eventually grant them full rights, equal to the people who already live here - let them in, but let them be second-class citizens for extended periods - remove them forcibly from the area I my opinion, option 2 is seen as practical only by people who have zero understanding of human nature and would lead to a disaster no matter what. Option 3 is partly immoral (when concerning real refugees of war, of which there are millions), partly impractical (because there is nowhere to relocate the people to, or because they will simply come back). Do you see any other option? I don't believe we will be ever able to close the borders and any attempt to do so only increases the impetus on people trafficking, making the whole thing an absurd competition in not dying in the process, which I don't really see as helpful. Do you see any other option? If not, then what is the point of even discussing how much immigrants are a problem, if we are stuck with them anyway? Or specific details of citizenship requirements, if there is no better course of action than to grant the citizenship to most of the people that are coming? It really is the time to stop talking in bloated words and start talking actual actions. Clearly the best option is do not grant any welfare benefits to non citizens and grant them only to citizens who have resided for 5 years or more in that country.Why do you think these migrants are gravitating to Sweden in such large numbers? Very basic fact that i feel the far left may slowly be realising : you cannot have both open borders and a generous welfare system.One maximum or the system will eventually collapse.
One hand, I obviously agree that money and resources do not come out of thin air, so there needs to be some balance. On the other hand, I am not so sure whether outright excluding a group of people from welfare system is a very good idea. Together with their worse employability (people will obviously prefer locals for most things, if they can), it inevitable leads towards establishing an impoverished social layer, which will increase crime, lead to creation of ghettos and generally hinder any effort in integrating the people into our culture. All of that will then incur a lot of additional expenses on the rest of the society anyway, making the initial savings at least dubious.
|
I listened to Stephan Molyneux on my way to work today*, and I'm usually opposed to 100% of what he says.
But he makes one point that I don't think you can explain away:
When you have a welfare system open to anyone, you attract immigrants whose lives will be improved by welfare, whereas if you don't have a welfare system, you attract immigrants who want to improve their lot by seizing better opportunities than they had at home.
That's why American Muslims are such a well integrated, successful minority.
* Just a disclaimer, I listen to that guy for the same reason I listen to Trump speeches and that fat Republican gun nut radio host whose name eludes me right now.
|
On June 11 2016 01:01 DickMcFanny wrote:
I listened to Stephan Molyneux on my way to work today*, and I'm usually opposed to 100% of what he says.
But he makes one point that I don't think you can explain away:
When you have a welfare system open to anyone, you attract immigrants whose lives will be improved by welfare, whereas if you don't have a welfare system, you attract immigrants who want to improve their lot by seizing better opportunities than they had at home.
That's why American Muslims are such a well integrated, successful minority.
* Just a disclaimer, I listen to that guy for the same reason I listen to Trump speeches and that fat Republican gun nut radio host whose name eludes me right now.
I dont know this guy, but I have some issues with the second point:I cannot imagine that not having a welfare system doesnt attrack anyone; it just prevents those people from being attracted who only come for free welfare.
Imagine there are 2 countries: One where you can succeed, but without a welfare system; and one where you can succeed, but the country also has a welfare system. Where would you rather want to live? I dont mean to say there is a definite answer for most migrants. But I would imagine more prefer the latter than the former.
|
On June 10 2016 18:59 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 18:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On June 10 2016 01:11 opisska wrote:On June 10 2016 00:58 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm not prescribing what people are supposed to think. And this discussion is going to go nowhere before you accept that. I'm prescribing what expectations people should have when they apply for citizenship. Being granted citizenship in a country is a privilege - which is something that seems to have been forgotten. The immigrants need the host country to a far greater degree than the other way around.
The approach that more tolerance and freedom will prevail is idealistic but at the same time incredibly naive and trusting it to succeed flies in the face of all current available data - the past 20 years of immigration attempts in the EU have had less than stellar success. I do not pretend to have a magic bullet to fix it, but the reasonable approach sure as hell can't be more of the same. But then, what are the practical policies you would implement to these ends - short of just building a wall and letting the rest of the world pay for it? The abstract concepts you say about citizenships sound nice, but what does it mean in practice? How is that different from the current situation? What steps do you suggests in determining whether the immigrants have accepted the values you want them to accept? Opinions are worth nothing if they can't be translated into day-to-day reality. As long as the refugees enter Europe, there are exactly three things you can do: - accept them and eventually grant them full rights, equal to the people who already live here - let them in, but let them be second-class citizens for extended periods - remove them forcibly from the area I my opinion, option 2 is seen as practical only by people who have zero understanding of human nature and would lead to a disaster no matter what. Option 3 is partly immoral (when concerning real refugees of war, of which there are millions), partly impractical (because there is nowhere to relocate the people to, or because they will simply come back). Do you see any other option? I don't believe we will be ever able to close the borders and any attempt to do so only increases the impetus on people trafficking, making the whole thing an absurd competition in not dying in the process, which I don't really see as helpful. Do you see any other option? If not, then what is the point of even discussing how much immigrants are a problem, if we are stuck with them anyway? Or specific details of citizenship requirements, if there is no better course of action than to grant the citizenship to most of the people that are coming? It really is the time to stop talking in bloated words and start talking actual actions. Clearly the best option is do not grant any welfare benefits to non citizens and grant them only to citizens who have resided for 5 years or more in that country.Why do you think these migrants are gravitating to Sweden in such large numbers? Very basic fact that i feel the far left may slowly be realising : you cannot have both open borders and a generous welfare system.One maximum or the system will eventually collapse. One hand, I obviously agree that money and resources do not come out of thin air, so there needs to be some balance. On the other hand, I am not so sure whether outright excluding a group of people from welfare system is a very good idea. Together with their worse employability (people will obviously prefer locals for most things, if they can), it inevitable leads towards establishing an impoverished social layer, which will increase crime, lead to creation of ghettos and generally hinder any effort in integrating the people into our culture. All of that will then incur a lot of additional expenses on the rest of the society anyway, making the initial savings at least dubious.
There are already numerous ghettos under the current unsustainable welfare system.Unless you want to argue that places like Molenbeek are not ghettos?
|
On June 11 2016 09:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 18:59 opisska wrote:On June 10 2016 18:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On June 10 2016 01:11 opisska wrote:On June 10 2016 00:58 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm not prescribing what people are supposed to think. And this discussion is going to go nowhere before you accept that. I'm prescribing what expectations people should have when they apply for citizenship. Being granted citizenship in a country is a privilege - which is something that seems to have been forgotten. The immigrants need the host country to a far greater degree than the other way around.
The approach that more tolerance and freedom will prevail is idealistic but at the same time incredibly naive and trusting it to succeed flies in the face of all current available data - the past 20 years of immigration attempts in the EU have had less than stellar success. I do not pretend to have a magic bullet to fix it, but the reasonable approach sure as hell can't be more of the same. But then, what are the practical policies you would implement to these ends - short of just building a wall and letting the rest of the world pay for it? The abstract concepts you say about citizenships sound nice, but what does it mean in practice? How is that different from the current situation? What steps do you suggests in determining whether the immigrants have accepted the values you want them to accept? Opinions are worth nothing if they can't be translated into day-to-day reality. As long as the refugees enter Europe, there are exactly three things you can do: - accept them and eventually grant them full rights, equal to the people who already live here - let them in, but let them be second-class citizens for extended periods - remove them forcibly from the area I my opinion, option 2 is seen as practical only by people who have zero understanding of human nature and would lead to a disaster no matter what. Option 3 is partly immoral (when concerning real refugees of war, of which there are millions), partly impractical (because there is nowhere to relocate the people to, or because they will simply come back). Do you see any other option? I don't believe we will be ever able to close the borders and any attempt to do so only increases the impetus on people trafficking, making the whole thing an absurd competition in not dying in the process, which I don't really see as helpful. Do you see any other option? If not, then what is the point of even discussing how much immigrants are a problem, if we are stuck with them anyway? Or specific details of citizenship requirements, if there is no better course of action than to grant the citizenship to most of the people that are coming? It really is the time to stop talking in bloated words and start talking actual actions. Clearly the best option is do not grant any welfare benefits to non citizens and grant them only to citizens who have resided for 5 years or more in that country.Why do you think these migrants are gravitating to Sweden in such large numbers? Very basic fact that i feel the far left may slowly be realising : you cannot have both open borders and a generous welfare system.One maximum or the system will eventually collapse. One hand, I obviously agree that money and resources do not come out of thin air, so there needs to be some balance. On the other hand, I am not so sure whether outright excluding a group of people from welfare system is a very good idea. Together with their worse employability (people will obviously prefer locals for most things, if they can), it inevitable leads towards establishing an impoverished social layer, which will increase crime, lead to creation of ghettos and generally hinder any effort in integrating the people into our culture. All of that will then incur a lot of additional expenses on the rest of the society anyway, making the initial savings at least dubious. There are already numerous ghettos under the current unsustainable welfare system.Unless you want to argue that places like Molenbeek are not ghettos?
They are not ghettos in the american way tho, the concentration of poverty, the segregation are, according to all possible indicator, way lower than what you have in the US. Molenbeek is not such a bad place from what I've heard, it's just that the authority are way too easy on radical muslim for some stupid reasons.
By the way, why did Kwark decided to become the ennemy of free speach ? We need democracy on TL ... Free the US politics megathread.
|
TL has never had free speech. The fact that the US thread stayed open for so long is a miracle already.
|
On June 12 2016 05:46 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 09:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On June 10 2016 18:59 opisska wrote:On June 10 2016 18:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On June 10 2016 01:11 opisska wrote:On June 10 2016 00:58 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm not prescribing what people are supposed to think. And this discussion is going to go nowhere before you accept that. I'm prescribing what expectations people should have when they apply for citizenship. Being granted citizenship in a country is a privilege - which is something that seems to have been forgotten. The immigrants need the host country to a far greater degree than the other way around.
The approach that more tolerance and freedom will prevail is idealistic but at the same time incredibly naive and trusting it to succeed flies in the face of all current available data - the past 20 years of immigration attempts in the EU have had less than stellar success. I do not pretend to have a magic bullet to fix it, but the reasonable approach sure as hell can't be more of the same. But then, what are the practical policies you would implement to these ends - short of just building a wall and letting the rest of the world pay for it? The abstract concepts you say about citizenships sound nice, but what does it mean in practice? How is that different from the current situation? What steps do you suggests in determining whether the immigrants have accepted the values you want them to accept? Opinions are worth nothing if they can't be translated into day-to-day reality. As long as the refugees enter Europe, there are exactly three things you can do: - accept them and eventually grant them full rights, equal to the people who already live here - let them in, but let them be second-class citizens for extended periods - remove them forcibly from the area I my opinion, option 2 is seen as practical only by people who have zero understanding of human nature and would lead to a disaster no matter what. Option 3 is partly immoral (when concerning real refugees of war, of which there are millions), partly impractical (because there is nowhere to relocate the people to, or because they will simply come back). Do you see any other option? I don't believe we will be ever able to close the borders and any attempt to do so only increases the impetus on people trafficking, making the whole thing an absurd competition in not dying in the process, which I don't really see as helpful. Do you see any other option? If not, then what is the point of even discussing how much immigrants are a problem, if we are stuck with them anyway? Or specific details of citizenship requirements, if there is no better course of action than to grant the citizenship to most of the people that are coming? It really is the time to stop talking in bloated words and start talking actual actions. Clearly the best option is do not grant any welfare benefits to non citizens and grant them only to citizens who have resided for 5 years or more in that country.Why do you think these migrants are gravitating to Sweden in such large numbers? Very basic fact that i feel the far left may slowly be realising : you cannot have both open borders and a generous welfare system.One maximum or the system will eventually collapse. One hand, I obviously agree that money and resources do not come out of thin air, so there needs to be some balance. On the other hand, I am not so sure whether outright excluding a group of people from welfare system is a very good idea. Together with their worse employability (people will obviously prefer locals for most things, if they can), it inevitable leads towards establishing an impoverished social layer, which will increase crime, lead to creation of ghettos and generally hinder any effort in integrating the people into our culture. All of that will then incur a lot of additional expenses on the rest of the society anyway, making the initial savings at least dubious. There are already numerous ghettos under the current unsustainable welfare system.Unless you want to argue that places like Molenbeek are not ghettos? They are not ghettos in the american way tho, the concentration of poverty, the segregation are, according to all possible indicator, way lower than what you have in the US. Molenbeek is not such a bad place from what I've heard, it's just that the authority are way too easy on radical muslim for some stupid reasons. By the way, why did Kwark decided to become the ennemy of free speach ? We need democracy on TL ... Free the US politics megathread.
Last night conversations were not exactly a high point for the US thread. It was already pretty bad when I went to sleep and oh man did it get worse later on ><
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the incarceration and drug cycle is really a great scourge that afaik isnt replicated in europe
|
On June 10 2016 18:19 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 18:17 Velr wrote:On June 10 2016 04:09 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 14:20 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2016 13:56 oBlade wrote:On June 01 2016 13:12 Nyxisto wrote:On June 01 2016 13:03 oBlade wrote:In the past, when people have raised concerns about the control internet giants have over speech, in my experience the rebuttals have been how it's not an issue because private companies worth multiple billions have the right to do as they please - and if people don't like it, they should make their own social networks. And that seemed like a convenient deference to the free market to me, but whatever. Now the cartel of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft are explicitly working with the EU commission (in other words, government bureaucracy), and I'm being told this isn't an issue because it's up to a government to restrict "hate" speech. It's apparently a cause that just isn't important to some people. so you were okay with censorship as long as it was done for arbitrary or economic reasons but when it's the result of the democratic process in the form of government institutions it's somehow worse? No, I'm saying I don't like censorship. In prior instances when SNS control of speech was criticized, free speech advocates got dismissed with the rationale that companies can do what they want, and your rights are only an issue when the government is involved. Now the government is directly and publicly involved. The EC is an appointed bureaucracy with a less than stellar record - the same body responsible for a controversial handling of the migrant crisis coincidentally wants to expand censorship under the pretense of protecting people. Even if this was a policy by direct referendum instead of a convoluted international bureaucracy, "democracy" is hardly a singular descriptor of Europe. Embedded in the countries are other ideas, like liberalism, which are supposed to protect people from voting their rights away (which again isn't what this is, the EC are appointed officials). http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm again, it's not like it isn't consensus on the national level already. Even in the UK which is arguably the most classical liberal country in the Union hate speech, especially against the typical protected classes (religion, ethnicity, sex and so on) is clearly forbidden. This isn't a new thing. What's new is that it's actually being enforced in the digital sphere given that we've seen what can happen in internet echo chambers. There has been a certain degree of trust that companies like Facebook adhere to European standards on their own. They haven't delivered so now the European institutions get involved, but it's not in principle a top down thing initiated by 'the bureaucracy'. What countries seem to agree to is that it's part of their criminal code that incitement to hatred/violence by speech is punishable. Like a prosecutor takes a case to the courts and tries to convict someone of a crime under the law, right? Who agreed to appointed international executives partnering with megacorps to determine what "hate speech" is and then censor people for it? If it were TV and newspapers, maybe people would know it was wrong. And wo agreed that Boobies on Facebook aren't allowed? Because that actually wouldn't be the slightest Problem under the law in many (big!) european countries. Censoring People from showing their own Body is somehow allright but censoring blatant hatespeak isn't? Thats were i get Problems with understanding american/anglosaxon "free speak"... We need to protect children wherever possible from seeing Boobies (or dicks/vaginas whatever) but what they can hear or read? Who cares. Its retarded beyond belief. signed by every continental European
I don't sign it.
I have question : do you believe the boobs and pussy censorship in the US had any kind of good effect on their sexual / social behavior overall ? And if so, why do you believe that a censorship on ideas and political comments will have any good effect of polical thinking ?
|
I think all consensual sexual activity should be considered to be equal and so I don't think there's any moderation required there, it wouldn't produce anything of merit. Not all discourse is created equal though. We don't let the students decide the curriculum because they're simply not qualified to do that and we moderate debates because else you end up with everybody screaming and kicking.
|
On June 12 2016 09:18 Nyxisto wrote:
I think all consensual sexual activity should be considered to be equal and so I don't think there's any moderation required there, it wouldn't produce anything of merit. Not all discourse is created equal though. We don't let the students decide the curriculum because they're simply not qualified to do that and we moderate debates because else you end up with everybody screaming and kicking.
Untrue. Sex without feelings aside from constraints, like consuming endless (and nameless) bodies is not equal to love between two mates who know each others. In fact, there are psychological pathologies in regards to sex : hypersexuality and addiction to sex, where the endless desire to consume more and more unamed individuals is a problematic experience that usually comes with suffering.
If discourse are not equal, then lesser discourse should crumble through discussion and debate, through the use of logic and not through the authority of the law.
|
But if we extend this to harmful sexual behavior we actually do censor and moderate. We wouldn't allow say rape fantasies on public media, or pedophilia, just like we put age requirements on violent video games and movies. (which of course is also regularly protested but there's pretty strong evidence that early consumption of this stuff can produce adverse behaviour)
And regarding debate vs law, with debate it's not clear whether the desired outcome is actually achieved. It might be the case that the discussion turns so vile that it produces simply more extreme positions or even violence. That's why we have legal force in the first place, to put an absolute limit around democratic decisions.
|
On June 12 2016 09:31 Nyxisto wrote:
But if we extend this to harmful sexual behavior we actually do censor and moderate. We wouldn't allow say rape fantasies on public media, or pedophilia, just like we put age requirements on violent video games and movies. (which of course is also regularly protested but there's pretty strong evidence that early consumption of this stuff can produce adverse behaviour)
And regarding debate vs law, with debate it's not clear whether the desired outcome is actually achieved. It might be the case that the discussion turns so vile that it procudes simply more extreme positions in violence. That's why we have legal force in the first place, to put an absolute limit around democratic decisions.
I'm just saying, according to any kind of psychologue you can talk too, repetitive sex without any kind of feelings (I'm talking about none at all) and with a huge number of partner is usually the result of a traumatic experience or some form of addiction, to the point that there are brain pattern in regards to some sex addictions that are similar to drug addiction (not as severe, but similar) : there are indeed some form of consensual sex that are problematic.
There is a huge difference between what people do and what people think. When you declare a specific thinking as "forbidden by state" or a specific idea as "state truth", you instantly fuel a counter movement, exactly like sex censorship or alcohol prohibition.
|
any, more deutsch -ish details on this?: http://en.abna24.com/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2016/06/12/759703/story.html A regional German court has recognised as valid the marriage of a 14-year-old Syrian girl to her 20-year-old cousin, despite the legal age for marriage in Germany being 16. The case represents a landmark ruling, with the Federal Court set to adjudicate on the implications for the country as a whole. ...In what is likely to become a landmark ruling, the Oberlandesgericht Bamberg (Higher Regional Court in Bamberg, Bavaria) has this week decided that the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her 20-year-old husband must be recognised as the wedding has already taken place, was recognised as legal in their native Syria, and was conducted in accordance with Sunni marriage rites. ...There are no official figures on the number of child bride migrants living in Europe, but the number is thought to be in the hundreds. Although in some cases the girls have been separated from their husbands and placed in child protection facilities, in others, the authorities have been content to let them remain with their husbands for fear of traumatising them.
“Minors seeking asylum are in a difficult situation where they have left their homeland, family and friends, and the partner they have travelled with can be the only person they know and trust in Norway,” said Heidi Vibeke Pedersen, a senior official at the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration.
But charities have countered that line of argument, pointing out the sharp increase in forced marriages in Syria and in concentration camps. According to Die Welt, just 13 per cent of marriages in Syria involved a partner under the age of 18 before the war. Now the figure is around 51 per cent.
Robin Classen of the Criticising Immigration blog has called the verdict a “scandal”, highlighting that the judge “openly and completely uncritically quoted sharia law, applying it directly to this case.
“Therefore ‘only a marriage of a Muslim woman to a non-Muslim is void,’ in the judge’s own words, because Islamic law forbids this.”
Mr. Classen argues that the case is a prime example of Germany importing a foreign culture through mass migration.
“With mass immigration has come not only the sort of terrorism seen in Paris and Brussels and the sexual offences of New Year’s Eve, but also a completely different set of social values ideas,” he says.
|
I am no expert on german laws but it seems the judges do not want to punish foreign people for doing something in the past (while they were in their home country) which is illegal in germany but legal in their homecountry. Perhaps the german law states that its illegal to marry while you are 14 but doesnt say anything about being married while being 14.
|
I'm not shocked. After Cologne, it's clear that Germany bowed down. I would have been way more surprised by 'Judge declares that marriage invalid'.
+ Show Spoiler +4chan would simply say: Germany is cucked
|
Well who doesn't like legal pedophiles. I mean, it's not like those kids are unhappy about being raped, and beaten by a dude that's double the age.
The hypocrisy is cute, considering that a german politician had to flee germany (literally), after being caught purchasing pictures of underage girls (no sexual activities) - but since "other countries, other manners", a fricking kid-fucker is okay as long as he's syrian.
They're pedophiles. They should be considered pedophiles. They should be handled like pedophiles. They're legally screwing girls at age 12 and younger. Like.. How can someone look at that and say "yeah, our laws somehow allow for that".
edit: although it's misleading. They didn't rule the marriage "lawful" or "unlawful", they ruled that the Jugendamt ("Youth office"?) can't interfere with choices that the kid makes, other than for example a german kid.
|
On June 09 2016 22:48 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 22:36 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2016 22:29 DickMcFanny wrote:
Right. Idiots exist. Now if you multiply the average idiocy with a cancerous, fundamentalist ideology and you get what we're going to have to deal with more and more. I see nothing stupider in this than Christians intimidating and attacking abortion clinics. It is terrible, but also nothing that humanity has not dealt with before. Claims that “this is what appeasement gets you” are just hyperbolic. Do you really expect a productive discussion about tolerance when you lump all 1.5 billion Muslim in with these two idiots? At what point do all those isolated incidents become a trend? I mean, if 60% of Republicans believe that abortion is murder and that abortion doctors should be killed, would you still use the phrase "lumping in"? What does it take for people to consider that there might be something wrong with the underlying ideology of Islam? You think because the Turkish family in your neighborhood is well integrated, there can't be anything wrong with the ideology. But it's a fact that most (as in: a majority of, more than 50%) of Muslims believe that Sharia law should be the law of the land. And that's not a single poll in Saudi Arabia. More than 50% believe that apostates should be killed. More than 15% of English (i. e. living in England) Muslims think that people who insult the prophet should be killed.
The overwhelming majority have an ideology that if it were expressed by a political party, we would call them right wing extremists.These aren't "isolated incidents", this is systemic insanity.
Here are 2 good examples of Islamic rooted ideologies.
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqCgg-RIIAAjYMc.jpg)
And please quit your bad sampling. Nearly all of the turkic countries like Turkey, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan etc. and many of the African muslim countries have secular laws instead of sharia law. That means the only integration they will need would be on soft cultural things like how to respect personal space of a US citizen lol. I never intend to believe when people start talking polls says these, polls say that, UK has many muslims integrated in their working society and no one is beheading brits ( though I hear some Bangladeshi and Pakistani cause problems) or Germans has millions of Turks that we hear integrations problems occur mainly on language issues. You need to quit using Muslim as if you're referring to a race. I believe it's still the point where the problem starts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
