See my comments on how some people want to turn a little dick move into a fundamental holy war issue. Also, you’re on shaky ground here: if you’re not careful, someone is going to reply with a bland declaration that yelling fire is not free speech! :) Damn trite Internet forums, but I digress…
I don’t want to shut the papers down, I just think it’s boorish behavior and I like to let them know. (We’ve had a few threads in the last week discussing the difference between what a company is legally allowed to do and people just complaining about it.) It’s also comical as an observer to see how the state reps do end up keeping anyone from doing it again, every single time it happens in a new state.
We might see a similar response in Kansas, depending on who controls the legislature.
You contrasted them to “real law-abiding human beings.” Are the journalists not following the law? Are they not humans? Why do they get the label “pantywaist” and “passive-aggressive losers” for exercising their rights?
Oh, I see. By “real” people I meant that they are making their gun control war personal for actual individuals that have to deal with the fallout of their little gamesmanship.
Why do they get the label “pantywaist” and “passive-aggressive losers” for exercising their rights?
HF, there are many ways to resolve sticky social issues without resorting to the lowest common denominator that everyone jumps to these days, the law. And like your parents taught you, just because you can do something doesn’t mean it’s polite or useful to do so. :) Just like this dumbass AG.
I’m sure Kraaze is tickled to death, but there’s really nothing to see here.
So you think that, in certain situations, the right to a free press can be misused?
HF, there are many ways to resolve sticky social issues without resorting to the lowest common denominator that everyone jumps to these days, the law.
Seems like the press was doing that - they weren’t suing or lobbying, they just reported public info. Why is that a bad thing? Why does that somehow make them less manly (and the slant of pseudo machismo in your insults is interesting in and of itself) in your eyes?
I’m sure Kraaze is tickled to death, but there’s really nothing to see here.
Oh, I disagree entirely. What I see is you cherry-picking which rights you support and which you don’t. Supporting freedom of the press means supporting it even when the press does something stupid or something you don’t like. And just like gun rights means that guns are occasionally going to be used for murder and such, freedom of the press means that they will occasionally print things that are indirectly or directly harmful to other people. If you’re uncomfortable with that, you might want to think a while about your chosen political philosophy.
The age at which they are able to take responsibility for the possible consequences (which is how I view 99% of things, actually). It is almost impossible to aggregate something subjective like this across an entire population of course, but I’d argue that when society writ large still considers you a minor, you shouldn’t be doing many things with a high potential of vastly life-altering consequences.
No it isn’t. Since you bizarrely brought up my ancestry, are you calling me a racist or something? I’m not following.
I don’t study behavior, but if I had to lob a guess I’d say because it feels good, has an anti-authority/taboo aspect, and is a response to peer pressure.
It can take a long time to climb down off a really high horse. ;)
Honestly, what do you expect? That we’re going to be able to resolve some subtlety of language and thinking over the Internet when you come at it thinking of me as a cartoon libertarian that you read about on a storybook blog?
We could hash this out in 15 seconds in real life over a beer. Why spend endless posts about it? I apologize for blowing you off, but I just don’t care to fight about it all day today. Must’ve been my great weekend.
Also, now that I’ve realized it’s an old post, can anyone confirm whether the legislature stepped in here?
Actually, he’s not cherry-picking anything. He’s making a distinction between behavior he supports and behavior which he thinks is selfish or foolish. It’s entirely possible to say you think someone is a moron, and not say you think they should be in jail or punished legally in other ways. In fact, it even seems to happen on this forum from time to time, and as far as I know, the judicial system hasn’t gotten involved yet!
EDIT: I see Tim James already addressed that. That’ll teach me to take more than 5 minutes to reply to a thread ^_^
Fifteen year olds who live within walking distance of a drugstore can have sex with a very, very low chance of facing life-altering consequences. Conversely, we let sixteen year olds drive.
You’re right that I certainly don’t expect us to dramatically change our views, but a further explanation of what you said and why you said it doesn’t seem unreasonable. That doesn’t seem to be forthcoming, but I’m an optimist, so I’ll try again: what, exactly, did the press do that makes them so deserving of your oh-so-manly scorn and derision? Public info is public info. Is the problem that you don’t think the info should be public? Or that the press shouldn’t promulgate it?
We could hash this out in 15 seconds in real life over a beer.
Maybe, maybe not. I can discuss politics amicably with some of my friends, but not all. I don’t see any reason to assume you fall into the former camp.
There’s plenty else to get worked up over.
Why post on a forum at all? There’s so many more important things we could be doing!
I’m bored and wasting time, you are presumably doing the same. Isn’t a political discussion just as good as anything else?
Interesting: everyone’s favorite Internet understatement when they want to read more into something that’s been said.
They’re just words I throw together in something called a style. It annoys you and many others and probably harms the message; I get that, but I also enjoy typing it in my own little world.
Because it’s kind of like talking to my wife; we could spend all day going over something I said that she misunderstood, but I’d rather either start over or move on to other things that are fun to talk about.
I don’t agree that it’s a “very, very low chance” as you call it. Assuming correct and consistent usage (which itself is a stretch considering we’re talking about teens here), the WHO estimates a 3% pregnancy rate. With anything less than what the WHO calls “perfect use”, the pregnancy rate is 10-14%. Any bets on where 16 year olds might fall in the spectrum between perfect and imperfect usage?
Yes, and society has simply deemed that the cost is worth the benefit. We don’t let them buy smokes, buy a gun, vote, join the army, or buy booze until later, however. We also take these (and other) rights and privileges from entire classes of people depending on their demonstrated ability to handle responsibility which, to me, shows that society tries to make determinations for these things based on a generally perceived level of the ability to take personal responsibility.
Considering they don’t take any legal responsibility it does seem strange that they’re granted such a privilege. Just noting this as I’ve always thought it was odd that someone is granted a legal privilege before they assume it’s responsibilities.
Uh, I’d be willing to bet that they’re pretty consistent, if they’re as scared of getting a girl pregnant as I was as a teen. Also I’d say that kids not knowing how to use condoms might be more of an argument for sex education than for the squickiness of sex among teens.
And I said drugstore, which means Plan B for those mornings after less-than-perfect use. So, yeah, 3% is a pretty low chance, if you’re one of those people who considers an abortion a life changing event.
Right, because having sex is more like driving a car than joining the army, because it’s fun and easy and in almost all cases perfectly safe.
I find it fun up until the point it bores me. Did I want to offer some insight into this thread? Sure! Do I want to keep defending my original, misunderstood remarks and try to explain that there is a difference between welcoming a right and pointing out some obvious political passive-aggressive games? Sometimes, but not today. Maybe it hurts my forum cred but it helps my mood. :) If you were really optimistic then I apologize, but I’m just not much of a machine today.
