Bill would ban sales of Playboy, etc. on base

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yes, I know women who leave one abusive relationship very often enter into a second one. This is why someone needs to wrote that book about it. I am unfamiliar with Linda 'Lovelace's' abilities as a writer and psychologist, but perhaps she has shown a tad more interest in making money by making porn flicks, then books about how she enjoyed it, then bo0ks about how she didn't really enjoy it after all. Maybe she is not the dingbat she appears to be. Maybe she could write a book that would explain herself really. She probably DID enjoy it as well as loathe it. People pay bazillions to rent and buy and see horror films that scare the bejeezus out of them and show all sorts of the unpleasant things that tne fictional undead can do with your intestines, pancreas and spleen. People pay bazillions to ride terrifying rollercoasters and whirl-O-Vomit rides. The Japanese have perfected the semi-suicidal blowfish dinner, that gives you the buzz of death but without actually killing you. And then there are cigarettes, slot machines and all manner of ways of semi-damaging yourself that are sold as pleasurable. Masochism is a known and accurate diagnosis.

Sean Connery points out that when a woman nags, and nags, and nags, and just won't go away or shut the Hell up, this nagging is something that men do not ordinarily do, and is quite frustrating. Women also like to make up wacko theories and cry and cry and cry to get their way, or get special permission to spend hubby's money on useless crap, and men rarely do that either. It is then, and only then, Connery suggests that one good slap is a man's only alternative to hearing more and more nagging and manipulative crap. There are no records of him actually DOING this, just saying that it remains an option. In the same way that women's activists claim that it is always okay to kick a man, hubby, boyfriend or whomever, in the balls to convince him to stop acting in an annoying way. I once knew a couple, Frances and Glenn Long, where you could not be in their presence for five minutes without Frances telling you how evil Glenn had forced her to live in her horrible house, in this horrible cold/heat, with a giant red rooster painted above the range she had to look at every day, because even after painting over it fifteen times, you could still make it out as a giant, menacing shadow. One was always wondering when Glen would snap and belt her upside the head.

Eventually Glenn died of a heart attack. Too much stress at his job, Frances claimed. It is so stressful selling hurricane fencing. I am sure that every day, when he arrived at work, Glenn let out a huge sigh of relief: ahhhhh!-no more Frances for eight hours. Too bad that he did not live long enough to live in that sweet spot in time between Caller ID and cellphones for all. As it was, he invented customers, who would walk in just after Frances called every time. I know this, because Frances would call my mother and occasionally ask if she could send me down to where Glenn worked to see if there really WAS a customer, or if he was just hiding from his manly responsibilities to hear for the seven thousandth time about the ghost of the painted rooster.

If a man were to nag, and nag and nag about things no one could change to another man, a slap might be exactly what the doctor ordered. So why are women so special if they do the same thing?

It would appear that Connery simply avoids nagging women, as we all should do, and has no occasion to slap them. We all could learn something from this advice.

[Amianthus]

None of this would negate her more recent bios indicating she was, in fact, forced.

Actually, the "more recent" bio that you are talking about was written during the height of the feminist anti-pornography movement in 1980, and she was toured around the country by members of "Women Against Pornography" - including Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, and Gloria Steinem.

When this whirlwind ride ended in the early '80s, she went on to do other things.

Including getting back into pornography. On her own terms, I guess.

[Universe Prince]

If you simply mean that the INTENT of the law is not to control behavior, you're off the hook.

I mean the intent of the law is not supposed to be to control behavior.

If you apply a standard of effectiveness the intent of the law is irrelevent.  If the intent of the law determines whether the "effectiveness" argument should be applied then the issue is intent - not effectiveness.

Yep, probably so.

But there are times when we must rationally protect someone's rights by restricting the rights of others.  An example is playing itself out in Texas just now.  If, indeed, the FLDS is advocating sexual abuse of children (and some of the statistical evidence already available suggests that this may well be the case) then it is right to restrict the right of a parent to raise and teach their children their own religious beliefs in order to prevent the potential abuse of the child - even if no abuse has yet occurred in the home.

Hold on there. Parents do not have a right to abuse children. So stopping child abuse is not restricting the rights of others. But in the situation of someone advocating child abuse, I would argue that such should be judged on an individual basis. Taking a child away from a parent because some other person advocates for child abuse is not appropriate, imo.

Even something as basic as individual rights are NOT absolute.  If we were individuals alone, I might suggest otherwise, but as you have pointed out, we are a social people, and I think that bodies of people have collective rights which parallel and even occasionally supersede individual ones.

Yes, we are going to disagree here. Individual rights are fundamental. The collective has no rights beyond what individuals have for themselves because the collective is only a group of individuals. If humans were somehow a species with a telepathic hive mind that necessarily and for the sake of survival functioned as a single mind, you might have a point, but we aren't and so, imo, you don't.

[kimba1]

that sean story is the very foundation of american success
it is the primary reason men work overtime.
several times i joked about this and got the response this is the reason they work long hours.
you gotta admire the beauty of the situation
marraige require a greater income and if the man work long hours the wife will nag.
the nagging causes more overtime.
symmetry.

[Plane]

You don't see this in recent Movies , not with the hero slapping or spanking anyway.

There seems to have been a national change in tolerance level for this sort of thing.

I am old enough to remember the diffrence , but I don't remember my father ever being abusive in the least .

Perhaps he was ahead of his time.

[Stray Pooch]

Hold on there. Parents do not have a right to abuse children. So stopping child abuse is not restricting the rights of others. But in the situation of someone advocating child abuse, I would argue that such should be judged on an individual basis. Taking a child away from a parent because some other person advocates for child abuse is not appropriate, imo.

I didn't say that child abuse was a right or that stopping it was restricting a right.  I said that teaching and raising your children as you see fit is a right, and that restricting THAT right might be necessary when there is a potential for child abuse in the home.  It is, I think, appropriate to remove ALL children from a home where ONE of the children has been abused.  This is very often the case, although many times one child is the "scapegoat" and the others are in no danger.  In the case of the FLDS - for whom I happen to have sympathy not because of any religious issue, but because I think the government is involved in a witch-hunt and some otherwise innocent people are being hurt - the statistics concerning the number of underage girls who are pregnant seem to support the allegations of widespread sexual abuse of young girls.  It may well be that the Texas authorities, as draconian as their actions seem, are actually doing the right thing here. 

 

Yes, we are going to disagree here. Individual rights are fundamental. The collective has no rights beyond what individuals have for themselves because the collective is only a group of individuals. If humans were somehow a species with a telepathic hive mind that necessarily and for the sake of survival functioned as a single mind, you might have a point, but we aren't and so, imo, you don't.

But we are a society as well as individuals.  I don't accept socialism, but I do think that there is merit in the argument that societal needs are real.  I agree that they may be extensions of individual rights, but there are times when one individual who might otherwise have the right to a particular action, would have that right restricted when his practice of it could hurt others.  I have a neighbor that lives about 60 yards away from our development.  He parties every Saturday with his many friends.  For the first couple of weeks he had his Latino music so loud that our walls were literally shaking.  This went on for hours.  The first week we all tolerated it, figuring he was new in the area and was just having a housewarming party.  The next Saturday it took about two hours before the cops showed up.  Since then, he still parties, but the music stays at sub-airport noise levels.  He has every right to play his music and enjoy his friends on his property, but the rest of the neighborhood has rights too.  This is a very basic example, but the point is valid.  When one person's individual rights clash with the needs of the social unit (whether it be the community, the nation or the planet) it may be necessary to abridge those rights.  I know that enviro-whackos abuse that concept to force people out of jobs and property rights, and I do not at all suggest that societal needs are always or even usually superior.  But there are times when a society has the right to supercede an individual.

[Universe Prince]

But we are a society as well as individuals.  I don't accept socialism, but I do think that there is merit in the argument that societal needs are real.  I agree that they may be extensions of individual rights, but there are times when one individual who might otherwise have the right to a particular action, would have that right restricted when his practice of it could hurt others.  I have a neighbor that lives about 60 yards away from our development.  He parties every Saturday with his many friends.  For the first couple of weeks he had his Latino music so loud that our walls were literally shaking.  This went on for hours.  The first week we all tolerated it, figuring he was new in the area and was just having a housewarming party.  The next Saturday it took about two hours before the cops showed up.  Since then, he still parties, but the music stays at sub-airport noise levels.  He has every right to play his music and enjoy his friends on his property, but the rest of the neighborhood has rights too.  This is a very basic example, but the point is valid.  When one person's individual rights clash with the needs of the social unit (whether it be the community, the nation or the planet) it may be necessary to abridge those rights.  I know that enviro-whackos abuse that concept to force people out of jobs and property rights, and I do not at all suggest that societal needs are always or even usually superior.  But there are times when a society has the right to supercede an individual.

But even there, the matter is not one of societal rights being above that of individual rights. The rest of the individuals in the neighborhood have rights. Whatever rights the neighborhood has, it has as individuals, not as a neighborhood. The right of one individual to liberty does not supersede another person's right of property. The individual does not have a right to infringe on the rights of others. Trying to have him stop infringing on your rights does not mean you're abridging his rights.

[Plane]

But we are a society as well as individuals.  I don't accept socialism, but I do think that there is merit in the argument that societal needs are real.  I agree that they may be extensions of individual rights, but there are times when one individual who might otherwise have the right to a particular action, would have that right restricted when his practice of it could hurt others.  I have a neighbor that lives about 60 yards away from our development.  He parties every Saturday with his many friends.  For the first couple of weeks he had his Latino music so loud that our walls were literally shaking.  This went on for hours.  The first week we all tolerated it, figuring he was new in the area and was just having a housewarming party.  The next Saturday it took about two hours before the cops showed up.  Since then, he still parties, but the music stays at sub-airport noise levels.  He has every right to play his music and enjoy his friends on his property, but the rest of the neighborhood has rights too.  This is a very basic example, but the point is valid.  When one person's individual rights clash with the needs of the social unit (whether it be the community, the nation or the planet) it may be necessary to abridge those rights.  I know that enviro-whackos abuse that concept to force people out of jobs and property rights, and I do not at all suggest that societal needs are always or even usually superior.  But there are times when a society has the right to supercede an individual.

But even there, the matter is not one of societal rights being above that of individual rights. The rest of the individuals in the neighborhood have rights. Whatever rights the neighborhood has, it has as individuals, not as a neighborhood. The right of one individual to liberty does not supersede another person's right of property. The individual does not have a right to infringe on the rights of others. Trying to have him stop infringing on your rights does not mean you're abridging his rights.

One of the worst examples of "the tragedy of the commons" is the worldwide ocean fisherys.

Overfishing has converted some very productive fishing grounds to deserts ,and it is still going on.

Individuals involved benefit from fishing harder , The whole human population of the world will suffer when the last one is caught.

What solution can be found that won't require the cooperation of large social groups and the imposition of new restriction on individuals?

[Universe Prince]

Individuals involved benefit from fishing harder , The whole human population of the world will suffer when the last one is caught.

Which raises the obvious question, does the individual actually benefit from overfishing? Saying that individuals have rights does not mean that individuals always make the best long term choice. But part of the problem you're talking about could be addressed with property rights.

[Stray Pooch]

But even there, the matter is not one of societal rights being above that of individual rights. The rest of the individuals in the neighborhood have rights. Whatever rights the neighborhood has, it has as individuals, not as a neighborhood. The right of one individual to liberty does not supersede another person's right of property. The individual does not have a right to infringe on the rights of others. Trying to have him stop infringing on your rights does not mean you're abridging his rights.

Well, at the risk of changing the direction of the debate, why should MY right to quiet enjoyment supersede HIS right to party hearty?  Why not make it the other way around?  From his perspective, I am infringing on his rights by asserting mine.  I think if the entire neighborhood were involved in a block party, my desire for quiet would be superseded by the community's desire for social activity.  In this case, however, most of the neighborhood wanted quiet (at least one wanted it enough to call the cops).   Since it wasn't quiet hours (city ordinances make 10 PM - 6 AM quiet time) how were the police justified in a response?  I say that the good of the community, the number of people likely to have their rights affected, made the decision go in the way of the group rather than the individual. 

I think Plane's point about fishing rights is not a bad one either.  Property rights do not apply in international waters.  There is, and there should be, a communal ownership of many fishing grounds.  Even those that fall under a particular country's jurisdiction need to be managed properly to insure a continuing supply of food.  The same could be said about oil and other resources.  The Chesapeake Bay is being fished to death, and the oysters we are famous for are now being replaced artificially by Asian imports.  Worse than that, the famous Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab is going away, and there is no crab on earth as tasty - really.  Alaskan King Crab has nothing on it.  Man, I need me some crabcakes . . . but I digress. 

If you keep your yard a mess and don't clean up after your dog on your own property, that can affect my property's value.  We make ordinances to force people to cut their grass, avoid watering the lawn in a drought and keep junk vehicles in the garage.  None of my individual rights are being denied by my neighbor having doggie doo in his yard.  I don't have the right to have a perfect world or not have my neighbor cooking kimchee.  I also do not have a right to force my neighbor to change his ways so I can get a better price when I sell my house.  Yet social groups from homeowners associations to state governments make laws to protect society at large from individuals whose actions hurt everyone - even if no actual rights are violated.  There is such a thing as the good of society.

[Plane]

Individuals involved benefit from fishing harder , The whole human population of the world will suffer when the last one is caught.

Which raises the obvious question, does the individual actually benefit from overfishing? Saying that individuals have rights does not mean that individuals always make the best long term choice. But part of the problem you're talking about could be addressed with property rights.

All right lets talk about one of the boat owners , you have a small fortune invested in a specialised boat and equipment , you have employees in the crew and ashore in the packing plant, you have a loan to pay .

What is the right thing for a boat owner to do?

[Universe Prince]

Well, at the risk of changing the direction of the debate, why should MY right to quiet enjoyment supersede HIS right to party hearty?  Why not make it the other way around?

Well, you can argue that if you want, but I think your right of property gives you some say so in whether or not you're being blasted by his music, not the other way around.

There is, and there should be, a communal ownership of many fishing grounds.

Why?

Even those that fall under a particular country's jurisdiction need to be managed properly to insure a continuing supply of food.  The same could be said about oil and other resources.

Thus my comment about controlling the matter with private property. People who owned a fishing ground, and relied on income from it would be mightily motivated to control the supply of fish.

Yet social groups from homeowners associations to state governments make laws to protect society at large from individuals whose actions hurt everyone - even if no actual rights are violated.  There is such a thing as the good of society.

There is also such a thing as bullying people.

Lots of things can be done in the name of the good of society: socialism, fascism, revolution, tyranny of the majority, ethnic cleansing, the "war on drugs", the "war on poverty", et cetera. So if we talk about the good of society, then we need to define what we mean. I do not deny that there is such a thing as the good of society. I happen to believe that the good of society is the protection of the rights of individuals. Society is individuals. I do not say society does not exist. I merely point out that society is a collection of individuals. The protect the rights of the individuals, and the rights of society are protected. Part of the good of society is the protection of minorities from a tyranny of the majority. The individual is the smallest of minorities. If the individual is not protected, then society is not protected. The protection of the rights of individuals is, in point of fact, the good of society.

[Universe Prince]

All right lets talk about one of the boat owners , you have a small fortune invested in a specialised boat and equipment , you have employees in the crew and ashore in the packing plant, you have a loan to pay .

What is the right thing for a boat owner to do?

Let's say you're a paper company owner. You have a large fortune invested in specialized equipment and lots of employees to cutting down trees, cutting up trees, making paper. You have bills to pay. Is your best course of action to cut down all the trees now and leave none for the future? Or to plan long term?

Let's say you own a huge chink of land with lots of trees. The paper company pays you to cut down your trees for their paper mills. Is your best course of action to let them cut all your trees and leave nothing behind? Or to plan long term?

Let's say you own an area used for commercial fishing. The fishermen pay you to fish in your area. Is your best course of action to let them take all your fish and leave none? Or to plan long term?

[Plane]

All right lets talk about one of the boat owners , you have a small fortune invested in a specialised boat and equipment , you have employees in the crew and ashore in the packing plant, you have a loan to pay .

What is the right thing for a boat owner to do?

Let's say you're a paper company owner. You have a large fortune invested in specialized equipment and lots of employees to cutting down trees, cutting up trees, making paper. You have bills to pay. Is your best course of action to cut down all the trees now and leave none for the future? Or to plan long term?

Let's say you own a huge chink of land with lots of trees. The paper company pays you to cut down your trees for their paper mills. Is your best course of action to let them cut all your trees and leave nothing behind? Or to plan long term?

Let's say you own an area used for commercial fishing. The fishermen pay you to fish in your area. Is your best course of action to let them take all your fish and leave none? Or to plan long term?

We had that problem in Georgia , almost all of the trees here were gone in the three decades of hard times that followed the Civil war, Short term thinking prevailed strongly.

Large tracts now belong to large companys that plant trees at the same rate that they harvest them.

I don't know if this solution is availible to the Grand Banks , can you plant fish once they are gone?

[Universe Prince]

Large tracts now belong to large companys that plant trees at the same rate that they harvest them.

So they are able to look out for their long term interest. Good.

I don't know if this solution is availible to the Grand Banks , can you plant fish once they are gone?

You can stop the harvesting of fish. The eggs could probably be cultivated at a proper fish farm and then the fish dumped into the wild to repopulate. There are solutions.