Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby fuzzygeek » Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:20 pm

Man, my kids are easy compared to yours. I instilled them with a certain framework when they were very young, and everything has proceeded pretty easily from that.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby Amirya » Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:32 pm

Korola wrote:I wouldn't trade all my great memories as a parent for anything in the world.

That seems to be the case for most people, and in a small weird way, I kind of envy that.

But I'm pretty firm on the issue of no kids ever for me. I got mad at a doctor when I was discussing more permanent methods of birth control, and the doctor not only wouldn't discuss it with me, but patted me on the shoulder. "You'll change your mind when you get older."

Wish to hell I remembered that douche's name. I'm older now, still haven't changed my mind.

I like my current lifestyle too much. It's not glitzy or glam, but right now, if I want to stay up until 2am playing WoW, playing Sims, or working on crafts, I can do that. If I decided to fly to New Zealand, New York, or Timbuktu next weekend, I can. If I want to go to Disneyland and go on all those wacky rollercoasters...I can do that too. Could I adapt? Sure. But I have no real reason to do so, and no compelling reason to deal with a kid.

But I won't deny that small bit of envy that there's someone who always looks up to you guys like you're heroes at the end of the day. :lol:
Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3966
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby Kelaan » Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:42 pm

Korola wrote:I have learned as a parent -

*no one raises their child the same
*other people don't have to raise your child
*<insert product here> doesn't really get chewing gum out of hair
*human feces will not "melt" in the bath tub if you turn the hot water on (it has to be physically removed)
*Sponge Bob does not encourage gay lifestyle like the church say he do
*At 2 it is funny for them to run around without pants on - at 10 it is pretty creepy
*Just because someone else's kid was potty trained at 3, doesn't mean you're doing something wrong if yours is 4 and still craps his pants
*When he succeeds, you were a part of it
*When he fails, you were a part of that too
*It hurts a lot more when someone cuts your child down than it ever hurt you to be insulted in the same way
*When he hurts - it is you he is crying for
*When he is happy - it is you that he shares it with

I wouldn't trade all my great memories as a parent for anything in the world.


Some of that was terribly funny (lol @ poop in the tub!), but most of it was tremendously touching. May I share what you wrote?


Amirya wrote:I like my current lifestyle too much. It's not glitzy or glam, but right now, if I want to stay up until 2am playing WoW, playing Sims, or working on crafts, I can do that.

But I won't deny that small bit of envy that there's someone who always looks up to you guys like you're heroes at the end of the day. :lol:

That feeling is priceless, I agree. And I can't begin to say how frustrating some of the rest of the time can be. I can totally understand not wanting to have kids because you like your lifestyle. If you're ever ready for kids, you'll know (I think); if not, that's OK too.
User avatar
Kelaan
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:01 pm

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby Korola » Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:41 pm

Kelaan wrote:May I share what you wrote?


Most certainly!
Image
User avatar
Korola
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:57 am

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:25 pm

Amirya wrote:
Korola wrote:I wouldn't trade all my great memories as a parent for anything in the world.

That seems to be the case for most people, and in a small weird way, I kind of envy that.

But I'm pretty firm on the issue of no kids ever for me. I got mad at a doctor when I was discussing more permanent methods of birth control, and the doctor not only wouldn't discuss it with me, but patted me on the shoulder. "You'll change your mind when you get older."

Wish to hell I remembered that douche's name. I'm older now, still haven't changed my mind.

I like my current lifestyle too much. It's not glitzy or glam, but right now, if I want to stay up until 2am playing WoW, playing Sims, or working on crafts, I can do that. If I decided to fly to New Zealand, New York, or Timbuktu next weekend, I can. If I want to go to Disneyland and go on all those wacky rollercoasters...I can do that too. Could I adapt? Sure. But I have no real reason to do so, and no compelling reason to deal with a kid.

But I won't deny that small bit of envy that there's someone who always looks up to you guys like you're heroes at the end of the day. :lol:
Not to be too cliched... I used to think the same things as you (I imagine pretty much everyone does), but I have two kids and I don't miss any of the things I "can't" do in the slightest. I don't think I'd ever consider the notion that I adapted my lifestyle to having a kid, but rather that I'm now able to do things that are infinitely more fulfilling than anything else I could have ever done without them.

I get that kids aren't for everyone, but I think comparing having kids to that type of freedom is quite difficult and ultimately very flawed, because there's no way to really grasp how amazing being a parent is, until you are one.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby Passionario » Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:56 am

I greatly enjoy reading transcripts of Supreme Court arguements (both of US and UK).
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 3371
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby Fivelives » Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Amirya wrote:But I'm pretty firm on the issue of no kids ever for me. I got mad at a doctor when I was discussing more permanent methods of birth control, and the doctor not only wouldn't discuss it with me, but patted me on the shoulder. "You'll change your mind when you get older."


They won't spay or neuter people until they've spawned, or if there's a condition that will make pregnancy risky for the woman. It's, like, in the bylaws or something.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby Aubade » Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:42 pm

rodos wrote:Of course, our system has a lot of problems. Firstly, there is no R18+ category for games, so anything not suitable for 15-year-olds cannot be sold here. Plus, it adds a burden to the producers of content to have their work classified (which costs money). This is a particularly important problem for businesses that want to import, say, a wide range of niche films from overseas which were never released in Australia and thus never classified. Pornography, manga, Iranian arthouse, whatever. If you want to bring in a couple of copies each of 1000 titles, the classification costs would be crippling.

On the issue of parenting, these kinds of laws actually give more control back to the parent. You can send your kid to the game shop with $50 they got for their birthday and be satisfied that they'll come back with something appropriate. If they want to buy a restricted game, they have to tell you about it and take you along, so you get a chance to review the content.


http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp
I work for GameStop, and I will say that it is a nation-wide company policy for us to use the ESRB ratings system and police it. I WILL be fired if I sell a M or A game to anyone under 17 years old. It's not "Law" yet to follow these ratings but all games have them and 99% of game stores are self-policing this system.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby rodos » Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:18 pm

Aubade wrote:
rodos wrote:Of course, our system has a lot of problems. Firstly, there is no R18+ category for games, so anything not suitable for 15-year-olds cannot be sold here. Plus, it adds a burden to the producers of content to have their work classified (which costs money). This is a particularly important problem for businesses that want to import, say, a wide range of niche films from overseas which were never released in Australia and thus never classified. Pornography, manga, Iranian arthouse, whatever. If you want to bring in a couple of copies each of 1000 titles, the classification costs would be crippling.

On the issue of parenting, these kinds of laws actually give more control back to the parent. You can send your kid to the game shop with $50 they got for their birthday and be satisfied that they'll come back with something appropriate. If they want to buy a restricted game, they have to tell you about it and take you along, so you get a chance to review the content.


http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp
I work for GameStop, and I will say that it is a nation-wide company policy for us to use the ESRB ratings system and police it. I WILL be fired if I sell a M or A game to anyone under 17 years old. It's not "Law" yet to follow these ratings but all games have them and 99% of game stores are self-policing this system.

This seems like a pretty good situation. Self-regulation is generally preferable to government regulation, so long as it works. You're building some trust in your company and the ESRB by acting responsibly, but you're not censoring anybody by refusing to stock adult-rated games.
User avatar
rodos
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:20 pm

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:25 pm

Even if they did refuse to stock them, that is not censorship.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby rodos » Sun Nov 14, 2010 8:49 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Even if they did refuse to stock them, that is not censorship.

Technically it's not, because it isn't the government doing it, but it amounts to the same thing. If an industry association, or major retailers, choose to restrict the distribution of material, the publishers will stop making it. The net result is that the choice to view or not view that material is taken away from you, the end user, and given to someone else.

I guess it's a more important distinction in the USA, since you have this tricky thing called the First Amendment which restricts the government from doing such things, but not non-government organisations (no matter how powerful). In Australia we are unencumbered by such things as constitutional rights.
User avatar
rodos
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:20 pm

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby Fivelives » Sun Nov 14, 2010 9:33 pm

I think there's something fundamentally wrong with the government even considering replacing parenthood with legislation. This should never have made it all the way to the US Supreme Court in the first place. Every single court up to the Supreme Court has tossed the law, and usually in those cases the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear arguments on it. The fact that they are should scare more people.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:08 pm

rodos wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:Even if they did refuse to stock them, that is not censorship.

Technically it's not, because it isn't the government doing it, but it amounts to the same thing. If an industry association, or major retailers, choose to restrict the distribution of material, the publishers will stop making it. The net result is that the choice to view or not view that material is taken away from you, the end user, and given to someone else.

I guess it's a more important distinction in the USA, since you have this tricky thing called the First Amendment which restricts the government from doing such things, but not non-government organisations (no matter how powerful). In Australia we are unencumbered by such things as constitutional rights.
But what about the rights of the distributor, when they are a private entity? Forcing them to distribute a product that they feel is inappropriate is also a form of censorship. In today's connected age, it's really almost impossible for a producer of digital media to be limited by a distribution monopoly, even if one existed. However, if a producer in your example were to stop producing that material, that is their choice and in reality it never was a "choice" that the end user owned.

That said, Game Stop is in fact making the choice for folks under age 17 and taking material away from them, at least as much as they can. They are doing so with no legal mandate, and using guidelines established by a private group (potentially as few a 3 raters actually score the software) that has a monopoly, and charges a fee for those ratings, creating a conflict of interest.

Not that I feel like they are doing a bad job, in fact I think in this regard, they are acting responsibly, and hopefully the government is kept out of it. However I think if you are going to start throwing around words like censorship, particularly into the private sector, you are just going to open up pandora's box. In this case, at the very least there is some inconsistency.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby knaughty » Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:14 am

rodos wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:Even if they did refuse to stock them, that is not censorship.

Technically it's not, because it isn't the government doing it, but it amounts to the same thing. If an industry association, or major retailers, choose to restrict the distribution of material, the publishers will stop making it. The net result is that the choice to view or not view that material is taken away from you, the end user, and given to someone else.

I guess it's a more important distinction in the USA, since you have this tricky thing called the First Amendment which restricts the government from doing such things, but not non-government organisations (no matter how powerful). In Australia we are unencumbered by such things as constitutional rights.

And because we don't have a special chunk of "Holy Writ" enumerating our rights, written by some very well educated people who nonetheless were educated before the existence of the entire sciences of chemistry(1), geology(2) and electricity(3) our rights are interpreted with much greater relevance to the current era.

(1) 1789 – Antoine Lavoisier: law of conservation of mass, basis for chemistry, and the beginning of modern chemistry.
(2) 1799 – William Smith: Publishes geologic map of England, first geologic map ever, first application of stratigraphy
(3) 1827 – Georg Ohm: Ohm's law (Electricity)

The US Constitution pre-dates:
  1. mass transport (rail)
  2. printing techniques more advanced than the Gutenberg press (hand-powered, ~240 pages per hour)
  3. long distance communication faster that the "Pony Express" - the telegraph hadn't been invented
  4. steam engines small enough to be moved - still no steam ships, sea travel is by sail.
  5. automatic firearms, smokeless powder - in fact, any gun more advanced than a flintlock musket.
  6. The abolition of slavery (All men are created equal except slaves). It was almost 100 years after the bill of rights that blacks were granted citizenship. Indians and children of Chinese immigrants had to wait a few more decades.
  7. laws restricting child labour to no more than 12 hours per day
  8. trade unions (illegal until the 19th century)
  9. anything even vaguely resembling modern medicine. No anaesthesia, germ theory.
  10. Due process, equal protection

I could continue, but hopefully you get the point.

Would the first amendment be worded differently given the existence of mass-media and long-distance communications? I find it inconceivable that the second amendment would not have been made a hell of a lot clearer if it had been written after the invention of the gatling gun. The third is a complete anachronism. The fourth and "unreasonable searches and seizure" is a constant and serious issue for the US supreme court. The fifth through tenth have help up fairly well.

Common Law rights are a lot easier to update, and rarely degenerate into arguments about semi-colons. :roll:

Australian courts have the power to overturn the executive being stupid without having to find some clause that they can bend to their special interpretation. There's a fantastic pair of cases at the moment where the courts have rejected legislation written by the executive:
(1) Immigration detention and the excision of Christmas Island (the US equivalent issue is illegal immigrants)
(2) anti-terror legislation publicised as "anti-bikie laws" - unconstitutional!
This isn't the "Offtankadin" forum. My MoP FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/FAQ-5-0
- Knaughty.
User avatar
knaughty
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:06 pm
Location: Sydney, plotting my next diatribe against the forces of ignorance!

Re: Fun Supreme Court Arguments

Postby Fivelives » Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:48 am

How are you enjoying Dead Rising 2 down there in Australia? Oh, I know - let's get together and play a game of Left 4 D-... Oh, wait. Nevermind.

There's a lot of things fucked up about the US, but one of the things that isn't fucked up (yet) is that we all have the right to make our own decisions without the government stepping in and saying "No. That's bad for you."

Instead, they step in AFTER we do stupid shit and punish us for it. Eminently fair - it's called the rule of law and is necessary in any civilized society.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest