[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1561409159021.jpg (54.36 KB, 646x960, 323:480, 1555207040207.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Is early exposure to media with sexuality, nudity, durgs, and/or violence necessarily damaging to the brains of young humans?
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Maybe? Define damaging.
It'll make them numb to such items. That's obvious enough. But, is that a bad thing?
Depends heavily on your standards.


Personally, I can't imagine what kind of damage might be imposed by that kind of exposure.  It's hard to imagine more exposure not being the ideal, in fact, assuming that "sexuality" isn't the child getting molested and "violence" isn't the child getting abused and such.


I think, as with a lot of questions, the answer is that it would be complicated.

I don't think these sorts of things are necessarily damaging to the brain of a child, maybe the mind, but even then that's very much dependent on all sorts of other factors beyond just mere exposure to such things. I think context in which such exposure happens is probably a more important factor.

That being said though, I would not be able to imagine any sort of exposure to such things in media where the child couldn't separate depictions in media with actual reality. I think most people seem to underestimate how capable children are of distinguishing media from reality, oftentimes frequently forgetting how easily they could do such a thing when they were children themselves.


File: 1561411759267.jpg (60.88 KB, 894x894, 1:1, CKoJ7tjVAAACCjD.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So, back several years ago a good amount of the people in the West decided to go back to the Middle East to join the Arab spring.
A good portion of them eventually ended up joining the Caliphate and joining the attrocities and fighting the West.

It is wrong to say the Caliphate has been wiped out, but after a fair share of casualties, a lot of those people gone to fight are now stuck in imprisonment camps and the likes.

And we start to ask the question, what are we to do with these people?

First of all, I see certain governments have started to bring back the kids, born abroad or taken to the East by their revolutionary parents. Technically, many argue that they are themselves innocent and should not pay the prize for their parents' mistakes.
Do you think it is okay that governments make the effort to return those kids?
Do you think the governments in the West have an obligation to bring back those kids?

Furthermore, what to do with the people who actually fought and lost the war? Is it ethical to let them rot in the prisons in the East? Or should they be brought back on trial in the countries they originated from?

Originally, I worked with the thread of discussing the state of the children, as it has been a lot in the news lately.
But I just stumbled on a result where a woman returning, condemned of acts of terrorism was relkeased of all charges to allow her to reintigrate in society. Which is probably telling of the way we look at this dilemma this day and age.


File: 1561414655379.jpg (804.78 KB, 755x1118, 755:1118, 01ljs9fa751gg.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Do you think it is okay that governments make the effort to return those kids?
Depends on the methods used.

>Do you think the governments in the West have an obligation to bring back those kids?
No, and I am confused at what line of thinking might lead to that conclusion.  But if the kids are citizens of a country X, then country X has a obligation to accept them back.

>Furthermore, what to do with the people who actually fought and lost the war?
Treason is a capital crime.

>Is it ethical to let them rot in the prisons in the East?
Yes.  If someone goes to another country and breaks the law there, then he is liable to suffer the penalty imposed by that country.  If a government Y is considered illegitimate by another governement X, then X might employ force to free prisoners from Y, but this is unusual in world affairs.


File: 1561173847189.jpg (55.96 KB, 770x549, 770:549, maduro-0001358480.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

When tyrants lose power, they are often put on trial and punished for their bad deeds. However, this incentivizes tyrants to hold onto power for as long as possible.  If instead, they were offered a comfortable retirement, a peaceful transition of power might be more likely.

To pose a concrete example: Should the United States Congress enact a law guaranteeing Nicolás Maduro immunity and a comfortable retirement in the US if he relinquishes power and recognizes Juan Guaidó as the rightful president of Venezuela?

This post was inspired by https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/18/if-kim-jong-un-opened-a-kfc-would-you-eat-there/
24 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>RE: Serial Killers

I think a similar program for serial killers would involve active serial killers that we don't think we have a chance of catching.  Murderers who aren't actively committing crimes or who we are closing in on obviously wouldn't qualify, the deal isn't attractive to us.

But in a situation where the body count is piling up and we aren't able to stop it, I really do think it's okay to approach them with honey rather than vinegar.  To look at it another way, if a deal could've been reached but you decided to turn away the killer out of spite, then everyone they kill after that is partially your fault.

I'm not sure if there's any real evidence to support this kind of program increasing the number of serial killers, but I'm willing to wager the effect wouldn't be substantial.


I like this idea, but with one change.

We do this, we give them a nice retirement.

And then in a couple years, once theuve grown complacent, we assassinate them. Have them murdered. Justice.

Or we arrest them instead and make them stand trial.

Either or.


The problem is you can do that only once.  Thereafter, nobody will believe you in the future.


File: 1560841278717.jpg (235.34 KB, 1440x1422, 80:79, 7pagxhjz34331.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What is art even? What makes art ... art? ... in your opinion?
12 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Something that evokes the imagination of its creators, but paid art needs to be interesting in some way to others to be valid


Personally, i define it as provoking one emotionally or intellectually enough to reconsider their preconceived notions and values. The rub is that what's going to evoke this reaction is going to be wildly different for different people of course, so i think something that's art for one person isn't necessarily art for a different person.


An abstract value I guess.

It's like the economic sense of 'price'. Nothing has an intrinsic price, only an amount people are willing to pay for something. Nothing is intrinsically artistic, but people are willing to rank things on an artistic scale.


File: 1560812044746.jpeg (112.75 KB, 800x520, 20:13, 800.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Lately more and more newspapers have been posting their articles online, and to maintain profits they usually either pay up front, or require payment to continue reading if you pass a certain article limit.  This runs rather contrary to the rest of the internet, who will usually give you their opinions for free without you even asking.  The contrast got me thinking.

How much should information cost?

There's a lot of factors that might go into an answer.  For example, how important is it that people receive information?  How important is it that people who have information are compensated for their knowledge?  If so many people are willing to give out information for free, are people who charge for it just out of luck and doomed to extinction?  Does the answer apply universally to all information, from news to books to video?  What about works of fiction, should this form of "information" have the same standards applied?  What might an ideal information distribution service look like?

What are your takes on knowledge, /townhall/?
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1560868570571.png (89.14 KB, 369x319, 369:319, 130480067705.png) ImgOps Google

Information is always an important thing in this world. The problem is the people responsible for finding and providing this information are people as well.
Everyone is entitled to be able to receive inforamtion, but everyone is also entitled to be able to receive proper compensation for work and to be able to feed themselves and their families, or else if information is always free, people will not provide it as it will not feed them.

Honestly, I think for knowledge and information it's okay to pay for it. The caveat being I get what I paid for. If I pay for news, I would expect and hope to get news from an unbiased source free of influences from agenda or advertisements.
Getting free news from sites is seldom free, usually littered with advertisements and advertisers that may, can, and have censored content because it is immensely unflattering to them at best, and devastating at worse.

The same would be for information provided in 'studies' and the like. Knowing who paid for some studies can be more revealing than the study itself, case in point the study of sugar and obesity in our food, and the sudden 'interest' taken by a lot of snack food companies that omitted quite a few things, and ended up starting a fat free craze that actually made things worse

In an ideal world, good reliable information should be free, but in practice it can't work that way. Everyone can give a free opinion, but a good thought can sometimes be worth the cost.

And really, if someone is giving me information for 'free' I wouldn't be so quick to accept it


To make matters even more complicated, the source of that money has the potential to drastically alter what information can and will be released, and in what form. You get drastically different stories from FOX and CNN, after all.


Just pirate it.


File: 1560733432404.jpg (61.37 KB, 850x400, 17:8, quote-gratitude-an-imagina….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Imagine a person does an action.

Let's say that the result of that action is one you opine is a good one. A good thing happened, maybe saving a life or donating to a charity, who knows.

The question I want to ask in this thread is, when judging the goodness of the action and the performer of the action, how much does their internal motivation matter?

What if they did the good thing for entirely selfish reasons? Maybe they couldn't care less about the person they save but love the idea of being praised and rewarded. Or they didn't want to live with the shame of not having tried to help.

Would you consider that a lesser good than if it were more or completely altruistic?

Do you believe in pure altruism, or do you think everyone gets at least a little for themselves by doing good?
11 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1561176044067.jpg (379.18 KB, 1200x1080, 10:9, 1456670771105.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>The Emperor summons before him Bodhidharma and asks: “Master, I have been tolerant of innumerable gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, transgender people, and Jews. How many Virtue Points have I earned for my meritorious deeds?”
>Bodhidharma answers: “None at all”.
>The Emperor, somewhat put out, demands to know why.
>Bodhidharma asks: “Well, what do you think of gay people?”
>The Emperor answers: “What do you think I am, some kind of homophobic bigot? Of course I have nothing against gay people!”
>And Bodhidharma answers: “Thus do you gain no merit by tolerating them!”
(taken from https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/)

Another example: A politician calling out corruption in the opposing party is not particularly praiseworthy.  A politician calling out corruption in his own party takes a lot more courage and is praiseworthy.


One could also argue that the emporor is praiseworthy. He was subject to the corrupting influence of power, and could have easily given in to his natural inclinations of scapegoating or exploiting an out-group, but overcame that.

In a situation where there is benefit to gain from exploitation, or where the prevailing cultural tendency is to do so, it is virtuous not to engage in it at all.


>More interesting, perhaps, is why you ask.
Great question! People have had much praise for me because I perform lots of good acts. But I wonder if my motivations for good align with others, and whether there could even be judgements to be made against me for my internal motivators.

This is an interesting take. I think that self sacrifice, or having to push yourself in some way does play an important factor in how praiseworthy an act of good is.


File: 1561070420731.png (339.58 KB, 1080x1920, 9:16, Screenshot_20190620-183808.png) ImgOps Google

"By legislating beyond its limited powers, Congress has taken from the People authority that they never gave. ... And the Court has been complicit by blessing this questionable expansion of the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 57–74 (2005) (THOMAS, J., dissenting).  Indeed, it seems possible that much of Title 18, among other parts of the U.S. Code, is premised on the Court’s incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause and is thus an incursion into the States’ general criminal jurisdiction and an imposition on the People’s liberty."
(https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-646_new_o759.pdf , page 35)

Do you agree or disagree, and why?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


I'm in the same boat, would enjoy the opportunity to comment but I spent 5 minutes researching and wasn't sure I was even learning the right material so I gave up.


File: 1561077329889.jpg (54.04 KB, 320x377, 320:377, 1457889461253.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'll take a stab at this.  Article I of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress.  In particular, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".  (Notice the power to regulate intra-state commerce is omitted.)  However, FDR's New Deal legislation really pushed the limits of this power, and in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court acquiesced and let stand a law that limited how much wheat a farmer could grow even if the wheat never entered interstate commerce and instead was consumed by animals raised on his farm.  In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Supreme Court held that Congress can criminalize homegrown cannabis for personal consumption even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.  (Recall that in the 1920s, a Constitutional amendment was necessary for a national prohibition of alcoholic beverages.)  Today, there are lots of laws whose only jurisdictional hook is that they regulate activities or products "in or affecting interstate commerce", and the "affecting" part is taken extremely liberally.


The Commence Clause, I think, is typical a growth area in the living constitution.  I'm not quite sure what you're asking, though.  If you're asking whether a government is justice for humans, well, of course.  I'm not sure if that's what you're asking, though.


File: 1560670928549.jpg (36.83 KB, 1015x477, 1015:477, shutterstock_523828555-980….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

With how quickly technology has advanced compared to our minds, I don't think it's possible for our human brains to keep up completely.

While technology has given us a lot of good things and made our lives relatively easy, I also could see it getting abused and possibly harming us, especially seeing as how far the virtual reality scene has come. I could see people potentially using it (and games) in the same manner as harmful drugs, and becoming so addicted they lose themselves or stop trying to take care of themselves.


Also something else to consider-should children be forced to have "outside" time, away from technology? In what ways do you think parents might need to worry, and in what ways not worry, about how much technology influences the younger generation?
8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>Well it's entirely neutral on its own; no one person has any real obligation to contribute anything. But if no one does anything, what happens to the economy?

I think there's something else to be mentioned here, too.  Since we're talking about tech advancements, it's very possible that in the future our tech advancements will remove the need for humans to work.  Perhaps slowly at first, but eventually we might reach a full replacement sort of society.  In that example of advanced tech, maybe the economy isn't even an important concept anymore.


>remove the need for humans to work
>in the future
My guy, this is already happening. Why do you think it's so hard to get an actual human when you call customer service? Computers are cheap and tireless, and the corporate world has begun shifting toward performance based employment. Banks have fewer workers, more lines at the grocery store are self serve. Every day hundreds of jobs are lost to robots. But things still cost money. Money is simply a go-between for goods and services that are difficult to trade due to their mismatched value. We are also seeing people returning to trading favors more and more though, so you could be right



I mean, you kinda got to the point I was making anyway.  Automation is already happening, but right now we haven't been replaced.  Things are not so abundant and jobs are not so automated that you no one has to work and everyone still has what they need.  But I think that ratio will increase as we move forward, perhaps dramatically and rapidly going by some people's estimations.  And if that were to happen, then people spending all their time addicted to VR might actually just be the norm and relatively okay in a societal sense.


File: 1560926072881.jpg (29.26 KB, 852x480, 71:40, 12.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Do you believe this argument has any basis in reality? Not only by what someone was wearing but also, let's say, someone walking alone at an early hour in a neighborhood known for a lot of crime.

Do you think they are "asking" for it, (to be beaten, robbed, raped, harmed) if they knew prior to going out alone what the neighborhood is like, and especially so at such an hour.

I believe it is not a black and white, cut and dry case.
10 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Huh?  Is that like racism but on a blockchain?


Yeah! It's the latest trend.


I don't know, I feel like you can make the argument into reverse. I mean, maybe it's due to being raised in an area with a lot of various minorities, but, it's always been pretty self-evident to me that it's not the race of people that makes specific areas dangerous. Usually, it's a combination of culture and economics.
In fact, if you know how to carry yourself, those areas are actually be fairly safe. At least, that's been my experience, delivering pizzas there. though to be fair, I don't know if they really ever mess with a pizza delivery guy, since doing that kind of get your entire Street blocked. I imagine your neighbors wouldn't be too happy if you ended up doing something like that.

In any case, the point of trying to get here is, bad neighborhoods exist regardless of race. There's plenty of predominantly white areas I wouldn't go to, for pretty much the same effect of cultural and economic reason as the area's I think you're trying to get out here.


File: 1560791661622.jpg (38.2 KB, 380x299, 380:299, 141863434673.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In some cases where dogs attack children, it is decided to put the dog down as a result. Should this justification not also apply to child molesters for the same reasons.
56 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


That seems like a pretty specific and unlikely scenario to be basing new laws around.


File: 1560836345008.jpeg (55.74 KB, 460x456, 115:114, zg.miq1.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>That seems like a pretty specific and unlikely scenario
Yes.  But if the law makes something mandatory, then it's, well, mandatory, regardless of whether it makes sense in an individual case.  


So if it cannot be a mandatory law, could it be applied with stipulations on when it's implemented?


File: 1560803157349.jpg (101.88 KB, 612x816, 3:4, 3efb0ad3bb5a58db27f669d041….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

If a pedophile molests a child, he gets like a little bit of jail time max. So why do we not have amnesty for all dogs biting children?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


while rabies is already a strict medical condition, I do think that dogs breaking free and biting others to death or to severe injuries might be a bit beyond saving. I can assume (ass u and me) that aggressive dogs will likely be aggressive more often.


Makes sense to me, I guess
Some dogs are definitely more aggressive, in their bites. Some just kind of give you a little pinch that hardly matters.


Unless your dog is fully loose and assaulting people that aren't really on your property, I absolutely believe that dogs should have amnesty.  And even in that extreme case of a rabid wild dog, the owner should be the one that gets fined first for not controlling their dog.  After that I'd probably confiscate the dog, which might still result in it being put down unfortunately, but there's only so much we can do.


File: 1560662928342.png (265.86 KB, 640x1002, 320:501, drugs-catgirls.png) ImgOps Google

If you could re-write the drugs laws of the United States, what changes would you make, and why?
11 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1560721442980.png (95.73 KB, 240x380, 12:19, eh heh 2.png) ImgOps Google

Filenames are a big giveaway.


U fortunately for Moony, he talks in a very specific manner and has a difficult time playing anonymous.

He would have to completely change the way he typed and spoke while doing these types of threads,

If you truly want to stay anonymous Moony ;3


I believe that soft drugs should be legalized, but hard drugs should remain illegal.

The simplest reason for this is that many, many people are stupid and irresponsible. Many people would jump at the opportunity to get themselves doped up on hard drugs, only to then either get addicted and enter a life of crime, or cause potentially lethal havoc out in the streets in a stupor.

And of course these stupid people, if they managed not to get themselves killed, would have to go through rehab to get clean. And rehab is a far from fool-proof treatment, so many addicts will have to go through numerous times unsuccessfully. Addicts can't pay for all of this, so it would have to come out of the taxpayer's pockets. And I for one do not believe the taxpayer's money should be used to fix the mistakes of stupid people.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Next
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]