951–960 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only time I've been asked for an ID at a pharmacy was for non-prescription sudafed. I've picked up many prescriptions for myself and my family, and they have never asked for ID.
Same, I pick up prescriptions for myself, my kids, and my wife, all the time. I can't recall ever being ID'd, and I'm certainly I'm not usually asked for ID. Maybe it varies state-by-state?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s fair, but if there argument is “At basically no point in history…” it is reasonable to mention that they are mistaken in that belief and the reverse was true for most of recorded history. Which doesn’t mean I disagree with them, just that their argument isn’t sound. Slavery was also depressingly common and I am glad it’s become vastly less common today.
the weakness of his argument is that he didn't restrict himself to a certain people's history. the hammurabi code you cite wasn't the universal law, and only applied to subjects of hammurabi. savages live in groups and share all sorts of responsibilities (see edward burnett tylor's primitive cultures vol. 1 & 2). which gives some weight to his original assertion. generally, human civilization is us picking and choosi…
If you go to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
“Most Stone Age human societies routinely practiced infanticide, and estimates of children killed by infanticide in the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras vary from 15 to 50 percent.”
“Infanticide became forbidden in Europe and the Near East during the 1st millennium.” Except if you dig into the details those bans where very local, it continues:
“Christianity forbade infanticide from its earliest times, which led Constantine the Great and Valentinian I to ban infanticide across the Roman Empire in the 4th century. Yet, infanticide was not unacceptable in some wars and infanticide in Europe reached its peak during World War II (1939-45), during the Holocaust and the T4 Program.[2] The practice ceased in Arabia in the 7th century after the founding of Islam, since the Quran prohibits infanticide. Infanticide of male babies had become uncommon in China by the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), whereas infanticide of female babies became more common during the One-Child Policy era (1979–2015). During the period of Company rule in India, the East India Company attempted to eliminate infanticide but were only partially successful, and female infanticide in some parts of India still continues. Infanticide is now very rare in industrialised countries but may persist elsewhere.”
Thus as far as we can tell it was common globally from the Stone Age, through Bronze Age up until quite recently. Also of note, those bans wouldn’t necessarily be reflected as a change in all cultures in that area only the options of those running the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"They're going to have a problem" — for whom is that a problem? Porhub made the best reasonable effort. The ISPs supplied inaccurate data and are in the jurisdiction, but aren't required to supply anything at all AFAICT. Who has a problem?
> Porhub made the best reasonable effort. The ISPs supplied inaccurate data and are in the jurisdiction, but aren't required to supply anything at all AFAICT. Who has a problem? Given the known problems with IP geo-location, I don't think this would count as "the best reasonable effort." Unless you interpret "reasonable" to mean "half-ass."
If you think Disney's happy with "half-ass", then "half-ass" is what I mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theocracies can be elected. I fail to see how your definition of a theocracy automatically disqualifies Utah from being an "effective theocracy".
> Theocracies can be elected. No, they can't, at least not by a general citizenship against a general pool of candidates. The Vatican's citizens don't get to elect the pope, and among those few who do vote, they can't choose a Bhuddist to be Pope. > I fail to see how your definition of a theocracy automatically disqualifies Utah from being an "effective theocracy". Well,I think you have to try really, really hard, no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it's true. Children can't go in a physical store and purchase porn anywhere. "Imagine comparing going to a physical location with no easy digital trace and buying something that is basically 100% socially acceptable to digitally tracking what kind of taboo and private porn someone wants to watch. " You're making excuses for allowing this. Just stop. The mental and physical health of children takes precedence over…
>Yes it's true. Children can't go in a physical store and purchase porn anywhere. That's not what I asked... you said it was "literally illegal for children to view porn". Give me a source for it because I can't find one. There is a difference between SELLING porn to underage children, and children being able to view it. I'm talking about viewing it. Going to google and searching for porn and getting results is NOT t…
Who's taking away what rights? Pornhub took this away, not the government. Show me where the government is removing rights please. I'm not aware of an amendment that says you must be allowed to view porn without anyone knowing about it.
Again, your right to view porn doesn't supersede the right of children to be protected from it. You sound like the people vying for child drag shows because it's their right to dangle their junk in kids faces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it's true. Children can't go in a physical store and purchase porn anywhere. "Imagine comparing going to a physical location with no easy digital trace and buying something that is basically 100% socially acceptable to digitally tracking what kind of taboo and private porn someone wants to watch. " You're making excuses for allowing this. Just stop. The mental and physical health of children takes precedence over…
I don't know what you mean by "very very recently", because even online porn has been around for literally decades (it was on Usenet for a while before the web was a thing). I remember folders full of it on the BBSes I frequented as a teen in mid-90s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like saying 'sleeping too much is the source of depression'. Viewing too much porn is a result of a different problem. Happy and healthy people aren't accidentally becoming addicted to porn.
Happy and healthy people don't usually become addicted to heroin either.
Opiates are insanely physically addictive and you can easily accidentally become addicted to them using them as prescribed, hence all the lawsuits.
Multiple issues with this. It starts off with arbitrary definitions of what pornography is ( https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/SB0287.html ): "nipple of the female breast" You can suck on it when you are a baby, but god forbid you ever take a look at it again before you are married. What's wrong with these people? Even public nudity laws differ from city to city (e.g. in California), so clearly, people aren't al…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, idk enough about what's happening in Europe or Canada as it relates to this topic, but it's possible that there are other cultural or historical factors at play. My initial assumption is maybe it's due to a rise in conservatism in certain countries? Again, idk, I haven't been keeping up with the news on this. What's going on exactly? Which countries?
You're not at all sure why it's happening in multiple other countries, but you're completely confident it must be the 'puritanical roots of the US'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With online porn, the scale and complications doing it put a much bigger burden This could be very easily done at the ISP level for the whole connection. (I'm talking best effort not a perfect implementation) Why not just block all "Adult" content by default and allow the buyer to opt in (both temporarily via password, and permanently). Then it would be a decision each household could easily make about what they wa…
Aside from the implications of turning an ISP into a decider of what you get to see rather than being a "dumb pipe," what about parents who want to view porn but don't want their kids to? Should they be forced to choose between 20 years of abstinence or potentially exposing their kids? The "household" is a pretty bad level at which to have to make these decisions, given that people of all age ranges share the same ho…