Child labor laws suck!

[evan]

28 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Aw come on.

If you argue it makes him post up another giant wall of text. 

...this is encouragement because

 

you know what the funny thing is? he'll quote me saying i'm denying it because i can't prove him wrong or something. the disappointing thing is that he inherently is just proving that his idea of logical thinking is so far distended from anyone else's here that he has to make walls of text to cope. i don't have the patience in me to be nice, or silly, or responsive to that. it's absurd. 

 

18 minutes ago, Terminal7 said:

I'm not trying to argue. I'm trying to express how ridiculous I think this idea is.

But then again,  I don't even know who you're referring to (finally came to this thread)

completely referring to rassah.

[Endless/Nameless]

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

Allowing to doesn't mean pushing. Seriously, that's a common trait among pro-government types who freak out whenever someone suggests more freedom or anarchy, thinking that being given the freedom to choose something means they will be forced to do that thing. Stop thinking that way. And if someone wants to work at a younger age, why stop them?

That is logical, but there are more factors that come into play. If working at a young age somehow becomes the norm, the kids the aren't interested will be bombarded with so much pressure from their peers that they pretty much will be forced to work anyway, or be a loser. That's the way kids are at that age; everybody's doing it so you should be too. Plus, once a generation goes by, all the parents will be riding their kids asses to get out and work too cuz that's what they had been expected to do at that age. So it wouldn't necessarily be as voluntary as you think. It has the potential to cause a huge societal flux, I don't personally think it would make for a very healthy one. 

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

But it really depends on what we consider labor. It might actually become the norm for children to learn responsibilities, how to follow business authority, how to earn and manage their money, and how to deal respectfully with others of all ages. That wouldn't be so terrible. And we still subject children to quite a bit of labor right now. I would consider school and homework to be pretty difficult labor

I have no argument here. [edit: That is, if there was a way to teach those things without actually making them take on full-blown jobs]

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

The laws that we have on the books, including child labor laws, are - or at least supposed to be - representative of our society's beliefs. Basically, the morals and ethics in our legal code represent what society already believes to be moral and ethical, and are NOT some sort of religious edicts that FORCE those morals and ethics on society (though, admittedly, legislated ethics always lag behind society's ethical improvements, whether it's segregation, sexuality, etc.). So, basically, my point was that if we were to get rid of the laws, it won't change what society already believes about child labor and child exploitation (as the laws on the books already reflect that reality), and thus won't result in the types of terrible scenarios people propose. Society in general will still continue to frown on exploiting children or forcing them to do hard labor, and thus kids will only be allowed to do what society deems "acceptable" for children to do (such as fix computers, or scoop ice cream, as in Jeffrey's examples)

Ok, I see what you meant. And you are correct, that is pretty much the nature of our laws.

But just because society as a whole feels one way now doesn't necessarily mean their views won't change. A weak example: Men having long hair used to be a huge no-no, but a few people started doing it anyway; then more and more joined them until eventually, for better or worse, society pretty much said "aah, fuck it" and now it's not a big deal. The same thing can happen with child labor; everybody might frown upon it at first, but since it'd now be technically ok you'll get a few progressive-type sending their kids off to Acme Inc, then a few more people will join in, and eventually we'll just come to accept it. For better or for worse? That is the question. People's hair length is totally irrelevant to our society's wellbeing, but child labor potentially could fuck a lot of things up. Society isn't all that good at filtering itself; just look at all the people out there today living incredibly busy/unhealthy lifestyles simply because it's "the way we do". 

I guess the question is, how would society act if something taboo suddenly became a-ok in the eyes of authority? I'm not sure that's easy to predict, because in the past governments haven't really ever operated that way. But I'm of the opinion that humans will exploit any loophole, simply because it's there to be conquered. 

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

But we still forced changes in adult working conditions. It just seems unfair that adults were given an improvement, and children were simply completely deprived

Well I highly doubt they felt deprived at the time. 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Endless/Nameless

[PastryOfApathy]

25 minutes ago, evan said:

...this is encouragement because

They're funny and lead to things like Rassah saying he wants to make raping children legal.

[Endless/Nameless]

Just now, PastryOfApathy said:

Rassah saying he wants to make raping children legal.

With all due respect to the joke, he didn't fucking say that. Geez.

[evan]

2 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

With all due respect to the joke, he didn't fucking say that. Geez.

he does want consent to be dependent on the party and not follow any bylaw of age, which is taking way too much risk on circumstance and makes a terrible amount of assumption on whether or not the morality of that stands to begin with.

his counter-argument pleads that you wouldn't want a stranger making that decision for you, not seeming to consider how the whole point of a law is to encourage a moral standard. 

the joke is a derivative of a questionable statement. literal interpretation is a waste of your and my time.

[PastryOfApathy]

9 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

With all due respect to the joke, he didn't fucking say that. Geez.

...

On 3/18/2016 at 6:34 PM, Rassah said:

Statutory rape? Who is the government to decide when someone is mature enough to understand and enjoy sex? Shouldn't that be between the kid and their parents to decide? Besides, they cause more harm than help, and put innocent people in jail, just based on arbitrary numbers.

So, yeah, the hell with all of them.

You're totally right though, he didn't say anything like that.

Edited March 22, 2016 by PastryOfApathy

[Endless/Nameless]

Just now, evan said:

he does want consent to be dependent on the party and not follow any bylaw of age, which is taking way too much risk on circumstance and makes a terrible amount of assumption on whether or not the morality of that stands to begin with.

his counter-argument pleads that you wouldn't want a stranger making that decision for you, not seeming to consider how the whole point of a law is to encourage a moral standard. 

the joke is a derivative of a questionable statement. literal interpretation is a waste of your and my time.

The concerns you mention are quite valid. 

But there are shortcomings to the current laws that do merit discussion.

But instead of discussing anything, half of the replies in this thread remind me of Mommy telling little Johnny "No more ice cream for tonight" with Johnny running off screaming "MOM SAYS NO MORE CANDY EVER!!!!!" I love a good shitpost, but c'mon.... 

1 minute ago, PastryOfApathy said:

...

You're totally right though, he didn't say anything like that.

You do try, don't you? 

[PastryOfApathy]

Just now, Endless/Nameless said:

You do try, don't you? 

Just cause you got some kind of gross mancrush on him doesn't mean you get to deny reality.

[Endless/Nameless]

1 minute ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Just cause you got some kind of gross mancrush on him doesn't mean you get to deny reality.

I just enjoy the hypotheticals.

You guys are the ones with the Rassah fetish. It's like some sort of strange sadomasochistic thing.

[evan]

10 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

The concerns you mention are quite valid. 

But there are shortcomings to the current laws that do merit discussion.

But instead of discussing anything, half of the replies in this thread remind me of Mommy telling little Johnny "No more ice cream for tonight" with Johnny running off screaming "MOM SAYS NO MORE CANDY EVER!!!!!" I love a good shitpost, but c'mon.... 

i shitpost because i spent plenty of time back and forthing with rassah and my final conclusion was that i couldn't take his opinion seriously.

there is a reason people are beyond trying with him.

[PastryOfApathy]

27 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

I just enjoy the hypotheticals.

You guys are the ones with the Rassah fetish. It's like some sort of strange sadomasochistic thing.

Well you're right to a degree, he is kind of my own my little pet idiot. I can only think of one time hes ever made me legitimately angry, every other time he's just hilarious.

Edited March 22, 2016 by PastryOfApathy

[Endless/Nameless]

4 minutes ago, evan said:

i shitpost because i spent plenty of time back and forthing with rassah and my final conclusion was that i couldn't take his opinion seriously.

there is a reason people are beyond trying with him.

I can kinda see where you're coming from. 

But it's exasperating to watch if you're trying to kinda sorta follow the discussion.

[Endless/Nameless]

38 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Well you're right to a degree, he is kind of my own my little pet idiot. I can only think of one time hes ever made me legitimately angry, every other time he's just hilarious.

How about an electronic Rassah plushie? 
Push the bitcoin and hear 10 hilarious anarchical phrases.
Fun for the whole family.
Now only Ƀ19.99!!

^{(It's not like i don't see the potential for humor in these threads. I just find it extremely rude to accuse someone of condoning rape for shits and giggles)}

[PastryOfApathy]

1 minute ago, Endless/Nameless said:

^{(It's not like i don't see the potential for humor in these threads. I just find it extremely rude to accuse someone of condoning rape for shits and giggles)}

It's not really an accusation if they literally just did it right in front of everyone with proof.

[Endless/Nameless]

Just now, PastryOfApathy said:

It's not really an accusation if they literally just did it right in front of everyone with proof.

Saying the regulating system is flawed doesn't mean you want everyone to start raping and pillaging, but whatever....

[WileyWarWeasel]

4 hours ago, Rassah said:

If by "baby" you mean government, authority, and stupid busybodies who should mind their own business, then yes?

I meant regulations, oversight and protections, which would be entirely lacking in your neo-liberal system. If it's any consolation we're heading in that direction now.

I'm guessing you would welcome the TTP/TTIP as it means (mostly) big business dictating terms while governments and stupid busybodies "mind their own business".

3 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

You guys are the ones with the Rassah fetish. It's like some sort of strange sadomasochistic thing.

Dear god I hope not >>

Edited March 22, 2016 by WileyWarWeasel
Revelation

[Rassah]

20 hours ago, Terminal7 said:

-And the legal age of consent should be 6...

 

Instead of a legal age of consent, where some old  Republicans with repressed homosexual tendencies make that decision on everyone's behalf, why not have the age of consent be whatever society considers to be appropriate? Or is society not as good at figuring this out as a bunch of angry old pervs who think about when kids should be fucking?

[#00Buck]

There should be a maximum age of consent.

That way 104 year olds with walkers and canes won't get banged until their dentures fall out. 

[AshleyAshes]

6 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Instead of a legal age of consent, where some old  Republicans with repressed homosexual tendencies make that decision on everyone's behalf, why not have the age of consent be whatever society considers to be appropriate? Or is society not as good at figuring this out as a bunch of angry old pervs who think about when kids should be fucking?

Rassah should be able to buy as many Pilipino 10yo boys with Bitcoin as he wants!  But the government has ENSLAVED him!  He's the real victim here!

[Rassah]

20 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

If working at a young age somehow becomes the norm, the kids the aren't interested will be bombarded with so much pressure from their peers that they pretty much will be forced to work anyway, or be a loser.

This presupposes that working is bad to begin with. It doesn't have to be.

20 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Plus, once a generation goes by, all the parents will be riding their kids asses to get out and work too cuz that's what they had been expected to do at that age.

 

 

 

Child labor rates have been decreasing way before laws were passed, simply because society focused more on education than needing kids for extra money. And the situation is even better now. So I suspect kids being pressured to work won't be much different from kids being pressured to join clubs or learn to play an instrument, and for the same reason, just to learn and earn a bit of cash for themselves, not for actual family supporting income.

20 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

But just because society as a whole feels one way now doesn't necessarily mean their views won't change. A weak example: Men having long hair used to be a huge no-no, but a few people started doing it anyway; then more and more joined them until eventually, for better or worse, society pretty much said "aah, fuck it" and now it's not a big deal. 

Well, luckily, the trend in society has been towards more equal opportunity, ethics, and justice. Like with changes in slavery, racism, mysoginy, and sexual orientation. Likewise with exploitative child labor, where it was frowned upon more and more. I think the long hair example plays into that too, where guys aren't discriminated against just because they want to look different or more feminine. Same progress is happening with drugs.

20 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

I guess the question is, how would society act if something taboo suddenly became a-ok in the eyes of authority? I'm not sure that's easy to predict, because in the past governments haven't really ever operated that way. 

We do have some examples of this though. Same sex marriage was legalized, and it didn't turn everyone gay or lead to sex between humans and animals. Portugal legalized most drugs, and it didn't lead to everyone abusind drugs (on the contrary, drug abuse declined). I think people are intelligent enough to make their own decisions.

20 hours ago, evan said:

he does want consent to be dependent on the party and not follow any bylaw of age, which is taking way too much risk on circumstance and makes a terrible amount of assumption on whether or not the morality of that stands to begin with.

Won't anyone think of the children!!! We must set limits high enough until we're sure they won't be put in any sirk if skin on skin contact, because children.

20 hours ago, evan said:

his counter-argument pleads that you wouldn't want a stranger making that decision for you, not seeming to consider how the whole point of a law is to encourage a moral standard. 

I'd say it's to enforce an already existing moral standard. And moral laws are often very very very wrong. I'm sure you can think of some examples. (Heck, what I do with my husband used to be illegal because children!!!)

19 hours ago, PastryOfApathy said:

I can only think of one time hes ever made me legitimately angry, 

I need to look through the archives and see what I did to do that. Sounds like something I should do more of. Maybe I can start by pointing out that redefining words to meet your own narrative is pretty moronic. Legal "statutory rape" is one such example. Some puritan fuckface, who thought people having sex at some age was icky, came up with the stupid term of "statutory rape" to make idiots like you go "He's supporting rape!" even though that would basically mean that humanity has been raping as a normal way of life for hundreds of thousands of years, when people would start families as soon as girls could get pregnant, and had a life expectancy of about mid 20's. Damn you're gullible and simple minded.

[AshleyAshes]

2 minutes ago, Rassah said:

I need to look through the archives and see what I did to do that. Sounds like something I should do more of. Maybe I can start by pointing out that redefining words to meet your own narrative is pretty moronic. Legal "statutory rape" is one such example. Some puritan fuckface, who thought people having sex at some age was icky, came up with the stupid term of "statutory rape" to make idiots like you go "He's supporting rape!" even though that would basically mean that humanity has been raping as a normal way of life for hundreds of thousands of years, when people would start families as soon as girls could get pregnant, and had a life expectancy of about mid 20's. Damn you're gullible and simple minded.

Rassah thinks that age of consent is bad, expresses how morally superior he is for this, still can't figure out why the forum doesn't worship him. :V

[Rassah]

16 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

I meant regulations, oversight and protections, which would be entirely lacking in your neo-liberal system. If it's any consolation we're heading in that direction now.

I wish that was the case,  but it's not. Regulations, along with surveillance to see who isn't following them, has been increasing over the years, not decreasing. I think much of the decline of our society and economy has been because of that. The things I and others in my political organization have been working on have been the only push back against it (anonymous money, communication, markets, etc.). If we're successful, then we'll be heading in that direction, but we haven't even done enough to have any noticeable impact yet, since all our stuff is still so new.

16 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

I'm guessing you would welcome the TTP/TTIP as it means (mostly) big business dictating terms while governments and stupid busybodies "mind their own business".

While I like the idea of government being sued for wrongfully interfering in business, TTP/TTIP is mostly a copyright and patent enforcement bill that will give government and a few mega corps oligarchies quite a bit if power, so no.

 

53 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Rassah should be able to buy as many Pilipino 10yo boys with Bitcoin as he wants!  But the government has ENSLAVED him!  He's the real victim here!

See what I mean guys? Statists always looking at things from the side of the powerful, fearing any sort of freedom as mandatory requirements, and always treating the poor and downtrodden as some powerless waifs who need to be saved by their mighty white knight selves (with someone else's money of course). What if the Philippino boys actually have the power to make their own decisions and say no to sex all by themselves? Or even make their own decision to earn those bitcoins, so they can be rich instead of poor like the rest of their peers? But no, liberal statists like Ashley just think everyone else is worse than them, and that they're worthless trash who are too stupid and irresponsible to make their own decisions.

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, Rassah said:

See what I mean guys? Statists always looking at things from the side of the powerful, fearing any sort of freedom as mandatory requirements, and always treating the poor and downtrodden as some powerless waifs who need to be saved by their mighty white knight selves (with someone else's money of course). What if the Philippino boys actually have the power to make their own decisions and say no to sex all by themselves?

Rassah thinks that the purchasers involved in sex trafficking hear 'no' from their victims.  It's ADORABLE that he even thinks this is an angle he can work.  ^_^;  Please, please keep trying.  :3

[evan]

case in point, endless. extremely stupid bait.

[PastryOfApathy]

5 hours ago, Rassah said:

Legal "statutory rape" is one such example. Some puritan fuckface, who thought people having sex at some age was icky, came up with the stupid term of "statutory rape" to make idiots like you go "He's supporting rape!" even though that would basically mean that humanity has been raping as a normal way of life for hundreds of thousands of years, when people would start families as soon as girls could get pregnant, and had a life expectancy of about mid 20's. Damn you're gullible and simple minded.

So Mr. Dmitry "Rassah" Murashchik, you are doubling down on your idea that you adamantly and enthusiastically support making the raping of children (whether you think it's rape or not is irrelevant, since many child predators have the same exact way of thinking) 100% legal?

Okay Mr. Murashchik, if you support kiddy rape I guess that's not my problem.

[WileyWarWeasel]

5 hours ago, Rassah said:

Well, luckily, the trend in society has been towards more equal opportunity, ethics, and justice.

Actually inequality has been increasing:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/13/half-world-wealth-in-hands-population-inequality-report

5 hours ago, Rassah said:

I wish that was the case,  but it's not. Regulations, along with surveillance to see who isn't following them, has been increasing over the years, not decreasing. I think much of the decline of our society and economy has been because of that. The things I and others in my political organization have been working on have been the only push back against it (anonymous money, communication, markets, etc.). If we're successful, then we'll be heading in that direction, but we haven't even done enough to have any noticeable impact yet, since all our stuff is still so new.

(Copied from my response in a different thread) We're actually running into several limits:

-Debt increasing faster than real economic growth since 1971

-Decreasing arable land per person

-Water being depleted faster than it is being replenished (means going after ground water which means ruining water table for centuries and increasing salinity among other things)

-Topsoil being ruined by farming and in particular extensive use of fertilizers

-Resource extraction costs increasing (ie we've already picked all the low-hanging fruit)

-Pollution/waste products being generated

-Increasing system complexity means increasing portion of resources going to the bureaucratic/rentier class simply to maintain it

-Greater system complexity means greater number of interdependent nodes that require other nodes in order to function. This means if there are one or more significant breaks in the system the contagion could spread to other nodes very quickly and in an exponential fashion (especially given the fragile nature of our just-in-time logistics and fast-paced trading)

-The politburo's "solution" to the above appears to be weakening the rest of the system (eg lowering interest rates below even official inflation effectively means stealing from savers) in order to prop up nodes deemed important (big business, banks, government, etc). With business profits sinking further, median incomes sinking lower and debt blowing out it's pretty obvious we're near the limits to how much can be leached from the overall system to maintain major nodes. It of course makes the rest of the system far more brittle and vulnerable to breaks also.

 

Like I said in a previous thread, your "solution" is basically a black market with private currency. It has its uses but keep in mind that black markets function as a subsection of an overall economy not as a replacement for it. Black markets have been around since the start of trade, your idea is not new.

 

5 hours ago, Rassah said:

While I like the idea of government being sued for wrongfully interfering in business, TTP/TTIP is mostly a copyright and patent enforcement bill that will give government and a few mega corps oligarchies quite a bit if power, so no.

But wait these powers are granted to all businesses so they can all sue government for wrongfully interfering in business, hurrah for libertarians! Wait a minute, you can only take advantage of the new laws if you have the money and legal departments to do so?

Wow, it's almost like "trade liberalization" only benefits those that can afford it

Remember a big part of the TTP/TTIP is the ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) clause.

[Terminal7]

10 hours ago, Rassah said:

Instead of a legal age of consent, where some old  Republicans with repressed homosexual tendencies make that decision on everyone's behalf, why not have the age of consent be whatever society considers to be appropriate? Or is society not as good at figuring this out as a bunch of angry old pervs who think about when kids should be fucking?

Kids shouldn't be doing much of  anything that has the potential to hinder their education and mental development

[Rassah]

22 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

Rassah thinks that the purchasers involved in sex trafficking hear 'no' from their victims.  It's ADORABLE that he even thinks this is an angle he can work.  ^_^;  Please, please keep trying.  :3

Sex workers make their own hours. They say no all the time, if the time asked for isn't convenient, or they're not in the mood. Or did you move the goal posts, and change the discussion from 10yo Philipino sex workers, to sex slavery? Cause, like, the topic was "statutory rape," not human trafficking.

 

21 hours ago, evan said:

case in point, endless. extremely stupid bait.

Case in point, lots to say and comment, never anything worthwhile to contribute

16 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Actually inequality has been increasing:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/13/half-world-wealth-in-hands-population-inequality-report

The World Gini and World Theil indices say otherwise, showing inequality decreasing since 1980. Another key point to remember when considering inequality is keeping in mind whether you're talking about within-border or cross-border. Specifically, the lowest income are earning their money from a local job, while the highest income are earning their money from global business and investment, and just happen to live in the country you're looking as. As I usually say, if you want to fix our 1% inequality problem, just have the 1% move to another country like Canada. US inequality will instantly become MUCH more fair, Canada will start having inequality problems... but in the end no one in the remaining 99% will actually be better off, nor will the 1% be worse off, since they'll still be able to keep earning their money regardless. So it's much more fair to compare inequality globally: people who earn money around the world, to other people who are earning their money locally around the world. Looking at it that way, global inequality has come down, at least until very recently, and that recent rise is mostly from China opening up and expanding the market. Which leads to the last point, inequality "comes from the spread of industrialism and market institutions to different places at a different pace. If half of the world embraces markets and the other half doesn’t, it is clear that the development of the first group makes the world more unequal, but this fact doesn’t tell us anything about the inequality in the areas adopting market institutions." In other words, countries that don't adopt industrialism and markets remain fairly equal, where everyone is very poor, while countries that do adopt markets and capitalism tend to have some of the people earn more than others. That doesn't mean that things get worse for those at the bottom, only that their wealth doesn't grow as fast as some others'. Mises explains it all with figures and citations to back it up here https://mises.org/library/more-evidence-global-economic-inequality-decreasing

Quote

Like I said in a previous thread, your "solution" is basically a black market with private currency. It has its uses but keep in mind that black markets function as a subsection of an overall economy not as a replacement for it. Black markets have been around since the start of trade, your idea is not new.

The idea of black markets is not new, but they have been suppressed and had to always operate in the dark. What's new is having them set up in such a way that it's safe, cheaper, and easy for anyone to participate. Like stealing music CDs wasn't anything new, but BitTorrent made it accessible to everyone. The overall idea is to actually make the black market accessible and strong enough to start replacing government institutions, instead of just supplanting it by services government doesn't want to provide (cheap meds, drugs, etc). They can also be a huge stabilizer for economies, too. Italy is poised to follow Greece (at least that's what the bets are on), but it has such a massive black market economy that I'm actually not too worried about it. It has a large enough economic impact that even if the official economy collapses, it will be enough to support their economy, more or less.

 

Quote

But wait these powers are granted to all businesses so they can all sue government for wrongfully interfering in business, hurrah for libertarians!

I may be wrong, but I think you can only legally sue the government if it actually agrees to be sued... But yeah, I'm not a big fan of the TTP/TTIP. I'm all for international trade and reducing trade barriers, but not when it's mandated, and comes with a bunch of conditions and benefits for the established megacorps.

 

12 hours ago, Terminal7 said:

Kids shouldn't be doing much of  anything that has the potential to hinder their education and mental development

Contrary to American popular belief, boobs and nipples do not make you stupid, nor cause mental trauma.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Rassah

[evan]

the fact that i have the ability to just walk in and make a contentless passive aggressive comment instead of taking you seriously is, in my mind, progress.

[DevilBear]

I think this belongs here.

[AshleyAshes]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Sex workers make their own hours. They say no all the time, if the time asked for isn't convenient, or they're not in the mood. Or did you move the goal posts, and change the discussion from 10yo Philipino sex workers, to sex slavery? Cause, like, the topic was "statutory rape," not human trafficking.

I make a quick satirical snap about you using bitcoins to buy underage children for sexual slavery and you then use this as turning point to make this into an argument about how opposition to human trafficking and underage prostitution are good things and that only oppressive, unintelligent people, unlike you who are enlightened.  ...All in your thread where you attempt to argue that child labor laws are a government conspiracy dating back to The Great Depression.  You are like some kind of cartoon of libertarianism.

I eagerly await Phase II, which typically involves you of accusing me of being the forum's grand manipulator who turns the forum membership against you because you are unable to process that you somehow lack the social intelligence necessary to put a stop to the constant stream of disgusting things you type that make you look bad.

[willow]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Contrary to American popular belief, boobs and nipples do not make you stupid, nor cause mental trauma.

bruh..

[Rassah]

2 hours ago, evan said:

the fact that i have the ability to just walk in and make a contentless passive aggressive comment instead of taking you seriously is, in my mind, progress.

Probably. I have trouble resisting replying too. But the "progress" also depends on whether you were ever able to actually pose any serious replies in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, willow said:

 

bruh..

Perhaps I missed the point, but the claim was that supposedly kids having underage sex somehow hinders their education and mental development, and I was exaggerating by pointing out how America is overly obsessed with protecting kids from sex (like the whole "nipple slip" incident that apparently damaged our collective psyche beyond repair). I'm not really aware of any studies showing that physical contact stunts education and mental development. Abuse, sure. But that's not sex (unless that's a kink of yours).

 

Anyway, what was the topic again? Oh yeah, kids being allowed to learn valuable life lessons by working. Damn you Ashley for derailing this threat with the oldest profession.

Also, Ashley, stop thinking I'm serious, instead of just being sarcastic or dicking with you. That you fall for it is frankly a bit silly and stupid.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Rassah

[AshleyAshes]

3 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Also, Ashley, stop thinking I'm serious, instead of just being sarcastic or dicking with you. That you fall for it is frankly a bit silly and stupid.

The time you complained that I was a bully and not being fair to you is not going to be erased by you pretending you're being sarcastic now. :V

[PastryOfApathy]

So you Mr. Dmitry "Rassah" Murashchik, are claiming that your repeated statements in enthusiastic support of the legalization of child molestation where in fact not "serious"?

[AshleyAshes]

7 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

So you Mr. Dmitry "Rassah" Murashchik, are claiming that your repeated statements in enthusiastic support of the legalization of child molestation where in fact not "serious"?

'Social Experiment' card!

[Terminal7]

Rassah, stop trying to read between invisible lines because you must have never seen and known kids that had more BJs than the number of fingers on my hand. 

Better yet,  these are the kids that complain about teachers and fail classes when they haven't even tried their homework or do well in class. For them,  "Help me" = "Do my work" and there's no way in hell I'm going to say that sex doesn't get in the way of education.

It's just as addicting as any drug that they smoke nowadays. 

Now,  do you think that a job will do the exact same thing? It's going to make the educational system fail even harder. 

[WileyWarWeasel]

@Rassah As a single indicator the Gini has severe limitations and doesn't provide much depth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Limitations_of_Gini_coefficient

 

This is why you have to look at multiple indicators such as median wages, debt, costs of living, costs of resource extraction, energy consumption per capita, etc.

I've listed some indicators in previous posts however there is a new one that I might as well show:

Figure 7. World energy consumption per capita, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2105 data. Year 2015 estimate and notes by G. Tverberg.

 

Before you say something ridiculous like "we'll just get along with less energy per person due to technology, bitcoins, etc" please see the following correlation between GDP and energy consumption:

Figure 5. World GDP in 2010$ compared (from USDA) compared to World Consumption of Energy (from BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014).

 

Above charts available at:

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2016/03/17/our-economic-growth-system-is-reaching-limits-in-a-strange-way/

 

Bear in mind that due to diminishing returns of resource extraction and rising costs of things like pollution, population growth (less arable land per person), etc we actually need energy consumption per person to go up just to break even.

I've talked about the other stuff before and don't feel like repeating myself, suffice to say that you have a lot of faith in black markets (which exist as a subset of a larger economy by their very nature).

12 hours ago, Rassah said:

I may be wrong, but I think you can only legally sue the government if it actually agrees to be sued... But yeah, I'm not a big fan of the TTP/TTIP. I'm all for international trade and reducing trade barriers, but not when it's mandated, and comes with a bunch of conditions and benefits for the established megacorps.

Oh COME ON, you have got to be kidding me.

I've been relatively patient with your nonsense up until now but you are either consumed in wishful thinking and moral justification of dodging taxes or are a very persistent troll to come up with this. No government agrees to be sued. The Australian government didn't agree to be sued by a giant tobacco company just like how the Canadian government didn't agree to get sued by a whole host of companies:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html

 

When government officials sell out to private interests the last thing they're thinking of is future lawsuits.

EDIT: what I meant was a government does not agree to be sued on a case-by-case basis. Once a government agrees to a trade deal they can't just say "well company A can sue me but company B can't".

Edited March 24, 2016 by WileyWarWeasel
Damn wording was off

[Rassah]

@WileyWarWeasel Maybe it's just in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States

[WileyWarWeasel]

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

@WileyWarWeasel Maybe it's just in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States

Ah now that is new to me I'll admit. It should be interesting to see how TPP and TTIP impact on the sovereign immunity of USA.