Giardiasis said:
Wrong.
To extend the drinking age example, effects of alcohol on brain development in adolescents, physiological and psychological research in this area goes back almost 100 years. But no, anything not money is subjective right?
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Caro called out, Footy Classified
- Thread starter yandb
- Start date
Wrong.
To extend the drinking age example, effects of alcohol on brain development in adolescents, physiological and psychological research in this area goes back almost 100 years. But no, anything not money is subjective right?
What's an adolescent? Does everyone go from one to not one on their 18th birthday? Interesting that Canadians and American's have different drinking ages no? Why not look at the bad things that alcohol contributes to all people? Shouldn't that justify banning it entirely?tigersnake said:
Giardiasis said:
So you have no faith in the research data and analysis or the social values upon which our laws are based? yes or no?
I think a legislative law society is far inferior to a private law society both from a utility perspective and ethically. Even if I thought all the research you refer to was indicative of reality then this wouldn't change my mind about whether it justifies violence. If people want to damage their bodies, then that's up to them to decide.tigersnake said:
Bit more nuisanced than that, although faith was an interesting choice of words.tigersnake said:
Giardiasis said:
in your world, kids can drink from the age of 5. 10 year olds can prostitute themselves out to buy drugs, parents can prostitute their infant children out, people can get hammered and drive.
sounds look a great way to live.
Nope, you'll find that 5 year olds lack the things I outlined already to claim ownership rights that trump their parent's caretaker rights.Brodders17 said:
Same as previous point.Brodders17 said:
Wow, how on earth did you come up with that nonsense?Brodders17 said:
Who's the victim?Brodders17 said:
Interesting thread until Gia derailed it. 
Great to see people arguing against the false hypocrisy trotted out by Hutchy. He has been peeved ever since Caro brought into the open just how invested (and powerful) he is with his comtrol of a media companiy that is bidding for (and winning) contracts.
From SMH
'For Hutchy, as he his universally known, the year had been absorbed managing his burgeoning sports media business. Hutchison co-founded Crocmedia in 2006 and last year negotiated a complicated and controversial deal to acquire the AFL's national radio broadcasting rights'
'Crocmedia's winning bid for the AFL radio rights, an almost $10 million six-year deal, was bitterly contested by a consortium employing former AFL boss Andrew Demetriou and is Hutchison's crowning achievement as a media executive.'
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/despite-many-setbacks-craig-hutchison-has-become-a-major-player-in-tv-sport-20170306-gurmfi.html
I hate the saturation of Gambling ads around footy. I really hate the Tigers use of social media to push their gambling sponsors products. I particularly hate this as social media is the domain of the younger supporters. I have told RFC each time on the social media channel they have used to spruik gambling.
Great to see people arguing against the false hypocrisy trotted out by Hutchy. He has been peeved ever since Caro brought into the open just how invested (and powerful) he is with his comtrol of a media companiy that is bidding for (and winning) contracts.
From SMH
'For Hutchy, as he his universally known, the year had been absorbed managing his burgeoning sports media business. Hutchison co-founded Crocmedia in 2006 and last year negotiated a complicated and controversial deal to acquire the AFL's national radio broadcasting rights'
'Crocmedia's winning bid for the AFL radio rights, an almost $10 million six-year deal, was bitterly contested by a consortium employing former AFL boss Andrew Demetriou and is Hutchison's crowning achievement as a media executive.'
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/despite-many-setbacks-craig-hutchison-has-become-a-major-player-in-tv-sport-20170306-gurmfi.html
I hate the saturation of Gambling ads around footy. I really hate the Tigers use of social media to push their gambling sponsors products. I particularly hate this as social media is the domain of the younger supporters. I have told RFC each time on the social media channel they have used to spruik gambling.
tigersnake said:
Interesting. I tend to thing pigeon-holing social values would be a very hard thing to do in such a diverse cultural country as Australia. Values can be very different even within a city or a town. Researchers, for this sort of matter, in the end are just stating their own conclusions based on their own opinions which will often have some bias, whether personally, or by who they are polling (locations/cultures etc). But hey they're getting paid for their work right? Usually some sort of government department. Again I've never been asked a question on social values, not has anyone I know, let alone the many other 'research' material that is published. A lot of research is not worth the paper it is written on, others just prove ridiculously obvious conclusions.
Giardiasis said:
so parents own their children. they therefor can do what they like with this possession as long as they dont negatively affect the property rights of others.
so a 10 yo cant choose to be a prostitute to buy drugs. can a 14yo? an 17yo? a 21yo? or do people of any age have to go to court to be able to make choices if their parents dont agree?
and on the final point the victims are the people likely to be hurt. but i guess if someone is killed noones property is damaged so no law is broken, unless they are a child and therefor the property of their parent.
Brodders17 said:
Without wanting to get to get sucked into another Gia Property Rights quagmire he skillfully invents a court and justice system out of whole cloth and simply plonks your objections at their mythical door.
Parents don't own their children, they have caretaker rights. That means they can't murder/maim/pimp their kid out, but they have the right of guardianship, i.e. the child lives with them under their care.Brodders17 said:
If a child has the ability to say no and run away from their parents (to avoid neglect for example) and they are capable of thinking rationally, then that would be the point at which they have gained full ownership rights to their own body. So there is no arbitrary age set to determine that, it depends on individual circumstances of people involved in any disputes. Most of the time there won't be a dispute so the courts won't be involved at all.
Your final point is false. If you drink and drive and that's it then there is no victim. If you hurt someone in the process, then that's the crime, not drinking and driving. The vast majority of cases that involve drink driving do not involve injuring anyone. The police should focus on reckless drivers, regardless of whether it is caused by drug consumption, sleep deprevation, text messaging, road rage etc.
Giardiasis said:
If there are things that can be said to exist but that cannot be empirically verified, I can't imagine what they might be or how one would claim to know that they do in fact exist.
<
The Imam of Peace
|
Woo Denial
>
