NationStates Jolt Archive

Somewone wants to ban Barbie. Is it a Christian Right Republican? Not in the least; it's a Democrat in West Virginia.

Happy 50th birthday, Barbie.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29508066/

I think its reactionary and stupid to ban Barbie, but there are much larger cultural issues that could stand addressing. Of course, the WV state legislature is not the place to do so.

Somewone wants to ban Barbie. Is it a Christian Right Republican? Not in the least it's a Democrat in West Virginia.

Happy 50th birthday, Barbie.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29508066/

Seems fair.

Meh, even when I was a kid, it was "just a doll". It never made me want to look like her.

Meh, even when I was a kid, it was "just a doll". It never made me want to look like her.

Now if only we could find a way to make your experiences those of everyone, we'd be set.

I have to admit, I think I got lucky. I had a good childhood, and great parents. My folks never tried to put any gender barriers up and encouraged me to try any and all activities that interested me. They were more worried about me 'breaking myself' - I was accident prone - than whether or not my play was going to make me 'unfeminine', or materialistic.

And yeah I wish that todays kids could have had my experiences.

Now if only we could find a way to make your experiences those of everyone, we'd be set.

Someone, my mother-in-law as I recall, had the poor judgement to give my daughter a Barbie for Christmas one year (my daughter hated dolls - they were relegated to the back of her closet under a pile of clothes). For some reason, my daughter was pleased about it. Later we found out that Barbie's clothes had disappeared (probably with the other dolls) but Barbie herself was dressed up like a Valkyrie, riding (somewhat awkwardly) a toy horse and waving a sword. Other incarnations were frontier Barbie with a toy gun, medieval Barbie with a lance and armor, and Barbie with a can of mace (which was repeatedly used on my son's GI Joe).

Barbie doesn't have to be a negative. I suspect that Barbie, rather than being the negative impact in a girl's life, reinforced other pre-existing negative influences.

Does West Virginia have so few problems that they can waste time and money on this?

quote

The problem isn’t the toys, it is societies emphasis on sex appeal.

Does West Virginia have so few problems that they can waste time and money on this?
QFT
Seems fair.
'Fair' is hardly the word I'd use for it. This is the state trying to play father knows best.

Yeah, I kinda think it's stupid... sort of a stretch to think that way, especially considering (according another article linked to the OP link) that Barbies are more popular with younger children, meanwhile the hyper-sexualised (far more so than Barbie ever was) Bratz dolls are popular with those children that are just starting to develop a sense of body image and issues associated with it. Yet the senator singled out Barbie, which actually could be more intellectual when you consider all the roles she has played over the years. The Bratz series fits that stereotype better, but I would not consider a draconian measure such as a ban on such toys!

tl;dq

Again, I am glad to hear that, but I also know that as a society body image problems are very real and very harmful. Obviously Barbie is not solely to blame, but she is one facet of a pandemic that needs to be addressed.

Again, I am glad to hear that, but I also know that as a society body image problems are very real and very harmful. Obviously Barbie is not solely to blame, but she is one facet of a pandemic that needs to be addressed.

I had the impression among my high school peers that athletic and academic excellence is more highly sought after than hotness. Bonus points for having both. Most people seem to get past the popularity contest after junior high.

Maybe this is different in more urbanized areas?

Again, I am glad to hear that, but I also know that as a society body image problems are very real and very harmful. Obviously Barbie is not solely to blame, but she is one facet of a pandemic that needs to be addressed.

I suspect, and this is pure supposition on my part, that the level of education the parents (particularly the mother) have is a factor in how much influence Barbie would have on a girl's self-image: the more education, the more Barbie is influenced, the less education, the more Barbie influences.

I'm doubtful that Barbie really has such a negative impact. I had Barbies growing up and the only time I had a negative self image in my life is when I was a teenager (and had long ceased to play with Barbies... but had started to read teen magazines).

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=104&sid=24d57cef-3960-43f4-b69b-e57ea3948ac7%40sessionmgr108&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=32480324

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=104&sid=692b3907-bcaa-4e12-a5eb-883c52aec388%40sessionmgr103

Two good papers on the issue. Its social conditioning - you wouldn't know it happened to you.

This isn't me making something up. There is hard sociological research on this issue, and everyone is in agreement that these issues are real and negative.

Somewone wants to ban Barbie. Is it a Christian Right Republican? Not in the least; it's a Democrat in West Virginia.

Happy 50th birthday, Barbie.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29508066/

Idiot
Im glad he could not find anyone to sign the bill with him

Somewone wants to ban Barbie. Is it a Christian Right Republican? Not in the least; it's a Democrat in West Virginia.

Actually it sounds exactly like something a Democrat would say.

Somewone wants to ban Barbie. Is it a Christian Right Republican? Not in the least; it's a Democrat in West Virginia.

Don't try blaming the Democrats for this. Sure, the DNC has its dimwits, but if a Democrat got elected in West Virginia, he's probably a pretty far right of most of the party.

Don't try blaming the Democrats for this. Sure, the DNC has its dimwits, but if a Democrat got elected in West Virginia, he's probably a pretty far right of most of the party.

Actually, his reasons for wanting the ban are pretty liberal and feminist - he considers Barbie (and, I would hope, Bratz) to be detrimental to healthy development of girls' egos.

I actually thought the Christian Right would try for a ban based on the emphasis on Barbie's secondary sexual characteristics and the general freedom and lack of modesty in her supposed life-style and clothing.

Actually, his reasons for wanting the ban are pretty liberal and feminist - he considers Barbie (and, I would hope, Bratz) to be detrimental to healthy development of girls' egos.

I actually thought the Christian Right would try for a ban based on the emphasis on Barbie's secondary sexual characteristics and the general freedom and lack of modesty in her supposed life-style and clothing.

Each party has their retarded censors. I guess this guy falls into the anti-discrimination PC type though, rather than the God's warrior type.

Question: are dolls are form of speech protected by the first amendment?;)

I always find it amusing when the religious right and the it degrades women feminist team up. they hate each other and everyone knows it, but still they work together.

It's a simple issue. Parents either aren't taking responsibility, or they're taking too much. One one hand, you have parents who see these things that Barbie is claimed to be causing (amongst video games, television, certain bits of literature...) happening to their kids, and rather than owning up to facts and taking the blame, they pass the buck to big bad Barbie. On the other hand, you have the parents who are hyper protective of their kids, and this extends from that to those parents trying to decide what's best for -other people's- kids. A combination of these two things worms its way up into legislature. That's how I think this works. I believe that, like with everything else, the problem can be solved at the most base level. The whole 'one man or woman -can- make a difference' thing. Because it's true. If we the people take responsibility for these things, rather than blaming the latest rated R movie, fashion obsessed plastic doll or gun toting comic book super hero, then the problem is as good as solved.

If we take this to be true, then the only real question remaining is where and how we would instill the motivation.

It's funny people always bitch about her. I recall they tried a plain looking version and it bombed.

Probably the best way to improve a girls image and confidence is for fathers to take an interest in their daughters lives and be a part of them.

'Fair' is hardly the word I'd use for it. This is the state trying to play father knows best.

Which is, surely, up to that state?

It's 'fair' because I consider it a valid argument. Protecting the citizens is one of the few responsibilities of government that just about everyone agrees on.

Meh, even when I was a kid, it was "just a doll".More like "just a magnifying glass magnet".

Which is, surely, up to that state?

It's 'fair' because I consider it a valid argument. Protecting the citizens is one of the few responsibilities of government that just about everyone agrees on.

You mean like protecting people by making sure that people can't view pornography or play violent games?

If the Christian right shouldn't be allowed to decide what is morally acceptable for people I don't see why this guy should either.

Whether Barbie has a negative impact on society or not, that particular brand is just a tiny part of a general culture. Banning Barbie specifically is a useless publicity gesture, and the gap will be readily filled by Bratz (which are much more disturbing to me than Barbie; especially the Bratz Toddlers, or whatever those ... eugh, hell-spawn are).

You mean like protecting people by making sure that people can't view pornography or play violent games?


Yes, almost exactly like that, except in the details, the specifics, the generalities, and the spelling.

Whether Barbie has a negative impact on society or not, that particular brand is just a tiny part of a general culture. Banning Barbie specifically is a useless publicity gesture, and the gap will be readily filled by Bratz (which are much more disturbing to me than Barbie; especially the Bratz Toddlers, or whatever those ... eugh, hell-spawn are).

Didn't 'Barbie' gain ownership of the Bratz brand at the end of the last year, or something?

Might as well ban them, not like I'll care.

When I was a kid I didn't even notice my barbies were skinny, or notice that my cabage patch dolls were pudgey.

Yes, almost exactly like that, except in the details, the specifics, the generalities, and the spelling.

But you do agree that their is nothing wrong with the government making personal moral decisions for people?

But you do agree that their is nothing wrong with the government making personal moral decisions for people?

Sure. Which is why that's exactly what I said. Exactly.


Except for the words.

And the intent.

And the meaning.






But they did both have letters and words in, so I'll give you that.

Sure. Which is why that's exactly what I said. Exactly.


Except for the words.

And the intent.

And the meaning.






But they did both have letters and words in, so I'll give you that.

Is what this lawmaker is proposing not a government intervention into a personal moral decision?

Is what this lawmaker is proposing not a government intervention into a personal moral decision?

Unless you are arguing that "Barbie" is a person, no.

This lawmaker is talking about limiting which products Mattel is allowed to sell within the limits of one specific state. Nothing intrinsically about intervention in moral decisions, personal or otherwise.

Unless you are arguing that "Barbie" is a person, no.

Barbie is not making the decision about whether to be bought - the parent or child is the person. I believe that most parents and children within the state of West Virginia with the capacity to purchase a toy doll are in fact persons and as such yes, it is a personal decision in choosing whther to buy a doll, a decision that this man wants to make for people.

This lawmaker is talking about limiting which products Mattel is allowed to sell within the limits of one specific state. Nothing intrinsically about intervention in moral decisions, personal or otherwise.

By deciding what people are allowed to sell, you are also deciding what people are allowed to buy. I believe that if people want to buy a doll, game or video they should be allowed to make that decision themselves rather than have someone decide whether they are allowed to buy it where they live. But then, I guess I'm one of those crazy people that thinks that buying something which doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights is fine.

Meh, they wont win, its stupid, lol...If your so obsessed with barbie that you strive to look like her, youve got problems, its just a doll people, its supposed to look that way...


But, happy 50th anyway, lookin good for your Age, lol....Congrats on your victory over the Bratz, lmao...

Unless you are arguing that "Barbie" is a person, no.

This lawmaker is talking about limiting which products Mattel is allowed to sell within the limits of one specific state. Nothing intrinsically about intervention in moral decisions, personal or otherwise.

Yes. And the lawmaker in question is having the Devil's own time getting the bill before the legislature, never mind passing it.

Even if it did pass, it wouldn't affect anyone's ability to buy Barbies; all they'd have to do is cross the state line into states that don't ban the sale of the doll - sales would be banned, not ownership. It's kind of like those dry states where the sale of alcohol is prohibited, but you can still drink it as long as you buy it elsewhere.

Forget Barbie. get these (http://www.iconusa4.com/online/Cy_Girls_Main.htm), much better than Barbie!

By deciding what people are allowed to sell, you are also deciding what people are allowed to buy. I believe that if people want to buy a doll, game or video they should be allowed to make that decision themselves rather than have someone decide whether they are allowed to buy it where they live.

I don't believe you.

All states exert such controls - for example, refusal to allow toys with lead content.

Yes. And the lawmaker in question is having the Devil's own time getting the bill before the legislature, never mind passing it.


Yes, because we have a reasonably democratic machinery. That doesn't mean it's not fair' to try to change the law.

Hell, as Prop 8 showed us, the democratic machinery can change laws to a 'popular' result and still be wrong.


Even if it did pass, it wouldn't affect anyone's ability to buy Barbies; all they'd have to do is cross the state line into states that don't ban the sale of the doll - sales would be banned, not ownership. It's kind of like those dry states where the sale of alcohol is prohibited, but you can still drink it as long as you buy it elsewhere.

Which is fair enough. I don't have a problem with that.

Yes. And the lawmaker in question is having the Devil's own time getting the bill before the legislature, never mind passing it.

Even if it did pass, it wouldn't affect anyone's ability to buy Barbies; all they'd have to do is cross the state line into states that don't ban the sale of the doll - sales would be banned, not ownership. It's kind of like those dry states where the sale of alcohol is prohibited, but you can still drink it as long as you buy it elsewhere.

Exactly how big a geographic area does it have to encompass to become an unfair ban? I can purchase legal cannabis by travelling 400 miles, does that mean that its fine to ban cannabis in the UK? Are Spanish abortion restrictions fine because its legal in neighbouring France? Would a blanket ban on Barbie across the US be OK, so long as it stays legal in Canada? What if you had to go to Europe?

I don't believe you.

All states exert such controls - for example, refusal to allow toys with lead content.

Legislation in the interests of public safety is not the same as puritanical legislating in the interests of personal morality.

Legislation in the interests of public safety is not the same as puritanical legislating in the interests of personal morality.

Are you the one we should rely on to provide such a distinction, or should it be a group of people?

Are you the one we should rely on to provide such a distinction, or should it be a group of people?

Rely on yourself to make such a distinction, I'm not here to think for you.

Rely on yourself to make such a distinction, I'm not here to think for you.

Ok, how about this. We'll rely on each individual to provide such a distinction, and then we'll give all of them a single vote. With this vote, on a day we decide, they can go to a specific place and cast their vote for another individual to represent them in some sort of state or national group for the purposes of representing their constituents. Then, that group can decide, through debate, whether or not something is worth making a law about.

Ok, how about this. We'll rely on each individual to provide such a distinction, and then we'll give all of them a single vote. With this vote, on a day we decide, they can go to a specific place and cast their vote for another individual to represent them in some sort of state or national group for the purposes of representing their constituents. Then, that group can decide, through debate, whether or not something is worth making a law about.

I don't recall arguing for a suspension of the democratic process. I do recall suggesting that this law is pretty stupid, perhaps you should argue agains that?

Rely on yourself to make such a distinction, I'm not here to think for you.

Don't see the conflict, there?

You're saying that there are two different arenas - one where 'it's for public safety' or something... where the government is possibly the right agency to determine the situation..... and another arena where it's a personal matter.

When asked how you would allocate things between those two camps... your answer is 'rely on yourself'. Not only unhelpful and evasive, but also contradictory.

I don't recall arguing for a suspension of the democratic process. I do recall suggesting that this law is pretty stupid, perhaps you should argue agains that?

You kind of did argue for 'suspension of the democratic process', actually. You effectively said that the government can't represent the majority, and shouldn't be allowed to.

You kind of did argue for 'suspension of the democratic process', actually. You effectively said that the government can't represent the majority, and shouldn't be allowed to.

Please quote the post where I said those things.

Don't see the conflict, there?

You're saying that there are two different arenas - one where 'it's for public safety' or something... where the government is possibly the right agency to determine the situation..... and another arena where it's a personal matter.

When asked how you would allocate things between those two camps... your answer is 'rely on yourself'. Not only unhelpful and evasive, but also contradictory.

There's no contradiction at all. The only argument I am trying to make is that I consider issues such as lead paint in toys to be a matter of safety while I consider banning dolls for promoting the 'wrong' ideas to be a matter of morality. You're welcome to disagree but I'd like to hear why and I'd also like to know, if you consider it a matter of morality, why you think the government should intervene in people's moral choices.

You're welcome to disagree but I'd like to hear why and I'd also like to know, if you consider it a matter of morality, why you think the government should intervene in people's moral choices.
The government should decide people's morality for them. What we really need is an absolute sovereign, a Leviathan if you will, who is able to make unquestionable choices for the people and have everyone follow said choices. The reason we need this is to avoid the civil war and strife that follows out of disagreements on moral grounds.

The government should decide people's morality for them. What we really need is an absolute sovereign, a Leviathan if you will, who is able to make unquestionable choices for the people and have everyone follow said choices. The reason we need this is to avoid the civil war and strife that follows out of disagreements on moral grounds.

So the important thing is not to think how you want, but to think how you are told to? Would you accept being told by an absolute sovereign to contradict your own moral thoughts for no better reason than they are the sovereign?

So the important thing is not to think how you want, but to think how you are told to? Would you accept being told by an absolute sovereign to contradict your own moral thoughts for no better reason than they are the sovereign?

As individuals we have no moral thoughts, only those that the sovereign tells us we have. While the sovereign is supposed to act in the best interest of the people he rules over, what those best interests are is entirely up to him. And yes, I would relish being told what to think by a sovereign, since the alternative is an essentially endless religious civil war.

As individuals we have no moral thoughts, only those that the sovereign tells us we have. While the sovereign is supposed to act in the best interest of the people he rules over, what those best interests are is entirely up to him. And yes, I would relish being told what to think by a sovereign, since the alternative is an essentially endless religious civil war.

You mean like the endless religious civil war we have just now in most developed nations that allow people to by and large have their own freedom of personal morality?

You mean like the endless religious civil war we have just now in most developed nations that allow people to by and large have their own freedom of personal morality?

There is no freedom of personal morality. All "free choice" and "morals" are socially constructed.

There is no freedom of personal morality. All "free choice" and "morals" are socially constructed.

Socially influenced, but not constrcuted hence the wide gulfs in personal morality that exist in developed nations. The societies of most developed nations can influence your personal morality but cannot decide it for you. I also happen to notice that very few developed nations have an absolute sovereign deciding society's morality. Plenty of undeveloped nations have them though and they also have a tendency to unending civil conflict.

Socially influenced, but not constrcuted hence the wide gulfs in personal morality that exist in developed nations. The societies of most developed nations can influence your personal morality but cannot decide it for you. I also happen to notice that very few developed nations have an absolute sovereign deciding society's morality. Plenty of undeveloped nations have them though and they also have a tendency to unending civil conflict.

A divide exists because of different societies having different constructions, but it all remains socially constructed. This can be shown in the steady change of what is considered moral and what standard morality is, plus how little individual morality differs from the "ideal".

No nation has a sovereign that decides morality. This is unfortunate especially in situations where it would best be utilized, ie in those nations with conflicts arising out of different moralities existing and conflicting.

A divide exists because of different societies having different constructions, but it all remains socially constructed. This can be shown in the steady change of what is considered moral and what standard morality is, plus how little individual morality differs from the "ideal".

No nation has a sovereign that decides morality. This is unfortunate especially in situations where it would best be utilized, ie in those nations with conflicts arising out of different moralities existing and conflicting.

You acknowledge that both a moral divide and a lack of absolute sovereigns exist in developed nations so why has this not led to civil war as you claim it should?

You acknowledge that both a moral divide and a lack of absolute sovereigns exist in developed nations so why has this not led to civil war as you claim it should?

It has! There is a religious war taking place right now in the United States, which could easily be solved if an absolute sovereign existed to tell us all what morality was.

It has! There is a religious war taking place right now in the United States, which could easily be solved if an absolute sovereign existed to tell us all what morality was.

Really? I have noticed much armed conflict between religious groups within the US recently. There is plenty of disagreement, but I would have thought you would have the intelligence to know the difference between a disagreement and war.

Really? I have noticed much armed conflict between religious groups within the US recently. There is plenty of disagreement, but I would have thought you would have the intelligence to know the difference between a disagreement and war.

Just because its a culture war, doesn't make it any less harmful. Fighting with words can lead to greater strife than fighting with guns does.

Just because its a culture war, doesn't make it any less harmful. Fighting with words can lead to greater strife than fighting with guns does.

And what strife does the current culture war cause? What exactly are the harmful effects that we must stamp out?

And what strife does the current culture war cause? What exactly are the harmful effects that we must stamp out?

Cultural divides. The only thing holding back the current civil war is socially constructed, but what happens when those social constructions change?

Cultural divides. The only thing holding back the current civil war is socially constructed, but what happens when those social constructions change?

To avoid the remote and unlikely possibility of a civil war you'd prefer the certainty of an absolute ruler with one moral order? Am I to assume this would extend to an absolute ruler who, in the interests of morality, declares that your sexual preference is illegal and you must now assume the correct sexual preference? How about an absolute ruler who declares that your race is not morally compatible with society and demands you to immediately cease to exist? These situations are preferable to the 'horror' of the current situation?

To avoid the remote and unlikely possibility of a civil war you'd prefer the certainty of an absolute ruler with one moral order? Am I to assume this would extend to an absolute ruler who, in the interests of morality, declares that your sexual preference is illegal and you must now assume the correct sexual preference? How about an absolute ruler who declares that your race is not morally compatible with society and demands you to immediately cease to exist? These situations are preferable to the 'horror' of the current situation?

You are absolutely correct. The possibility of a civil war is neither remote nor unlikely - it has happened innumerable times in the past, and will happen again if we delay further on the appointment of an absolute sovereign.

You are absolutely correct. The possibility of a civil war is neither remote nor unlikely - it has happened innumerable times in the past, and will happen again if we delay further on the appointment of an absolute sovereign.

Well, that's fine. If you prefer institutional genocide to a potential but indeterminate civil war then you are far beyond my help.

Well, that's fine. If you prefer institutional genocide to a potential but indeterminate civil war then you are far beyond my help.

The present system allows for far too many freedoms. Liberty is all well and good, but when the alternative is civil war it is essential that we install an absolute sovereign who can create a public morality to prevent civil war. Since, in the state of nature, the only law that exists is the right to self-defense, any system that could lead to the exercise of the law violating other people's rights to the same needs to be abolished and a system that protects all rights equally needs to be instituted.

Well, that's fine. If you prefer institutional genocide to a potential but indeterminate civil war then you are far beyond my help.

Institutional genocide?

That's not 'stretching' the interpretation of what the other poster said, that's 'making shit up'.

Institutional genocide?

That's not 'stretching' the interpretation of what the other poster said, that's 'making shit up'.

I asked if he would prefer institutional genocide - "an absolute ruler who declares that your race is not morally compatible with society and demands you to immediately cease to exist" - to the culture wars. He agreed that he did.

There's no contradiction at all. The only argument I am trying to make is that I consider issues such as lead paint in toys to be a matter of safety while I consider banning dolls for promoting the 'wrong' ideas to be a matter of morality.


And, who decides which section each new agenda item falls into?

Who looks at each new concern and says 'ah-yup, that's a matter of safety' or 'ah, a matter of morality'?

You refused to offer a real response last time, see if you can manage one this time.


You're welcome to disagree but I'd like to hear why and I'd also like to know, if you consider it a matter of morality, why you think the government should intervene in people's moral choices.

I don't. But then, not all 'moral' issues are 'moral issues'.

I asked if he would prefer institutional genocide - "an absolute ruler who declares that your race is not morally compatible with society and demands you to immediately cease to exist" - to the culture wars. He agreed that he did.

I demand that you cease to exist.

Was that murder or manslaughter?

And, who decides which section each new agenda item falls into?

Who looks at each new concern and says 'ah-yup, that's a matter of safety' or 'ah, a matter of morality'?

You refused to offer a real response last time, see if you can manage one this time.

And as I said before its up to the individual to decide for themselves. I framed the two issues as moral and safety issues. If you feel that this is an incorrect framing you are welcome to try and correct me.

I don't. But then, not all 'moral' issues are 'moral issues'.

Would you care to elaborate on the difference?

I demand that you cease to exist.

Was that murder or manslaughter?

Neither, you are a person on the internet with no formal power to force me to do so. If however you were the absolute sovereign of my nation and had the power to force people to do your will, I would classify that as murder.

And as I said before its up to the individual to decide for themselves. I framed the two issues as moral and safety issues.


That's not an answer. Again.

Who chooses what fits into which bucket?

The individual is going to choose that something was a safety issue and should have been handled by the government? That's nonsensical.


Would you care to elaborate on the difference?

Sure. Rape of a child is a moral issue. According to you, that means it should be at the discretion of the individual.

Either that, or your black-and-white fantasy land is pointless bullshit, of course - which would explain why you keep dodging the questions.

Neither, you are a person on the internet with no formal power to force me to do so. If however you were the absolute sovereign of my nation and had the power to force people to do your will, I would classify that as murder.

No one said anything about forcing anyone to kill anyone. In my example, or the posts you responded to.

Demanding that someone cease to exist is abrasive, and won't get you invited to many parties, but it's not genocide.

That's not an answer. Again.

Who chooses what fits into which bucket?

The individual is going to choose that something was a safety issue and should have been handled by the government? That's nonsensical.

Well I apologise if you don't like my answer but there's not a whole lot I can do about that is there?

Sure. Rape of a child is a moral issue. According to you, that means it should be at the discretion of the individual.

Indeed it does. Sexual contact between two individuals should be decided by those two individuals. The issue here is whether the child has the capacity to make that decision.

No one said anything about forcing anyone to kill anyone. In my example, or the posts you responded to.

Demanding that someone cease to exist is abrasive, and won't get you invited to many parties, but it's not genocide.

If you like, I could change the argument to "Well, that's fine. If you prefer forced reassignment of sexuality to a potential but indeterminate civil war then you are far beyond my help." Preferable?

Well I apologise if you don't like my answer but there's not a whole lot I can do about that is there?


You could try to give a propoer one, instead of trotting out the same trite response.

There are always gray areas. Who decides those gray areas in your imagined version of the world?

The argument that 'you do it yourself' contradicts the idea that the government can regulate safety matters. So, where is this arbiter?


Indeed it does. Sexual contact between two individuals should be decided by those two individuals. The issue here is whether the child has the capacity to make that decision.

An evasion. Is raping a child a personal discretion matter, or not?

If you like, I could change the argument to "Well, that's fine. If you prefer forced reassignment of sexuality to a potential but indeterminate civil war then you are far beyond my help." Preferable?

Changing your genocide strawman to an enforced gender-assignment strawman makes no real difference to me.

You could try to give a propoer one, instead of trotting out the same trite response.

There are always gray areas. Who decides those gray areas in your imagined version of the world?

The argument that 'you do it yourself' contradicts the idea that the government can regulate safety matters. So, where is this arbiter?

Oh, I'm sorry that my opinion on the matter is not the same as the opinion that you are looking for. What opinion would you like me to give that you can argue against?

An evasion. Is raping a child a personal discretion matter, or not?

No, its not a personal discretion matter. Two individuals are involved because the action being taken affects another person, so its the discretion of both those individuals that is required. In this case, one of those inidivduals could be considered incapable of making a decision.

Does West Virginia have so few problems that they can waste time and money on this?

Nope, just our fair share of idiots. Like that guy who robbed a gas station and payed for a coke with his credit card a few days ago.

Anyway, to make the whole Barbie banning thing worse, the senator knows nothing about Barbies anyway. Apparently Barbie is a bad influence and should be a doctor. :rolleyes: I really should stop watching the news.

Tipper got another one..

Changing your genocide strawman to an enforced gender-assignment strawman makes no real difference to me.

I guess I should just assume that your inability to differentiate between sex and sexual preference is symptomatic of your complete inability to comprehend the debate between myself and VirginiaCooper.

In short; learn to read.

Oh, I'm sorry that my opinion on the matter is not the same as the opinion that you are looking for.


Irrelevant. I pointed out your 'opinion' conflicts.

Okay - lead in toys. Bad, yes? Safety issues, yes?

So - lead in toys drops into the hands of the government.

Masturbation. Personal morality, yes?

So - masturbation drops into the hands - so to speak - of the citizenry.

What about recreational drug use? What about alcohol? What about the combination of alcohol and automobiles... or recreational drugs and daycare?

Where is your arbiter? Clearly it can't be at the 'personal discretion' level, because that would allow EVERY safety issue to be reassigned to personal level by SOMEONE.


No, its not a personal discretion matter.

Correct. Thus, not all 'moral' issues, are 'moral issues'. So your black-and-white boundaries are inefficient, at best.

I guess I should just assume that your inability to differentiate between sex and sexual preference...

The problem with guessing is how often you may be wrong.

Irrelevant. I pointed out your 'opinion' conflicts.

Okay - lead in toys. Bad, yes? Safety issues, yes?

So - lead in toys drops into the hands of the government.

Masturbation. Personal morality, yes?

So - masturbation drops into the hands - so to speak - of the citizenry.

What about recreational drug use? What about alcohol? What about the combination of alcohol and automobiles... or recreational drugs and daycare?

Where is your arbiter? Clearly it can't be at the 'personal discretion' level, because that would allow EVERY safety issue to be reassigned to personal level by SOMEONE.

I don't recall saying that an issue had to be about safety or morality.

Correct.

Thank you, I thought I was right.

Gee, it is easier to argue when you chop an argument mid paragraph, isn't it?

The problem with guessing is how often you may be wrong.

Prove me wrong then - show me where I mentioned gender anywhere before you brought it up and acted like that was my argument.

I don't recall saying that an issue had to be about safety or morality.


Fine.

Then who decides which of those arenas has the right/responsibility to deal with a certain issue?

Prove me wrong then - show me where I mentioned gender anywhere before you brought it up and acted like that was my argument.

I didn't suggest it was your argument. Don't confuse the phrasing of my dismissing your strawman - as a representation of what your 'argument' (if you'd had one) would have been.

Not only did I not suggest it was your argument, I don't actually suggest you had one.

Fine.

Then who decides which of those arenas has the right/responsibility to deal with a certain issue?

No one. There is no need for some formal arbiter on the matter.

I didn't suggest it was your argument. Don't confuse the phrasing of my dismissing your strawman - as a representation of what your 'argument' (if you'd had one) would have been.

Not only did I not suggest it was your argument, I don't actually suggest you had one.

You wrote I made a gender assignment strawman. I want you to either show where I made it or admit that I made no gender assignment strawman.

No one. There is no need for some formal arbiter on the matter.

Joke?

One has to hope...

Didn't 'Barbie' gain ownership of the Bratz brand at the end of the last year, or something?
On Monday through Friday. The weekends they spend with their dad.

you know, if youre going to ban Barbie, want to ban Action Figures too? I mean they enforce a Muscular, macho image on boys...

Or Army Men for that matter, the enforce a militaristic attitude on boys...

The present system allows for far too many freedoms. Liberty is all well and good, but when the alternative is civil war it is essential that we install an absolute sovereign who can create a public morality to prevent civil war. Since, in the state of nature, the only law that exists is the right to self-defense, any system that could lead to the exercise of the law violating other people's rights to the same needs to be abolished and a system that protects all rights equally needs to be instituted.

So you don't actually believe in liberty, then?