SkepticalOne

So like the modern-day religions of MAGA, Climate Change, Child-autonomy, Aliens, and Races.

That's pretty much incoherent to me. You're welcome to try again.

Oops! You've neglected to provide a substantive reply to repudiation of the notion that Franklin would advocate for the necessity of religion needing government or vice versa. Ill refresh your memory since you were distracted:

He [Franklin] famously stated, "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” In other words, a religion which needs government to survive is lacking something important.

Also, not that it matters, but responses referring to Christianity should not be unexpected when the OP itself references the foundational religious texts of Christianity.

No, pedophilia is 'a sexual interest in prebubescent children'. Again, there needs to be a sexual component and there isn't one.

For something to be considered child pornography, there necessarily must be a sexual component. The average person (as well as the law in this case) doesn't assign 'sexual' as a descriptor of a 4mo old child. Why do you?

Flavor is enhanced with charcoal or wood, but propane is quicker. I have a smoker/charcoal grill and a propane griddle. They all get used and have their purposes. It has a lot to do with preferences and priorities for a specific meal.

There is this notion of free speech that anything can be said anywhere, but thats not what free speech means. Free speech means the government can't go after you for government criticism or trash talking elected officials. So long as speech isnt crossing a line and endangering others somehow, government has no grounds to restrict.

Free speech doesn't mean you can stand in someone else's domain and say whatever you like. For instance, a homeowner can restrict speech in their home. A religious congregation can restrict speech on their property. Social media can restrict speech on their platform. These are all examples of private property, and the owner gets to decide what they allow.

Quote mining, again? Franklin was known to consider himself a 'heretic' as he valued moral virtue over dogma. As much as he might have advocated religion, it is unlikely he would have bought-in to modern Christianity. He did not accept the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, or divinely inspired scriptures. Rest assured, if he felt the 'necessity of the Lord in the building of this nation', it wouldn't be the same lord Christian Nationalists think is necessary.

He famously stated, "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” In other words, a religion which needs government to survive is lacking something important.

Tell me you dont understand the law without telling me...

SatanLucy wrote:

Thank the gods for that!

Its not a privilege.

We agree. From what I've seen, it would be an academic hurdle. 😉

SatanLucy wrote:

If you want to call the Nirvana album cover 'child porn', then you are admitting you find a picture naked 4 month old child to be sexually provocative

LOL Leftists are really gonna defend anything just to punch Trump. Now they think naked images of babies are okay. Weird.

This is a matter of Trump loyalists attacking anything they can in an attempt to diminish Trump's gross and numerous flaws.

Child pornography has a legal specific definition and the Nirvana album does not meet that criteria.

1. People still listen to his music and will do so long after Trump is irrelevent.

2. Because "Nevermind" was too popular of an album.

So if Trump had just one image of child porn that you knew about, then would you cease to call Trump a p3do? If so, then you support p3dophillia if it's in small doses.

1. Irrelevant. Nirvana wasnt elected to be a representative of the American people. Nirvana doesn't go before other world leaders with this taint. Nirvana doesn't protect pedophiles from accountability by trying to bury the Epstein files. Nirvana hasn't been accused of sexual assault and rape of women and girls.

2. That's a baseless and irrelevant assertion. Popularity didnt dismiss the case - the facts did.

3. If you want to call the Nirvana album cover 'child porn', then you are admitting you find a picture naked 4 month old child to be sexually provocative. I dont share your opinion.

That being said, if Trump had child porn in his possession, he would still be a pedophile.

SatanLucy wrote:

You're not providing any explanation.

Of course, I am not your teacher.

Thank the gods for that! 😉

SatanLucy wrote:

The topic of this debate is a comparison of crimes. Arbitrarily dismissing a legitimate standard is not reasonable.

this conclusion does not follow.

You're not providing any explanation. I believe this is an attempt to shut down the conversation in an area that makes OP's argument untenable.

SatanLucy wrote:

I wonder what you think you've replied to... DUI and Rape are crimes.

Legal standpoint is irrelevant to topic of this debate.

The topic of this debate is a comparison of crimes. Arbitrarily dismissing a legitimate standard is not reasonable.

SatanLucy wrote:

That is absolutely not true from a legal standpoint

Irrelevant.

I wonder what you think you've replied to... DUI and Rape are crimes.

Until the left can cancel Nirvana for certain p3dophillia and child porn and never listen to a Nirvana song ever again with music that's lasted for decades, I fail to see why the right should cancel Trump with POSSIBLE p3dophillia over a presidency that will be over in 2.5 yrs max

1. Nirvana doesn't hold an elected office.

2. Unlike Trump, lawsuits against Nirvana claiming sexual impropriety have been dismissed.

3. A questionable album cover image by Nirvana is not comparable to explicit accounts of sexual assault of a minor which Trump is accused.

Might be the wrong question? At least with current iterations of AI, it'd probably be less of a "what would AI choose" and more of a "if we were going to stick an AI in charge, what system would we set them up in?"

You may be right, but I imagined an automated centralized system might inadvertently arrive at a particular philosophy.

What system would you set up for an AI?

It's the results which matter, not intentions.

That is absolutely not true from a legal standpoint. Intent matters. Culpability is determined by the level of intent: purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently.

A government that is fair and honest.

Maybe, maybe not...AI is known to 'hallucinate' or generate false data, a.k.a. "lie". I dont think that is typically malicious though.

What I am asking is what type of government (monarchy, democracy, Republic, mixed, etc) AI would gravitate towards?

DUI is a direct and intentional attack on any passengers in the vehicle and any vehicles that the DUI offender hit. Rape is an intentional attack on one person.

People who drive under the influence do not typically get into a vehicle planning to hurt others. They either dont realize how impaired they are and/or they think they can make it home without incident. Thus, DUI is not a direct and intentional attack on other people. If someone other than the offender is hurt, it is unintentional and incidental.

Then maybe lets make first time DUI offense a felony worse than rape. So much trauma gets produced from DUI if you are a passenger or another vehicle.

There is no good reason to do that. Rape is a much more aggressive transgression and harm of another is always involved.

What kind of governments do you think we would end up with if AI made the call?

What kind of governments do you think we would end up with if AI made the call?

Your claim makes sense if I was defending legalizing rape. I'm merely saying it's not as bad as DUI. Accusations of sexism and SkyWalker RageBait mean nothing anymore.

Sidewalker's meme and my agreement with it make sense in a world where reality prevails and sexual assault (and rape) is understood as a direct and intentional attack on a person while DUI is not.

The Justice system recognizes this fact. I mean, here in my state, DUI is a misdemeanor until the THIRD offense while sexual assault is a felony. Period.

OP is quite literally minimizing sexual attacks. Is it any wonder why so many women choose the bear?

LOL, this seems very appropriate in this thread. Thanks for sharing.

Driving drunk causes drunk driving accidents, and thus harm.

Drunk driving causes accidents *sometimes, and thus causes harm *sometimes. Drunk driving is not directly equated to harm. Irresponsible, stupid, selfish? 100%, but harm is not a given.

Maybe some women arent harmed by rape

Some people aren't harmed by being violated you say? Thats incoherent.

Rape = harm

If entire US population chose former, result would be 500,000 deaths per year and 30 million injuries per year.

1 The CDC cites 125 million instances of driving under the influence every year. Your numbers are vastly overstated. [1]

2. How do you rationalize the chance of hurting someone as being worse than hurting someone?

Next topic can be drug dealers vs. rapists.

Feel free to state your case in a dedicated thread. I have some thoughts on this subject.

OP was comparing DUI and rape, not drunk driving incidents and rape. Rape is the act of violating another person and is a literal description of harm. On the other hand, while driving under the influence is always a bad idea, it doesn't always cause harm.

If some movie horror scenario forced a choice between driving under the influence or raping someone, the former should ALWAYS be chosen because of this.

assuming no false reports of course.

It should be noted, you continue to minimize inappropriate and unwanted touching which is a crime.

False reporting is statistically low (2-10%) while un-reported sexuall assault (which includes rape) is as high as 80%.

Anarcho-fascism isnt free market capitalism.

You're defining "right-wing" exclusively as capitalism? Maybe, just maybe, you should look it up, sweet summer child.

this isnt fascism, and its definitely not anarcho-fascism.