NationStates

Celritannia wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00292533

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8036980/

Sadly, the 1st one costs £30 of my glorious monies.
But if it is like the second one, whether someone has sex inside or outside of marriage, self-esteem varies, except when a male has a child.

Yep. Basically the first one says that that having sex does not in fact effect self esteem. Rather self esteem tends to effect how many partners one has (higher self esteem means more partners). The second one stated that self esteem was actually not very connected to sex at all, which is interesting given comments about male virginity tends to be very derogatory.

Floofybit wrote:

Celritannia wrote:All of this will not be followed by any law enforcement professional because people like to drink and have sex, and it is impossible to ban.

If people want a better, safer life they will

Banning sex and drinking will not help people have a better life, you are restricting them from it.
No law enforcement agency will support it unless you had a strong religious authoritarian state like in the Islamic nations.

EuroStralia wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
This isn't evidence, this is propaganda.
Also, one "article" is not evidence. What other actual sources do you have?

https://www.aei.org/economics/aging/wel ... than-good/
https://reason.com/2020/05/13/when-gove ... than-good/
https://basicincome.org/news/2018/07/un ... than-good/

first 2 are opinion pieces.
3rd one really isn't supporting your claim, but as a UK citizen on welfare, I can go into detail.

The problem with UK welfare system is the bureaucracy of the system, and how little help and support you are given by the Department of Work and Pensions to help you find employment.
So the problem is not being on the system, but the lack of assistance from the service.

Freedom. I'd rather live a short, dangerous life that I'm able to enjoy to the fullest than a long, safe one that I'm prevented from enjoying. Not to say that all regulation is bad, and I agree with those who say that safety doesn't necessarily mean oppression- for instance, as a (student) pilot, I'm glad to know that the planes I fly are inspected regularly. Those inspections don't oppress anyone. But lots of things that are restrictive and oppressive are that way in the name of safety- for instance, curfews that are imposed during times of unrest. Sure, I can see the point of those curfews (and from the perspective of someone with a basic understanding of and interest in emergency management, I entirely understand and support their use during times of unrest) but I think that a blanket curfew imposed at all times could easily be brought about in some places in the interest of safety, and I just can't get behind that.

Say after me
It's no better to be safe than sorry
- A-ha

EuroStralia wrote:

Western Theram wrote:If the result doesn’t change the discriminatory nature of said war on drugs then it might as well be the same as supporting racist legislation. Studies also show that an increase in mental health services and welfare helps people stay sober. Whereas prison can be traumatizing and cause them to turn to more substances.

Mental health programs may help people, but welfare does more harm than good.

If the result doesn’t change the discriminatory nature of said war on drugs then it might as well be the same as supporting racist legislation.

No it wouldn't, the war on drugs isn't a racist legislation, it's a legislation to protect people from the eviles of drugs.

John Ehrlichman, an aide to Richard Nixon, confirmed what many suspected. That the War on Drugs was never about drugs, but about attacking Nixon's enemies.

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

---

Floofybit wrote:

Celritannia wrote:You want a police state to enforce your laws for the hierarchy that goes along with your plans.

No one will be physically harmed by the police state, dissenters will be peacefully taken in, and everyone will be viewed equally in the society no matter race, gender, job, etc.

Peacefully beating people into submission, maybe peacefully killing a few to make an example to others.

---

Hispida wrote:

EuroStralia wrote:https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/ma ... ement.html

the catholic church, a famous bastion of facts. except all of the times they lied.

The Catholic Church does have a great deal of experience with harmful sexual involvement, mostly as the cause of the harm.

Ifreann wrote:

---

Floofybit wrote:No one will be physically harmed by the police state, dissenters will be peacefully taken in, and everyone will be viewed equally in the society no matter race, gender, job, etc.

Peacefully beating people into submission, maybe peacefully killing a few to make an example to others.

---

No. Non-physical education about how life will be better if you submit and how it will be worse if you keep breaking the law. Comforting persuasive counseling and mental health programs.

Floofybit wrote:

Ifreann wrote:

---

Peacefully beating people into submission, maybe peacefully killing a few to make an example to others.

---

No. Non-physical education about how life will be better if you submit and how it will be worse if you keep breaking the law. Comforting persuasive counseling and mental health programs.

I don't know why you pretend that there wouldn't be any violence. You can't non-violently arrest people and send them to some re-education camp. Even if they don't resist, locking people up is an act of violence itself, and fucking obviously some people will resist.

Ifreann wrote:

Floofybit wrote:No. Non-physical education about how life will be better if you submit and how it will be worse if you keep breaking the law. Comforting persuasive counseling and mental health programs.

I don't know why you pretend that there wouldn't be any violence. You can't non-violently arrest people and send them to some re-education camp. Even if they don't resist, locking people up is an act of violence itself, and fucking obviously some people will resist.

Many would resist, and no law enforcement agency would ever go along with Floof's Cromwellian policies.

Celritannia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I don't know why you pretend that there wouldn't be any violence. You can't non-violently arrest people and send them to some re-education camp. Even if they don't resist, locking people up is an act of violence itself, and fucking obviously some people will resist.

Many would resist, and no law enforcement agency would ever go along with Floof's Cromwellian policies.

They will. They will go under the same counseling and dociling. And I guess you can't really bring anyone without violence. However, violence will be at a minimum. Law enforcement will be disarmed but rely on strength in numbers to take in small households.

Floofybit wrote:

Celritannia wrote:Many would resist, and no law enforcement agency would ever go along with Floof's Cromwellian policies.

They will. They will go under the same counseling and dociling. And I guess you can't really bring anyone without violence. However, violence will be at a minimum. Law enforcement will be disarmed but rely on strength in numbers to take in small households.

Yeah, you really have no how stupid this is, do you? You cannot force an entire law enforcement agency to do this. Again, the police during the prohibition era refused to arrest those who went to speakeasies or even gangs who smuggled alcohol into places.
You have zero chance of making this effective in any way.

The Vooperian Union wrote:Basically, discuss if safety or freedom are better.
(Context: Freedom as in the ability to go about your daily life without oppression, and safety as in protection by the state.)
There's not much I can add here, other than that I prefer freedom.

Yoooo spike viper fan lets gooo

Celritannia wrote:

Floofybit wrote:They will. They will go under the same counseling and dociling. And I guess you can't really bring anyone without violence. However, violence will be at a minimum. Law enforcement will be disarmed but rely on strength in numbers to take in small households.

Yeah, you really have no how stupid this is, do you? You cannot force an entire law enforcement agency to do this. Again, the police during the prohibition era refused to arrest those who went to speakeasies or even gangs who smuggled alcohol into places.
You have zero chance of making this effective in any way.

Eh, maybe this won't work like this. But there will be a way to. I will find it.

Floofybit wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Yeah, you really have no how stupid this is, do you? You cannot force an entire law enforcement agency to do this. Again, the police during the prohibition era refused to arrest those who went to speakeasies or even gangs who smuggled alcohol into places.
You have zero chance of making this effective in any way.

Eh, maybe this won't work like this. But there will be a way to. I will find it.

Good luck. But I am telling you now, there isn't.

The freedom to keep yourself safe.

Freedom up until the safety of others is significantly reduced.

Floofybit wrote:

Celritannia wrote:Many would resist, and no law enforcement agency would ever go along with Floof's Cromwellian policies.

They will. They will go under the same counseling and dociling. And I guess you can't really bring anyone without violence. However, violence will be at a minimum. Law enforcement will be disarmed but rely on strength in numbers to take in small households.

Might as well open up Death Camps like Nazi Germany, too.

But, I know if these agents of yours tried to come get me, I'll take out as many of them as possible before they get to me.

Shazbotdom wrote:

Floofybit wrote:They will. They will go under the same counseling and dociling. And I guess you can't really bring anyone without violence. However, violence will be at a minimum. Law enforcement will be disarmed but rely on strength in numbers to take in small households.

Might as well open up Death Camps like Nazi Germany, too.

But, I know if these agents of yours tried to come get me, I'll take out as many of them as possible before they get to me.

No, there will be no killing. The more people there is, the easier it is for a society to obtain everything it needs

Last couple pages are a wild read.

Floofybit wrote:

Shazbotdom wrote:Might as well open up Death Camps like Nazi Germany, too.

But, I know if these agents of yours tried to come get me, I'll take out as many of them as possible before they get to me.

No, there will be no killing. The more people there is, the easier it is for a society to obtain everything it needs

Oh, there will be killin', 'cept those gettin' the killin' will be da cops, because this is how you get dead law enforcement peeps.

Floofybit wrote:

Shazbotdom wrote:Might as well open up Death Camps like Nazi Germany, too.

But, I know if these agents of yours tried to come get me, I'll take out as many of them as possible before they get to me.

No, there will be no killing. The more people there is, the easier it is for a society to obtain everything it needs

That is not how resource depletion works.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Floofybit wrote:No, there will be no killing. The more people there is, the easier it is for a society to obtain everything it needs

That is not how resource depletion works.

Eh, nevermind. Although, strength in numbers still exists.

Floofybit wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
That is not how resource depletion works.

Eh, nevermind. Although, strength in numbers still exists.

And I am sure more people will rally against your little Fascist Hellscape than will rally to it.


You'd probably start another Civil War that will end with your government overthrown.

Shazbotdom wrote:

Floofybit wrote:Eh, nevermind. Although, strength in numbers still exists.

And I am sure more people will rally against your little Fascist Hellscape than will rally to it.


You'd probably start another Civil War that will end with your government overthrown.

Tbh he'd probably just get thrown out of the bar way before it ever got anywhere near government.

Galloism wrote:

Shazbotdom wrote:And I am sure more people will rally against your little Fascist Hellscape than will rally to it.


You'd probably start another Civil War that will end with your government overthrown.

Tbh he'd probably just get thrown out of the bar way before it ever got anywhere near government.

Truth.