SkyDekker

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    21,691

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

  • Feedback

    0%

  • Country

    Canada

Everything posted by SkyDekker

  1. SkyDekker
    I don't think "fair" or "fairness" has any bearing on how to run a succesful country.
  2. SkyDekker
    Not at all. If there had been an actual answer to the question, that would have been great. I already stated, twice, that in current day it doesn't exist. I was trying to have a discussion regarding potential problems in the future. Clearly you are unable or unwilling to have that discussion. I am done trying to have an adult conversation with you.
  3. SkyDekker
    Bit off topic, but I have always wondered if they are responsible for any damage done?
  4. SkyDekker
    Does that mean that dividend paid by GE should be taxed at full income tax rate? After all, the money hasn't been taxed yet.
  5. SkyDekker
    "I am not guilty."
  6. SkyDekker
    Actually you didn't answer the question, you said: "They or their families worked for it and took the risks. " Which clearly doesn't deal with possible risks associated with a small minority owning the far majority of wealth. In comments after you just dismissed it all as envy. So yeah, you still haven't answered the question(s).
  7. SkyDekker
    WHAT main point??? You don't have one other than "he has too much and should give it to other people". re-read my first post to you here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4261385#4261385 You never even answered the questions. Your statement after your question is just off base. You really seem to have no interest in discussing anything.
  8. SkyDekker
    You don't? I think the obscenity exclusion to the first amendment is a prime example of that. Any violent depiction is protected, some sexually obscene depictions are specifically excluded from First Amendment protection. I think that is a pretty clear reflection in law. My observance refered to the differing standards as outlined in my previous post.
  9. SkyDekker
    Noting at all, it is the difference in those standards that can be interesting/amazing. I grew up in a society which standards (in very generalized terms) had more restrictions on violence and profanity and less on obscenity and then moved to a society with less restrictions on violence and profanity but more on obscenity.
  10. SkyDekker
    You are right Andy, you did answer. I was a little too off hand in my remark above.
  11. SkyDekker
    Hopefully he didn't keep his guns and his candy in the same spot like this LEO idiot: *** police said the boy climbed onto a chair near his parents' bedroom closet and grabbed his father's duty weapon and accidentally shot himself in the head. On Monday, a county police officer testified that Thompson said he kept snacks and cakes in the closet with the guns.*** http://www.wtae.com/news/30280789/detail.html
  12. SkyDekker
    Funny you should ask. I tried to get at that same info in a question to one of your resident lawyers, but did not get an answer. Nor is it really all that relevant. My statement relied upon prior obervance. It really doesn't come as a suprpise to me that violence and profanity would be protected, yet obscenity would be specifically excluded. It directly mirrors my statement to Coreece above. Suzanne B. Goldberg goes on to say: "The carve-out for sexualized obscenity comes more from a long-standing discomfort around sexuality, in my view, than anything that fundamentally distinguishes sexualized speech from other forms of speech that the majority may not like." I agree with her opinion and see that reflected in general every day American life.
  13. SkyDekker
    I'll let Suzanne B. Goldberg, Clinical Professor at Law, Columbia Law School answer that for you: "It’s not that the court’s First Amendment law is crystal clear or anything regarding obscenity, but generally speaking violent depictions are not prohibited. Offensive depictions are not prohibited. But some limited kinds of sexual depictions can be prohibited as obscene."
  14. SkyDekker
    In general, North Americans tend to have a rather puritanical nature. In general, violence tends to be glorified, yet anything sexual gets ostracised. Many parents are comfortable with their children watching violent movies and playing violent video games, yet are very worried about their future development should they spot a nipple.
  15. SkyDekker
    I think exactly the same amount as those who trashed Kerry and voted for Bush, who inherited his money. (or maybe most didn't look at where the money came from at all, regardless of canidate.....)
  16. SkyDekker
    completely agree!!
  17. SkyDekker
    this was supposed to be the quote copied: OK. You might want to take a gander at this: Canadian Obscenity Law Coreece, I wasn't making or trying to create an argument. Just stating someting that has always amazed me.
  18. SkyDekker
    1. I know, Canada is very similar in that attitude. 2. Pretty sure Canada is part of the American continenent, but for clarity should have added North to my original statement.
  19. SkyDekker
    No bash intended really. It always amazes me how violence and hatred is accepted and protected, yet sexuality is something society needs to be protected from.
  20. SkyDekker
    Pretty American to allow speech about violence and hatred but not allow speech about sex.
  21. SkyDekker
    Actually it is not just a law, it is your constitution. Exceptions are Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace. But it prohibits Arrest. One could argue that detaining and arresting are seperate concepts.
  22. SkyDekker
    I got another question. How would everyone feel if it was one of the jokers on this forum doing it to shah?
  23. SkyDekker
    What is considered obscenity for the purposes of this exclusion on Free Speech?
  24. SkyDekker
    By what I wrote, not by what you would like to read. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game for there to be an effective monopoly on wealth (and with it power). You want me to prove to you that my argument is not secretely driven by emotion? I have already stated that not to eb true. Also stated I am quite comfortable with the current division of wealth, which already indicates no issues with class envy. If you aren't willing or able to actually address the main point, then there is no sense continuing this.
  25. SkyDekker
    That's not what I wrote. Not currently, I agree. Though when looking at the direction the path is heading, it is not a completely unlikely scenario. That's because, that is what you want to read into it. Your first quote above is pretty decent proof of that. Some people will always have more than other people. I don't have an issue with that at all. I don't even have an issue with the current division of wealth. I do see issues with continued widening of the wealth gap and the progressive pace at which it has been occuring. I see the possibility of distinct future problems at the end of the current path if allowed to continue without change.