Your own government doesnt trust you

[FactsOverFiction]

DNA is worthless ala OJ......



FoF

[playmaker88]

Originally Posted by Conservative Front

Think about this you're telling me that sex is the most natural of occurences, well so Is death So is it ok for people to go around killing people because its natural for life to end? Or Is "natural" used a mere convient word to describe acts you want to preform?

You wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for that one natural act. Killing is taking someone's life away from them, do you view sexual intercourse at the same level? Sex is pro-life you idiot. It is the reason we are all here, every species on Earth does it, how natural can you get?

I enjoy sex and I haven't murdered a single person yet.

[DarkAce]

DNA is worthless ala OJ......

Heh. Don't blame the DNA, blame the corrupt court system :)

[Ghostrider ESP]

Originally Posted by Conservative Front

Yes, the government has a right to step in to sex out of wedlock. It is morally and ethical wrong I don't believe that you have the right to have sex with any consenting adult except you're wife. You hurt the moral and indegratiy of the country by preforming these deviant acts.

Why is sex out of wedlock morally and ethically wrong? A deviant act?
Were you brought up in a monastery or something? Sex is enjoyable (when you can get it), marraige is mostly just a form of conformation to societies rules. Someone way back decided that sex was a disgusting act (a joke because as PM88 says, it is the most natural act you will ever perform).

I'd be interested to know if you find the opposite gender beautiful? I don't believe in God but if I did, I'd say that woman was the best evidence for God. I'm sure a male tiger feels the same way about a female tiger, a female skunk about a male skunk, etc.

Despite finding women beautiful, I have no intention of sleeping with more than one at a time (too hot for me to handle) although if others knowingly consent to such, I see no harm, I have no intent to rape anyone either, you used the words "consenting adult" yourself, where's the harm? How does this bring society to its knees? People are not doing it on your driveway, back off.

[Conservative Front]

Ok, well I didn't mention rape so im not sure where that came from so im not even going to comment on that post.

Yes, I wouldn't be here if my parents didn't have sex but They we're in wedlock when I was born. You are making my point clearer by saying all Animals have sex ( though I don't view humans on the same level as beast ) All Animals die too. And Sex is 50/50 Pro-life, There our women who kill there babies when the results of sex wasn't convient for them.

Im glad to here you haven't killed anyone. but it's still on a natural par.

[Ghostrider ESP]

Originally Posted by Conservative Front

Yes, I wouldn't be here if my parents didn't have sex but They we're in wedlock when I was born. You are making my point clearer by saying all Animals have sex ( though I don't view humans on the same level as beast ) All Animals die too. And Sex is 50/50 Pro-life, There our women who kill there babies when the results of sex wasn't convient for them.

Im glad to here you haven't killed anyone. but it's still on a natural par.

Didn't they teach you mathematics at your monastery? A minority of crazies kill their child because it's the wrong sex and suddenly everything is 50/50? You do realise 50/50 means half. I expect a number of these women were in wedlock too, so is it okay to kill because you're in wedlock?

Your name is apt because like a politician you don't answer the direct questions. WHY is sex such a depraved act in your view? and WHAT damage does it do to your country? WHERE is the harm in two CONSENTING adults having sexual intercourse if they so wish?

Wasn't aware that dying and killing were the same thing.

[MacRasta]

CF, you are entitled to know why I used the word rape :

There is a difference between natural death, and murder, as there is a difference between natural sex (between consenting adults) and rape.

so Is death So is it ok for people to go around killing people because its natural for life to end?

Is the same thing as asking that it's ok to rape someone because sex is the most natural of occurences.

Well, that doesn't make any sense as reply to my post. You yourself brought up the "sex between consenting adults", and that's the same thing as "dying from a natural cause".

I hope I made myself clear.

Oh, and please do comment, it's ok to admit your mistakes.

Mac

[Maleko]

Originally Posted by DarkAceIt's the context in which freedom is mentioned. Anti-freedom crowd? Heh. It's called rationality and logic. Please tell me you realized that you are only 1 out of the what 249 999 999 other people in your friggen country. You don't account for the actions of [b

all[/b] those other people. You can be by the book and a model citizen all you like, doesn't mean everyone else is. That's why these actions take place.

First of all I realize I am 1 out of how many million people thank you.

Secondly, lets look at this rationally and logically. Lets use Israel as an example. Israel has cameras everywhere, has checkpoints everywhere (that you MUST go through) and have taken civil liberties away from the citizens of it's country, but yet, they still have one of the largest terrorist problems in the world. Has it grown less severe since the 70's when terrorism in Israel became a huge problem and these checkpoints and other measures have taken effect? No. So what conclusion can we logically draw from that? Simple, that surveillence doesn't work.

Some people advocate implanting chips into people so that their location can be tracked. Kind of sounds good from a protecting your child from predators standpoint on the surface. But do you honestly think it will stop kidnappings, or rapes, or molestations? I say a resounding HELL NO! If someone wants to kidnap your child, they will. Chip or no chip. You say that with the chip in place the police will be able to locate my child easier. But will it? If some sicko knows your child has a chip in his left upper arm (or wherever) don't you think the first thing that is going to happen is the removal of that area of the body? Ok lets assume that chips are placed in different areas on every child. Well if it sends or receives a radio/electrical signal it can be EASILY located using any number of easily available devices. Then using a steak knife, machete, or EMP field, the chip that you put so much trust into is no longer functioning and the sicko still has your child and you are in no better position than you were in pre-chip. (I argue that you will be in a worse position because if someone is sick enough to kidnap your child, I don't think they would hesitate to "surgically" remove the device from your child, now along with the emotional trauma of the act, you know have physical trauma to also deal with)

Lets face it, no matter what anyone does to try to stop this kind of sick shit from happening, the sickos WILL find a way around it. In the mean time the honest people of this world are the ones to suffer. You would think that after prohibition people would realize that tighter Govternment control just leads to more violence, more destruction and tighter Government control.

[DarkAce]

So what conclusion can we logically draw from that? Simple, that surveillence doesn't work.

You logically came to the conclusion that when someone straps a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up that it concludes to surveillance doesn't work? Huh? Surveillance/checkpoints in Israel has avoided many many scenarios where the safety of it's citizens had been jeopardized. Obviously you can't stop them all, since well how do you prevent every single person not blowing themselves up. It takes some serious $$$, equipement and man power to enforce a system that could, and that's something Israel doesn't have.

But do you honestly think it will stop kidnappings, or rapes, or molestations?

It's more about finding the body. Although it would possibly be used as a deterrent considering if they find the body they'll probably find evidence leading to who did the crime. Coupled with what they want to do with taking DNA from criminals, cases can be easily solved and these criminals will be reduced. Face it, so much time, energy and money goes into recovering a missing person and a lot of the time the bodies aren't even discovered.

If some sicko knows your child has a chip in his left upper arm (or wherever) don't you think the first thing that is going to happen is the removal of that area of the body?

Then that sicko will have to know quite a lot about one's family if they know one's child has the chip in him. I don't know much about the chip and neither do you so I can't comment much on the technology of it, although this thing is extremly tiny.

and you are in no better position than you were in pre-chip.

Perhaps not. It could be possible to see the last known location before the chip goes offline or whatever if it's removed. This would be a lead for the authorities and they can go from there solving the case. Of course if the perputrator were to attach the chip to a cat or something and send it away it could lead the police/parents to the wrong source. Then again suspicion could arose rather quickly from curious parents if they see their child is being taken away from where they said they were going and call to see what's going on. No answer and they'd might go investigate.

All in all, neither of us know what the limitations of this technology is or what it's really capable of. All we can do here is speculate on possible scenarios without any concrete facts of what this technology can and can't do.

Lets face it, no matter what anyone does to try to stop this kind of sick shit from happening, the sickos WILL find a way around it.

Well atleast you got something right here. Evil will always find a way to preserve itself and it will always be here. That's doesn't mean we just give up because we can't 'beat' it. No, we won't be able to stop them all but the ones we do does make a difference.

[Maleko]

Originally Posted by DarkAce

You logically came to the conclusion that when someone straps a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up that it concludes to surveillance doesn't work? Huh? Surveillance/checkpoints in Israel has avoided many many scenarios where the safety of it's citizens had been jeopardized. Obviously you can't stop them all, since well how do you prevent every single person not blowing themselves up. It takes some serious $$$, equipement and man power to enforce a system that could, and that's something Israel doesn't have.

Yes that is a fair conclusion. Israel has implimented these measures, and terrorism in Israel controlled territories has not diminished. It is not a leap to say that those measures are ineffective, or giving the benefit of the doubt, only slightly effective. How does the average person get their hands on a substance, that is heavily regulated by the state? Sure you can't stop the people, but if these measures were effective, the materials would cease to be available or at the very least, not be available in the quantities they are currently. If you can't monitor, and control the flow of a highly controlled substances in one of the world's tightest borders, how do you think you could control and monitor the whereabouts of substances and people in one of the world's loosest borders? Keep in mind also that the most frequent terroristic attack in Israel is not people strapping bombs to themselves, but rather people filling automobiles full of explosives. It is hard to spot a person who is on a suicide mission if they are alone and only have what they can carry, but when you have to drive these materials through checkpoints with bomb sniffing dogs, etc and they still get through there is a fundimental problem with the chosen solution.

Originally Posted by DarkAce

It's more about finding the body. Although it would possibly be used as a deterrent considering if they find the body they'll probably find evidence leading to who did the crime. Coupled with what they want to do with taking DNA from criminals, cases can be easily solved and these criminals will be reduced. Face it, so much time, energy and money goes into recovering a missing person and a lot of the time the bodies aren't even discovered.

RFID tags will NOT, I repeat NOT help find a body. You need to be within meters of the tag itself (the currently proposed ones anyway) as they have no battery and use power that they get from incoming radio waves to transmit out. If you are within a few meters, in most circumstances, you should be able to locate the corpse anyway. BTW burying the corpse 2 ft under will block any RFID signal, so again no help there.

Originally Posted by DarkAce

Then that sicko will have to know quite a lot about one's family if they know one's child has the chip in him. I don't know much about the chip and neither do you so I can't comment much on the technology of it, although this thing is extremly tiny.].

Nope, sorry your wrong. I do happen to know quite a bit about these RFID tags since I am currently a contractor for a company who is vying for a contract to implement these tags in over 3500 Walmart distribution centers and stores. And all a sicko needs to know is how to use a RFID reader (very simple tool) to find out if there is one, where it is located, and all the info that the chip has to offer.

Originally Posted by DarkAce

Perhaps not. It could be possible to see the last known location before the chip goes offline or whatever if it's removed. This would be a lead for the authorities and they can go from there solving the case. Of course if the perputrator were to attach the chip to a cat or something and send it away it could lead the police/parents to the wrong source. Then again suspicion could arose rather quickly from curious parents if they see their child is being taken away from where they said they were going and call to see what's going on. No answer and they'd might go investigate.

Sorry, although you make a viable point, your argument is flawed by how these chips work. Yes you can easily find out the last position the chip is in, however removing it from the person's body will not stop it from functioning. These tags work by receiving an incoming radio signal, and then broadcasting back it's contents. The receiving range of these chips is limited only by the power of the radio signal sent to them, but their broadcasting range is on the order of a few meters. So yes they could see that person A walked into a 7/11, or past milemarker 118 on interstate 80 (assuming that the current plans to setup RFID readers along highways takes place) but as for an exact location and where and when that would be a huge database an order of magnatude greater than any currently in use.

Originally Posted by DarkAce

All in all, neither of us know what the limitations of this technology is or what it's really capable of. All we can do here is speculate on possible scenarios without any concrete facts of what this technology can and can't do.

As I stated before, in it's current state, I do have a very good idea what this technology can do, and can speculate quite easily as I know it's current implimentations.

Originally Posted by DarkAce

Well atleast you got something right here. Evil will always find a way to preserve itself and it will always be here. That's doesn't mean we just give up because we can't 'beat' it. No, we won't be able to stop them all but the ones we do does make a difference.

You are right, we can not stop them all. And every little bit does help, but my main concern is at what price. When do we get to the point that the price imposed on lawful citizens becomes to great to justify the diminishing returns?

[MetalMilitia]

RFID-enabled license plates to identify UK vehicles

The UK-based vehicle licence plate manufacturer, Hills Numberplates Ltd, has chosen long-range RFID tags and readers from Identec Solutions to be embedded in licence plates that will automatically and reliably identify vehicles in the UK.

The new e-Plates project uses active (battery powered) RFID tags embedded in the plates to identify vehicles in real time. The result is the ability to reliably identify any vehicle, anywhere, whether stationary or mobile, and - most importantly - in all weather conditions. (Previous visually-based licence plate identification techniques have been hampered by factors such as heavy rain, mist, fog, and even mud or dirt on the plates.)

http://www.rfidnews.org/news/2004/06...y-uk-vehicles/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Big Brother is watching you: Swiss smokers copped by pilotless plane

Zealous Swiss soldiers called the police when the infra-red camera of a pilotless spy aircraft they were testing showed an image of two civilians smoking cannabis, a newspaper said on Sunday, adding that the incident had prompted a protest in the country's parliament.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe they will see me giving them the finger the next time I am outside smoking.The amount of surveillence is ridiculous. Period.

When do we get to the point that the price imposed on lawful citizens becomes to great to justify the diminishing returns?

That's the bottom line, and you can sit here and argue for hours about the advantages and disadvantages, but my big thing is : Invasion of Privacy, harassment, wrongfull accusations....

-MM-

[SeekNDestroy]

Excellent news. Both those examples show technology meaning more criminals, whether they're speeding or doing drugs, will get arrested and that's fantastic news.

Maleko fair enough, technology might not be good enough at the moment - but presumably one day it will be advanced enough to avoid all those problems. Would you object to it then?

[MetalMilitia]

Then go get yourself hooked up to the MACHINE.

Let them watch you 24/7 if it makes you feel safe.

Be a sheep.

Prevent and aid against crime? Yes. Invasive and harassing? Definatly.

[Conservative Front]

No, abortion is wrong at any cause and I was simply using 50/50 as a mere figure to show sex isn't always pro-life. I wasn't speaking in literal terms.

Sex out of wedlock is wrong because It goes against christian fundamentalism which is what our country was build and based apoun deal with it. The Harm to our nation is done because it damanges the integrity of our countrys and are values which our nation is build apoun. The harm is the there hurting national honor and integrity.

and deviant sex acts and sex out of wedlock is the samething? It was merely a comparative statement.

MacRasta, I'm not admiting any mistake because you're wrong.

[VegasRonin]

Sex out of wedlock is wrong because It goes against christian fundamentalism which is what our country was build and based apoun deal with it.

What should be the punishment for those that have sex out of wedlock Conservative Front?

[playmaker88]

Originally Posted by VegasRonin

What should be the punishment for those that have sex out of wedlock Conservative Front?

Well if your nation was built upon christian fundamentalism he's probably going to go with a good stoning or maybe a nice burning at the stake.

[Ghostrider ESP]

Originally Posted by Conservative Front

Sex out of wedlock is wrong because It goes against christian fundamentalism which is what our country was build and based apoun deal with it. The Harm to our nation is done because it damanges the integrity of our countrys and are values which our nation is build apoun. The harm is the there hurting national honor and integrity.

and deviant sex acts and sex out of wedlock is the samething? It was merely a comparative statement.

MacRasta, I'm not admiting any mistake because you're wrong.

Deviant sex acts and sex out of wedlock is the same thing? Is sex in wedlock a deviant sex act? Do married people perform such acts differently (I hear they do it less but)?

If John Smith and Rachel Williams decide to have sex out of wedlock will YOUR nations integrity really take a pounding? Or will the likes of you blush and turn away in disgust at the rumours and gossip of such happenings? I take it you don't watch?

If the mighty USA (your country) collapses, it will have little to do with sex out of wedlock. the rest of the world does not perceive the USA as a steaming sex playground, that's some of our countries over here in Europe and they do wonders for the tourism industry in those countries. If America loses it's integrity to the outside world it will be down to your governments foriegn policies and if it loses it's integrity internally, who cares?

[Defiant Noquisi]

Freedom n.

1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
3. a) Political independence.
b)Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
6. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
7. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.

8. a)The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
b)The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
9. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: “the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form” (John W. Aldridge).

[Defiant Noquisi]

Trust n.

1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
2. Custody; care.
3. Something committed into the care of another; charge.
a)The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one: violated a public trust.
b)One in which confidence is placed.
4. Reliance on something in the future; hope.

Deviant

adj. Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.

n. One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Okay, three words keep popping up that stick in my mind so I posted the definitions of them so you all would know where Im coming from on this.

First of all, we are NOT free. We certainly have more "freedoms" than other countries but we are not "free". If we were, we wouldnt have ultra-right wing conservatives trying to enslave us with their misguided totalitarian beliefs. Oh and just in case you dont understand how communist you sound...

Totalitarian adj.

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

Doesnt this look amazingly comparitive to what CF posted and has been posting?

Sure its extreme now but if We reformed to a Moral driven Constitional Based society we wouldn't have to worry about this grand government watching us.

How do you propose to execute this grand idea of society? How would we as a people go about enforcing this type of doctrine? What about the people who do not believe in a god or gods at all? How would you propose to force compliance from them? Or, would you support a Hitler like mentality and put to death anyone who is different and/or doesnt conform to your view?

We wouldnt have to be concerned about government control under your idea of "society" because we'd be a slave to it . As long as we arent "IT", there is the convenience of an easy excuse to pry into my personal life. I thought slavery was made illegal? Is this what you want? Would it give you pleasure to know you have crushed my freewill, creativity and self expression by forcibly imposing your beliefs upon me, by making me a slave to your chosen form of authority?

As far as trust goes, there is none. Somewhere in the dregs of the last bit of free will we used to have, somewhere in the fog, there once was... a law, a code? It's been so long but someone, somewhere stated innocent until proven guilty.

I love sex, sex is great, sex is healthy when you are responsible about it and it IS the most natural thing on the planet. Can you tell me what is un-natural about it? Sex is my pursuit of happiness. I like looking at porn too and it's not up to you to decide for me what I can or cannot look at. I have sex as much as I can get it, even with myself and Im probably the best I ever had but that doesnt matter. What does matter is I want people like you to stay out of my bedroom. What are you going to do, keep post by my bedside to make sure I dont touch myself? Are you going to WATCH?

Diversity is NOT a bad thing unless you use it to divide people in a negative way and subjugate others you consider beneath you because of it. Stay in your Stepford Wives communist utopia but dont expect people who feel as I do to just blindly join in. You have no right to dictate what I should believe, how I should believe it and what I do to persue the things in my life I deem neccessary and/or enjoyable. I am very happy and proud to say that I am NOT a christian, I do NOT believe christian ways and I function just fine without them. Christianity will NOT save the world or even the country. What will save it is people like you that live in a vacuum of self righteousness pulling your collective heads out and getting some oxygen.

Your argument, or in reality, lack of one regarding the creation of this country is baseless. Let me clue you in on a little something about our Constitution. Maybe you dont realize it but alot of it was influenced by IROQUOIS principals of leadership. The founding fathers studying Indian councils, specifically "The Great Law of Peace" and honorable forms of communitee leadership, NOT moral christian behaviour are what brought about the creation of the Constitution, our government and the forging of this country. You may not recognize it now because it's definitions have been twisted and warped by power hungry players, but it is there nonetheless.

http://www.fsc.edu/socsci/savant/CONST/CONST.HTM

http://www.cherokee.org/TribalGovern...chivesList.asp

http://www.kahonwes.com/iroquois/document1.html

But the Founding Fathers found their best working model for their new government, not in the writings of Europeans, but through their direct contact with the Iroquois League; for the Great Law of Peace provided both model and incentive to transform thirteen separate colonies into the United States

Maybe you should do some homework before making such a grand gesture in assumption about "morals".

Doesnt it just twist your conservative panties in a bunch that your basis of a moral Constitutional society was based upon a NON christian, heathen form of government? It must curl your toes now to realize that this kind of leadership was created by men, by deviants who didnt "marry", had alot of sex including with multiple partners and who knew sex was a good and natural thing. What a concept! Deviance with brains.

How is it that you think you are so much better than another in that you can call anyone a deviant?

[FactsOverFiction]

Though as stated earlier in this thread sex is something best left alone, I find some of your comments misleading as many Native Tribes had a solid "marriage" tradition. I will find some more links but if you where in reference to a certain tribe please let me know as I know every tribe carries there own beliefs.


http://www.ohs.org/exhibitions/moc/m...veamerican.htm

http://are.as.wvu.edu/ruvolo.htm

This link is very very interesting for people who think Homosexuality is a new issue, stumbled upon it while searching around. Heard about it in the past but never understood the extensive use through-out many tribes.

http://www.androphile.org/preview/Cu...amerindian.htm



FoF

[MacRasta]

MacRasta, I'm not admiting any mistake because you're wrong.

Yes indeed I was wrong, wrong about you. I'm sorry.

You're ARE a nut

Mac

[Defiant Noquisi]

Originally Posted by FactsOverFiction

Though as stated earlier in this thread sex is something best left alone, I find some of your comments misleading as many Native Tribes had a solid "marriage" tradition.

I am basing my facts on the Iroquois Nations of which much Cherokee culture is based as well. Iroquois based Nations are matrilineal people in that women held much power in the community. As such, women were "encouraged" to bear many children, the bigger the Nation, the stronger the Nation. People belonged to the clan and/or community their mother came from and lineage was based on the mother since you always knew who your mom was but not neccesarily your dad. Multiple "spouses" werent out of norm.

Sex was just a normal and enjoyable fuction of day to day life. There were no "rules". In fact, I can imagine how my ancestors would have thought how immoral christians were.

We didnt have "marriage" and "divorce" as one thinks of it today. Ceremonies were called for but it wasnt an ownership thing, it was for blessings. Think about how many ceremonies Pocahantas father may have had, he had over 100 wives! Divorce was simple, pack the old man's shit up and set it outside the lodge, done.

This link is very very interesting for people who think Homosexuality is a new issue, stumbled upon it while searching around. Heard about it in the past but never understood the extensive use through-out many tribes.

Homosexuality in the days before contact never had the stigma it does now. To understand something like that in the Indian concept of things you have to be aware of "the rule of opposites", that is, everything has an opposite. Its natural, the Creator made it that way and because of that, perfectly acceptable. The key goal in any Indigenous person's life is balance. As such, gay people balanced hetero ones. No one got hurt, no ones life was destroyed and it wasnt "bad" until the missionaries came here.

A couple of the facts on that website arent quite accurate. "Berdache" is a Chahta (Choctaw) word. It was also common for a "two spirit" to work and dress as a woman in the community and go to war dressed and acting like a man, you could not tell by his actions at war that he was a double.

[Conservative Front]

Vegas Ronin, I don't believe there should be any serve punishment for sex out of wedlock I think the punishment should be something as simple as losing say a Drivers license for a year or something along those lines I don't believe execution, ect... is an answer something of a fine a misdeamer charge is all that is required.

Accutally I'm just a Far-Right Conservative, I don't believe the government should control all aspects of life by any means. Ill glady right up my platform sometime.

[DontBeAfraid]

You beleive government should control who has sex though.... How much more control could the government possibly need once they control that?