|
|
Post by Hauskaz on Jul 23, 2008 20:33:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by solocityElectricCyan on Jul 23, 2008 21:21:44 GMT -5
but some emo bitches are hot  |
|
|
|
Post by Hauskaz on Jul 23, 2008 21:22:39 GMT -5
"Some" is the important keyword there.
|
|
|
|
Post by solocityElectricCyan on Jul 23, 2008 22:57:14 GMT -5
oh
|
|
|
|
Post by Duvet on Jul 23, 2008 23:32:19 GMT -5
I lol'd.
God I love russians.
|
|
|
|
Post by hellomeow on Jul 24, 2008 0:47:53 GMT -5
This is bullshit, typical of a communist state that censors incoming media of various types, disallows internet access to non-government approved domains and enforces aggregation and conformation. I hate communism so damn much. Regardless of what a cultural form of expression is, regardless of the implications, the state should never be allowed to disallow expression of any kind which harms no one.
|
|
tatsu
Passing By
hi
Posts: 65
|
Post by tatsu on Jul 24, 2008 3:54:15 GMT -5
I raged and lol'd at the same time. I hate it when emo is used incorrectly, but I also think it's hilarious that Russia is making scene culture illegal.
|
|
|
|
Post by solocityElectricCyan on Aug 1, 2008 17:38:30 GMT -5
the state should never be allowed to disallow expression of any kind which harms no one. It causes harm to themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by hellomeow on Aug 9, 2008 22:40:07 GMT -5
the state should never be allowed to disallow expression of any kind which harms no one. It causes harm to themselves. This is my exception to the rule. Generally I think that everyone should maintain the right to harm themselves, but not to others (who have not consented). To give you an idea of what I mean, this means that I support suicide, self harm, drug addiction and abuse, as well as group suicides; however in order to stop murders from taking place set up as suicides, I think that it might be best to have a recorded means of certifying a person's consent post-mortem, such as possibly a video recording, self-made documents (ie. a suicide letter doubling as a means of consent) or a group contract (in the case of group suicide). Essentially the reason why I think this is best is because interfering with a person's right to harm or damage themselves is an intrusion upon that person's freedom. The only things that makes this really complicated are the cases where the death of another person can seriously harm anyone who has become their dependent; overall as much as you might try to stop people from harming themselves or each other, they will eventually do it. The restriction of freedoms only further enforces and implicitly invokes those restrictions to be taken into action. I think if everyone is allowed to do generally most anything they want (ie. a laissez-faire judicial system of sorts) then eventually people will commit the least crimes. It seems pretty counter intuitive, but I believe the freedom to fuck up one's life will only help people to learn faster. |
|
