Canvas Shoes, you’re being adult, pragmatic and and rational.
You’re in the wrong thread.
Yes. Because the majority of people there want that law, as silly as it may be. They have that Right.
I wish America was able to do something to protect people from the Force Research Unit.
But included more “You wouldn’t be free if it wasn’t for us” pompous crap.
Abortion is illegal at the moment, divorce is legal. We are dreadfully lacking in domestic partnership laws.
Hey Jodi and CanvasShoes? I love you both and if our rights to a polygamous gay marriage hadn’t been taken away from us by the evil evil legislators of this country, I’d marry you both and we could have a million babies together. 
“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.” Thomas Jefferson
AFAIK, there are no US bases in Ireland. Actually, counterterrorism (and dirty tricks) aside, the UK is the de facto protector of Ireland, which is a situation I with which I would imagine most Irish people are somewhat uncomfortable. E.g. Ireland’s navy and air force are something of a joke, and there’s an unspoken assumption of protection by the RAF. On 9/11 there were RAF fighter planes flying over my house in Dublin - ostensibly protecting the UK’s west coast, but also allowed into Irish air space.
Jefferson would hardly think that “not being able to buy a sex toy” = “oppression”, and neither do I. “Annoying” perhaps, but not “oppressing”. Sorry. It’s a damn silly law, but if you say dudes don’t have the right to pass silly laws, then you have the Tyranny of the Minority.
Hehe, that’s so nice of you to say, especially since I, like most people, have been known to be otherwise from time to time.
Besides, attempting to engage in this debate, and get a decent point across keeps my mind off of what ails me.
Good grief, not to mention, as has been said many many times in this thread, people in Alabama CAN BUY DILDOES, no one is preventlng people from buying sex toys or lube. They are merely restricting where it can be sold from (sorry, horrid grammar).
We really need an Alabaman here, someone who might know what preceded this decision. It’s entirely possible that the stores that were selling this stuff WAS doing it in some obnoxiously obvious way. My exaggerated Dildo billboard (would that be a Dilboard? :D)for instance, or maybe storefronts in a mall or something.
Who knows? Or, maybe some little old baptist ladies’ auxiliary somehow got wind of the fact that dildoes exist, and went on the warpath.
Either way, no Alabamans (is that the right word?) have been prevented from their God given right to purchase, own and use sex toys.
On the abortion and gay marriage issues?
The first one, abortion IS currently legal. The fact that a bunch of people are Trying to change that doesn’t take away our freedoms, for we, those that support it have votes, and are able to lobby as well as the prolifers.
On the Gay marriage issue? This is just stupidity to me, but stupidity still doesn’t equal “taking away freedoms”. For one thing, this is a “freedom” which doesn’t yet exist. So it can’t technically be taken away. Secondly, one only has to look at the progression of gay rights to see that it’s merely a matter of time.
Lastly, imho, this is not a matter of religion, not of the government. I can’t imagine any other reason for a person to protest other than religion. And then, it STILL doesn’t make sense, for gays are asking for the LEGAL right to wed.
This in no way forces churches to recognize these unions, so those opposed on religious grounds aren’t really being forced into anything. Now, I’m pretty crappy at theology, but I remember some verses that admonished christians to (paraphrased) “follow God’s laws, and not the laws of man” or something like that. So, to my way of thinking, this pretty much lets those who oppose on religious grounds off the hook insofar as protesting gay marriage.
I mean, there IS supposed to be separation of church and state, so that being true (for the most part), I doubt this ban will last much longer. Especially once the fundies realize that it’s not going to compromise their beliefs. But that’s just mho.
Damnit, that was supposed to say BUT of the government.
I don’t know if it’s possible to meassure degrees of freedom, since freedom is such a fleeting concept. Of course, there is no doubt that citizens of the US are more free than those in N Korea, but comparing one western democracy with another is futile. Freedom is an idea, not something that’s possible to define through legislation.
I do think, however, that the flag waving patriotism I sometime encounter in the US is silly and bordering on annoying. Being proud of a place because you’re born there is strange, to me. That’s just a twist of fate, nothing else.
I know I’m late to this thread and having waded through a gazillion cites and multiposts about US legislations, I might be too late and maybe uninfomed booka won’t see this.
However, Ireland was neutral during WWII as was my own country, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal. How that neutrality really worked is a matter of argument. Spain, of course, was under fascist rule by Franco, so its neutral stance was of no practical consequence. Sweden (shamefully so) leaned towards Germany the first few years, but shifted position (again, shamefully) after Stalingrad. The neutral stance is often a preferred position for smallish countries being cought up in a larger conflict.
And since Germany did invade neighbouring Denmark and Norway, but didn’t invade Sweden, that kinda shoots down your argument.
Just fighting ignorance.
Carry on.
Furthermore, booka, according to what I’ve read, DeValera maintained Ireland’s neutral stance (even to the point of not allowing US and UK ships to use Irish ports) because he believed that, when negotiating with Churchill, he was talking to the losing party. He felt that during the inevitable German invasion following the conquest of the UK, he had better not antagonize them beforehand. A morally dubious stance, IMO, but clearly it was in his opinion that this was in Ireland’s best interests. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Thank you, best post so far.
I am not allowed to own a gun in my country (well, if I obtain a sports license, I can have a gun, but I have to keep the weapon and its ammo in separate vaults, so it’s practically useless as a method of self defence), but I can smoke marijuana until the cows come home.
The average American can keep enough armed weapons in his house to supply a good sized terrorist group with, but if he’s caught smoking a joint, he goes to jail or receives a hefty fine at least.
Who’s more free, the average American, or me?
Answer: we can’t say based on isolated laws alone. Barring a valid comparison, I’d say we’re about equally free, with different nuances.
I agree with you, and in prior discussions along those lines, so have more European posters. Patriotism seems to be a bit of an American thing - I don’t mean that in any dergatory way, BTW. It’s just one of those cultural things. Like, Americans don’t understand why we drive small 4-cylinder cars, for example.
And the Netherlands! We were neutral for almost a century when Germany invaded us in May of 1940, and we were pretty much forced to fight back - without a chance in hell of winning, of course. They took the country in 5 days: we had 30,000 people defending the borders and cities. Snowball’s chance in hell, but Hitlers decision to invade meant the end of our neutrality. The consequent liberation by Canadian and American forces, and the founding of NATO - I don’t think we’ll ever revert to a neutral state again.
You might check this out : http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/ecinfo.htm#side-effects
Pay attention to side effects that include vomiting, headaches and irregular bleeding, as well as the danger signs Abdominal pains (severe), Chest pain or shortness of breath, Headaches (severe), Eye problems, such as blurred vision or
Severe leg or arm pain or numbness. Look, they even have a little pnumonic to remember it all. Now please cite some of these ‘exhaustive’ clinical trials. Approval by the FDA doesn’t mean it’s completely safe, for God’s sake Vicodine and Morphine approved by the FDA.
Is “pnumonic” an aide-mémoire for “mnemonic”? 
Just to echo and respond to The Gaspode and Coldfire
A free society is one in which the shape of society is determined by its citizens. In the U.S. (and other free countries I assume) this means two things:
1.) we elect our officials, so that if they make to many asinine laws or act in a corrupt abusive or just plain wrong manner we can stick someone else in there.
2.) We have certain constitutional rights no elected official can take away. Speech, Assembly, due process, and FWIW firearms ownership. What this all means is subject to debate (How much process is due, exactly?) but there it is.
This does not mean you are free to do anything you want. That’s not freedom, that’s anarchy. If the citizens of a region do not want dildos and lube sold in that region why should they have to put up with it? If people don’t want to inhale second hand smoke in the workplace, how is it “freedom” to force them to do it? The OP confuses freedom with license.
Obviously there’s going to be disagreement about the law. I wish I was free to smoke a joint in a cafe, and I’m not sure allowing anyone to stockpile an arsenal w/o any registration is really a good thing. But these are decisions made in a democracy, and one has to live with them.
And what’s with this Ireland v. U.S. nonsense? I’m proud to be an American, but I’ve got a lot of Irish friends. They’re both great countries and we don’t need to be in a pissing match over who’s better.
Thanks, guys. I had forgotten about Holland, Coldie, since the other W. European countries that were neutral weren’t invaded.
I want to add an opinion (which might be considered slightly libertarian): A freedom, be the right to arm bears or smoke oregano in public, while rubbing your face with lube, shouldn’t cost the state anything. Freedom of speech doesn’t give anyone the right to receive a free tv station, ity only means the state cannot stop anyone from saying what they want*. As soon as a ‘freedom’ or ‘right’ start cisting tax payers money, it’s a benefit, and indirectly hampers someone else’s freedom. The democracy can, through election, vote to give these benefits to some or all of its citizens, but that’s what they are - benefits, not unalienable rights.
*(though I do think the FCC and the rules on obscenity is… ahem… obscene)
Uhhh, yeah, just, uhhh, air powered. :smack:
Hey! That’s what I’ve been saying all along, he just said it way better
Do I surmise correctly then, that at least one of those mentioned has a womb?