Anonymous
7/22/2025, 11:20:05 AM
No.937436026
>>937435807
This seems to be the logical assumption from your current arguments, yes and no you would not be silly for assuming the reverse because i do want to allow for that to happen, just not encourage it strictly speaking or make it the norm but allow for it to happen in the best possible circumstances.
Because all of the data i've seen so far that compares countries with low aoc to higher aoc, seem to suggest that higher aoc does not contribute sufficiently to tackle the issues it claims to want to tackle. It seems that there are much better ways to approach those problems while also keeping the aoc low (no not germany, since im talking about no upper limit).
It's a moral panic and misinformation, partly, that contributes to raised aoc. I think the evolution of laws would look different, as in, the aoc stays the same but all of the potential abusive behaviours, tactics and actions are instead dealt with on the legislative level much better.
There also needs to be room for exceptions by default, that we assume that they will occur rather than "we'll deal with it when it happens but we'll assume the worst to begin with", which doesn't help.
We'll legislate for it better if we target the actions and behaviours because even innocent well meaning people can conduct themselves criminally. The opposite scenario means that people who meant no wrong and also did no wrong have to be put under scrutiny rather than be assumed not guilty and not really in need of investigation.
The american christian puritan culture uniquely grew out of the development of the american country and is in fact distinct from how it developed in europe so the differences matter a whole lot. Doesnt matter if it isn't rooted in that, it matters that it's the same outcome, that it is supported by puritans. I've seen that too and i'm friends with people who have been subject to it. I still recognize the problem but my prescription for it is different
This seems to be the logical assumption from your current arguments, yes and no you would not be silly for assuming the reverse because i do want to allow for that to happen, just not encourage it strictly speaking or make it the norm but allow for it to happen in the best possible circumstances.
Because all of the data i've seen so far that compares countries with low aoc to higher aoc, seem to suggest that higher aoc does not contribute sufficiently to tackle the issues it claims to want to tackle. It seems that there are much better ways to approach those problems while also keeping the aoc low (no not germany, since im talking about no upper limit).
It's a moral panic and misinformation, partly, that contributes to raised aoc. I think the evolution of laws would look different, as in, the aoc stays the same but all of the potential abusive behaviours, tactics and actions are instead dealt with on the legislative level much better.
There also needs to be room for exceptions by default, that we assume that they will occur rather than "we'll deal with it when it happens but we'll assume the worst to begin with", which doesn't help.
We'll legislate for it better if we target the actions and behaviours because even innocent well meaning people can conduct themselves criminally. The opposite scenario means that people who meant no wrong and also did no wrong have to be put under scrutiny rather than be assumed not guilty and not really in need of investigation.
The american christian puritan culture uniquely grew out of the development of the american country and is in fact distinct from how it developed in europe so the differences matter a whole lot. Doesnt matter if it isn't rooted in that, it matters that it's the same outcome, that it is supported by puritans. I've seen that too and i'm friends with people who have been subject to it. I still recognize the problem but my prescription for it is different