Knife control :-)

[Dan]

Since we don´t get anywhere with guncontrol! :lol:
Here in Sweden there is a law aganst carrying a knife in public places.
Thats something for the american pro-gun lobbyist to try to understand! :lol:
How about britain, do you have the same law?
Netherlands?

Is somebody going to change their avatar to a big samuraisword to demostrate their godgiven constitutional rigth to wield long blade weapons? :-)

[tormedhammaren]

There is a similar law in Norway. No knifes nor guns are allowed in public (the exception is if you are hunting or fishing). And I think that is the way it should be! A knife can be as dangerous as a gun used at a close distance.

[Glaucus]

Of course. There's a restriction on the length of the blade, although I'm not sure what the length might be. Anyway, I cary a little swiss army knife (1 inch blade) with me wherever I go, and I've been refused at bars because of it.

Btw, for some odd reason, this reminds me of the scene in Kill Bill where Uma takes a samuri sword on the plane and you see it sitting on the seat next to her. Suttle but funny, I like that. :-D

- Mike

[Dan]

Is that law only a couple of years old like ours?
It was really needed, half off the 15-year olds boys was carrying a knife for "protection".

I don´t understand farmers who always carry a knife on their belt. It´s more practical to keep it in the toolbox in the tractor. No worry about dropping it.

[Dan]

Glaucus wrote:
Of course. There's a restriction on the length of the blade, although I'm not sure what the length might be. Anyway, I cary a little swiss army knife (1 inch blade) with me wherever I go, and I've been refused at bars because of it.

Btw, for some odd reason, this reminds me of the scene in Kill Bill where Uma takes a samuri sword on the plane and you see it sitting on the seat next to her. Suttle but funny, I like that. :-D
- Mike
Well, it´s wasn´t a nailfile or metalfork so it´s okay then :-)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Here in the Netherlands, there's also restriction on carrying a knife. Let's say, you may not carry a much bigger knife than a pocket knife on the street. At home you can of course have household knives (but you may not carry them 'ready-to-use' outside)
But there's also a restriction on the length of the blade size to that.

My claymore, for instance, is blunt. Otherwise it's illegal.

[KennyR]

There's a restriction here too - two inches is the maximum length of knife you can legally carry. Even if you carry a knife shorter than this, you need a good reason if you get caught with it or it's eight months in jail for possession of a lethal weapon. You can get searched in public places, although generally only large rowdy groups or football fans will get searched.

Facial mutilation (especially using Stanley Knives) was a common gang thing in Western Scotland a while ago. That's exactly what happened to Glasgow actor Tommy Flanagan who's starred in Braveheart and Gladiator. Those scars are not makeup.

http://knoceans.com/flanagan/morrisona.jpg

The authorities here saw the problem and did something about it. I dare say if we had the American attitude we'd have a lot more people with the right to bear knives but a lot more dead and scarred people. And maybe more Hollywood actors. :-P

[mikeymike]

KennyR wrote:
The authorities here saw the problem and did something about it. I dare say if we had the American attitude we'd have a lot more people with the right to bear knives but a lot more dead and scarred people. And maybe more Hollywood actors. :-P
On the bright side though, they wouldn't have to spend so long in make-up! :-)

[MAD]

Hoya!

In France, I have always heard that one could carry a knife as long as the blade was no longer that the palm of the hand. By this I mean from one side of the hand to the other, not from the wrist to the base of the fingers.

But I think it is a joke for many people have differents hands... :-)
I should ask...

Be funky

M A D

[Fade]

@ Dan
"Since we don´t get anywhere with guncontrol!
Here in Sweden there is a law aganst carrying a knife in public places."
---------------

It doesn't seem to do you much good though.
When Olaf Palme, the Swedish PM was killed, he was shot, but when Anna Lindh, the Swedish Foreign Minister was killed she was stabbed to death.

Although the Neo-nazis in Sweden do prefer to kill people by stabbing them in the head, there doesn't seem to be too much of a downside for them. The usual penalty for murder is a life sentence, which I think you Swedes consider to be only 10 to 15 years.

What I don't understand, are countries like the Netherlands where it is legal to kill off their old and sick, but don't want the death penalty for murderers. I guess they think murderers can be rehabilitated, but the old and sick are not worth the effort.

[KennyR]

Fade wrote:
The usual penalty for murder is a life sentence, which I think you Swedes consider to be only 10 to 15 years.

So does most of the Western world, apart from those the US.

Not that I'm disagreeing, this time. I've seen murderers get 7 years, get it reduced to 3 for good behaviour, being out in 18 months on parole...you get the picture. A lifetime in jail or execution might not be much of a deterrent, but 18 months for murder is coming close to making murder worth it.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Fade wrote:
What I don't understand, are countries like the Netherlands where it is legal to kill off their old and sick, but don't want the death penalty for murderers. I guess they think murderers can be rehabilitated, but the old and sick are not worth the effort.Only when these old and sick want it themselves and there is no cure. So in fact, it is suicide.
Of course we take every measure to make their lives worth living.

And murderers can be rehabilitated, but not always. It's called 'TBS' (Ter Beschikking van de Staat - In posession of the state, literally translated) And in reality it can become a lifelong sentence if a murderer cannot be rehabilitated.

The reality behind your mindset is that you kill your imprisoned ppl, and you let the suffering suffer.

[Fade]

@ Speelgoedmannetje
"The reality behind your mindset is that you kill your imprisoned ppl, and you let the suffering suffer."
------------------

No the reality here is we value our old people, and don't particularly want our murderers free in a few years to kill someone else. We are funny that way,

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Very funny, if a person suffers pain beyond your imagination and without perspective.

[Fade]

Is that sort of like putting down a horse with a broken leg?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Fade wrote:
Is that sort of like putting down a horse with a broken leg?No
That's where you're wrong
There are very strict rules to it.

but, actually, I shouldn't be talking to a wall, I have work to do.

[Fade]

So do we. It's called the hippocratic oath!

[KennyR]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
There are very strict rules to it.

Yeah, they usually have to have relatives waiting to get hold of their money, or have no relatives at all so they can be quietly bumped off to remove their burden from society...

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Okay who has hacked KennyR's account? DoomMaster?
(I am not used to short-sighted oneliners from KennyR)

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
There are very strict rules to it.

Yeah, they usually have to have relatives waiting to get hold of their money, or have no relatives at all so they can be quietly bumped off to remove their burden from society...
:lol:

[Fade]

@ Speelgoedmannetje

"short-sighted"
------------------

http://www.karlsforums.com/forums/images/smilies/ouch.gif

[T_Bone]

What about chainsaws? Should they be scheduled? :-)

(just watched Scarface)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:
What about chainsaws? Should they be scheduled? :-)

(just watched Scarface)hm, you got a point there
Why must my sword be blunt and a chainsaw not?
easyness of wielding it?

[odin]

Just to chip in here, I agree with the Dutch policy of helping suicide of terminal patients. And abortion for that matter :-).

[Glaucus]

When Olaf Palme, the Swedish PM was killed, he was shot, but when Anna Lindh, the Swedish Foreign Minister was killed she was stabbed to death.Anecdotal evidence is hardly useful in such a debate. In this kind of debate we talk about statistics, demographics, murder rates, etc. No one ever claimed that gun laws will end murder 100%.

Although the Neo-nazis in Sweden do prefer to kill people by stabbing them in the head, there doesn't seem to be too much of a downside for them. The usual penalty for murder is a life sentence, which I think you Swedes consider to be only 10 to 15 years.Yeah, that does seem a bit low, especially for a premeditated murder. In Canada of course it's only 25 years. 25 years is a fair bit, but if you kill someone when you're 20, you can get out at 45. Of course, the question is, would adding another 25 years add to the deterrent factor? Maybe, but probably not significantly. The other question is, do we ever want to re-introduce murderers back into society? That's harder to answer, but the idea that Paul Bernardo (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serials/bernardo/bernmain.htm) will one day walk the streets doesn't really make me comfortable about the system.

Yet, despite all that, Fade, Canada still has a far lower crime and murder rate then the US. I would suggest that our low crime is due to factors other then the severe punishments you Americans seem to favor.

What I don't understand, are countries like the Netherlands where it is legal to kill off their old and sick, but don't want the death penalty for murderers. I guess they think murderers can be rehabilitated, but the old and sick are not worth the effort.Not sure about the Dutch traditions, but I do know that some of the Northern Inuit here in Canada used to do the same. In fact, the elders would be greatly offended if their offspring did not kill them off (can't remember the official name for it). Of course the Canadian government cracked down on this tradition, but I suspect it still goes on in some of the remote areas.

Of course you can't really judge such a practice. It's a cultural thing, and probably came about for a good reason. I know for the inuit, they lived in such harsh conditions that if the entire population was not productive then the entire band could be at jeopordy - so it made sense for the old people to want to die as they saw themselves as a burden and a danger to the rest of their family. And hey, you concervatives should know better then anyone else: old traditions die hard.

- Mike

[Dan]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

T_Bone wrote:
What about chainsaws? Should they be scheduled? :-)

(just watched Scarface)hm, you got a point there
Why must my sword be blunt and a chainsaw not?
easyness of wielding it?

In sweden the knife law applies to axes,screwdrivers and other stuff as well if you carry it with the obvious intent to harm somebody, so it would probably cover chainsaws to.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Glaucus wrote:
What I don't understand, are countries like the Netherlands where it is legal to kill off their old and sick, but don't want the death penalty for murderers. I guess they think murderers can be rehabilitated, but the old and sick are not worth the effort.Not sure about the Dutch traditions, but I do know that some of the Northern Inuit here in Canada used to do the same. In fact, the elders would be greatly offended if their offspring did not kill them off (can't remember the official name for it). Of course the Canadian government cracked down on this tradition, but I suspect it still goes on in some of the remote areas.

Of course you can't really judge such a practice. It's a cultural thing, and probably came about for a good reason. I know for the inuit, they lived in such harsh conditions that if the entire population was not productive then the entire band could be at jeopordy - so it made sense for the old people to want to die as they saw themselves as a burden and a danger to the rest of their family. And hey, you concervatives should know better then anyone else: old traditions die hard.

- MikeFor good understanding: It is NOT legal in the NL to let yourself killed just because you're old and have no one alive who you love. It isn't possible to legalise it.

[KennyR]

Speel wrote:
For good understanding: It is NOT legal in the NL to let yourself killed just because you're old and have no one alive who you love. It isn't possible to legalise it.

Yet when you have no relations you have less defence of a doctor deciding to knock you off, either for humanitarian or material reasons. In fact I'm sure I've heard of such cases from the Netherlands before. It would be interesting to know what kind of human rights abuses go on behind the self-righteous mask of euthanasia.

[mikeymike]

Chainsaws are not designed to kill people.

Neither are grand pianos, though if you were to drop one on someone's head, it would probably do the job quite well.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:
Yet when you have no relations you have less defence of a doctor deciding to knock you off, either for humanitarian or material reasons.Now you're mixing euthenasia with a political proposal wich wasn't even legally possible.

In fact I'm sure I've heard of such cases from the Netherlands before. It would be interesting to know what kind of human rights abuses go on behind the self-righteous mask of euthanasia.
You have an opinion wich has been gone through the politics here over and over again, also to get the euthenasia law covered to deal with what you mention.

[iamaboringperson]

Since we don´t get anywhere with guncontrol!
Here in Sweden there is a law aganst carrying a knife in public places.
Thats something for the american pro-gun lobbyist to try to understand!
How about britain, do you have the same law?
Netherlands?

Knives should be banned everywhere! They're scary looking, and they make the people who hold them violent and evil.


Yeah.. and while you're at it, ban frying pans and bricks, too.


...graphing calculators TI-82, 85, 86, 89, 92...Ha, I have the TI-92 Plus.

[tormedhammaren]

Is that law only a couple of years old like ours?
It was really needed, half off the 15-year olds boys was carrying a knife for "protection".

The law came in 1993. Probably because of the same reason that yours came. People are allowed to carry knifes for work, outdoors (fishing and hunting) and other good reasons. The knife paragraph (§352a, Norwegian) (http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19020522-010-040.html#352). One can be put to jail in up to three months breaking this paragraph.

[T_Bone]

mikeymike wrote:
Chainsaws are not designed to kill people.


Neither is Dynamite, but what something is designed for is hardly limiting upon what it can be used for :-P

I'd rather an attacker be weilding a jacknife than a chansaw anyday. Hell, I'd rather he have a knife than an aluminium baseball bat.

Heck, I don't know why the ban was needed in Norway, why were they having a problem with knives? A good chunk (32-39%?) of households there have a gun already.

[Glaucus]

I'd rather an attacker be weilding a jacknife than a chansaw anyday. Hell, I'd rather he have a knife than an aluminium baseball bat.Yeah, but you could hear a chainsaw a mile away (or more). And if someone decided to sneak up on ya, you'd still have some time to run away while he sits there trying to start the bloody thing. Concealing a chainsaw is also rather difficult, not to the mention that the safety goggles and ear plugs one must always wear when operating such a device would act as a great tip off to any would be victim!!! ;-)

- Mike

[Dan]

iamaboringperson wrote:
Since we don´t get anywhere with guncontrol!
Here in Sweden there is a law aganst carrying a knife in public places.
Thats something for the american pro-gun lobbyist to try to understand!
How about britain, do you have the same law?
Netherlands?

Knives should be banned everywhere! They're scary looking, and they make the people who hold them violent and evil.


Yeah.. and while you're at it, ban frying pans and bricks, too.
If you carried one just for bashing heads in, the knifelaw would apply I think. People have been convicted for carrying baseball bats and hammer to fotballarenas or demostrations.

...graphing calculators TI-82, 85, 86, 89, 92...Ha, I have the TI-92 Plus.
I prefer the 89 its easier to fit in a pocket, the specs is the same except for screen size. Seen www.ticalc.org ?

[Cyberus]

KennyR wrote:
There's a restriction here too - two inches is the maximum length of knife you can legally carry. Even if you carry a knife shorter than this, you need a good reason if you get caught with it or it's eight months in jail for possession of a lethal weapon.

I thought it was 3", and that only lockknives or penknives with blades up to this length were permitted. 'Flick knives' and butterfly knives are illegal (?) Perhaps someone can check that out?
I remember one of my friends, some years ago, made the not very bright move of, when questioned by the Police as to why he was carrying a knife, said, "Cos every other c*nt's got one" - needless to say he was charged with carrying an offensive weapon...

[Cyberus]

KennyR wrote:


The authorities here saw the problem and did something about it. I dare say if we had the American attitude we'd have a lot more people with the right to bear knives but a lot more dead and scarred people. And maybe more Hollywood actors. :-P

Nah, Glaswegian actors have got it wrong. Instead of spending time at drama school and taking part in theatrical productions, they should be buying a full set of white teeth and fake tans, and waxing their chests and taking part in homoerotic workouts down at the gym. Hollywood doesn't want 'real' people. Glaswegians are a little TOO real, don't you think ;-)

[Cyberus]

odin wrote:
Just to chip in here, I agree with the Dutch policy of helping suicide of terminal patients. And abortion for that matter :-).



I don't agree with it myself. I can sympathise with those who want to die.
But I spent a lot of time discussing this - I did a short course in ethics and this was one of the things we discussed. There are many problems - some of which have been mentioned.

1) They may be pressured into it by relatives/carers who convince them they are a burden. Unsscrupulous doctors or relatives can pressure them into it.
2) They may be unable to communicate, therefore even if they signed a document before this happened, they may have changed their mind. Relatives may insist this is what they wanted.
3) They may not know what they want - you would normally try to talk someone out of suicide, would you not?
4) Assisting suicide is tantamount to killing them [By the premise that to help or to not stop a murder is morally irresponible]

There are many other reasons against it. In my eyes, its the same as the death penalty... If ONE person wrongly dies, than that is too many...

[ltstanfo]

Dan wrote:
Since we don´t get anywhere with guncontrol! :lol:
Here in Sweden there is a law aganst carrying a knife in public places.
Thats something for the american pro-gun lobbyist to try to understand! :lol:
How about britain, do you have the same law?
Netherlands?

Is somebody going to change their avatar to a big samuraisword to demostrate their godgiven constitutional rigth to wield long blade weapons? :-)

Oh goodie...another topic that will never end. :-D

Here in the US, it is legal to buy / sell / own and even carry bladed weapons in public places (concealed). The actual length of the carried blade is regulated from state to state but most follow the Federal guideline of 3 inches (or less). You cannot carry "switchblades", only traditional fixed or folding knives (Federal and -in several places- local law). "Brandishing" a knife (or gun) in public can and often does get a person arrested.

Regards,
ltstanfo

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Cyberus wrote:

odin wrote:
Just to chip in here, I agree with the Dutch policy of helping suicide of terminal patients. And abortion for that matter :-).



I don't agree with it myself. I can sympathise with those who want to die.
But I spent a lot of time discussing this - I did a short course in ethics and this was one of the things we discussed. There are many problems - some of which have been mentioned.

1) They may be pressured into it by relatives/carers who convince them they are a burden. Unsscrupulous doctors or relatives can pressure them into it.
2) They may be unable to communicate, therefore even if they signed a document before this happened, they may have changed their mind. Relatives may insist this is what they wanted.
3) They may not know what they want - you would normally try to talk someone out of suicide, would you not?
4) Assisting suicide is tantamount to killing them [By the premise that to help or to not stop a murder is morally irresponible]

There are many other reasons against it. In my eyes, its the same as the death penalty... If ONE person wrongly dies, than that is too many...The law covers this. The person MUST be a terminal patient plus they must sign it by themselves clear-headed that they want to die. It's not that someone else can decide about that.

[KennyR]

Speel wrote:
The law covers this. The person MUST be a terminal patient plus they must sign it by themselves clear-headed that they want to die. It's not that someone else can decide about that.

The law, like most Dutch laws, is lax and permissive. Signatures are easy to forge. Transgressions in the euthanasia law are fairly common and yet few doctors have ever been prosecuted either legally or professionally. Abuse does happen, and when it does people just typically look the other way. As with everything else in your country...

Besides the fact that under the law of most other countries, people can't sign legally binding things unless considered of "sound mind and body". Free will is not really there in cases of critical illness, or worse, depression - worse because some Dutch doctors consider depression worth being suicided over.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:
The law, like most Dutch laws, is lax and permissive.No, it isn't.

[KennyR]

Sure it is, I already know it is. It's like abortion law over here. Supposedly abortions have to be for a genuine medical reason, and that reason has to be confirmed by two doctors. But really what happens is that a woman goes to her GP, says "I want an abortion," and gets referred to the proper people, to do the operation on taxpayer's money.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

But 'there' is not 'here'

[Dan]

Fade wrote:
@ Dan
"Since we don´t get anywhere with guncontrol!
Here in Sweden there is a law aganst carrying a knife in public places."
---------------

It doesn't seem to do you much good though.
When Olaf Palme, the Swedish PM was killed, he was shot,
But who did it? ;-)

but when Anna Lindh, the Swedish Foreign Minister was killed she was stabbed to death.
Nutcases generally don´t obey laws

Although the Neo-nazis in Sweden do prefer to kill people by stabbing them in the head, there doesn't seem to be too much of a downside for them.
KKK prefer hanging but you don´t even have a law against ropes:lol:

The usual penalty for murder is a life sentence, which I think you Swedes consider to be only 10 to 15 years.
Well, lifesentences usually gets converted to a timedefined one. So you are right, but the discussion is about rehablitation or punishment.

[KennyR]

Speel wrote:
But 'there' is not 'here'

'Here' for you has a lot more lax view on everything. Whoring, drugs, killing old people...

[Cyberus]

KennyR wrote:
Speel wrote:
But 'there' is not 'here'

'Here' for you has a lot more lax view on everything. Whoring, drugs, killing old people...


Yeah, they should instead make homosexuality illegal, sentence people who smoke a joint now and again to death, and kill children with birth defects...

[Dan]

Here´s our law, got it in 88 apparently.
http://rixlex.riksdagen.se (http://rixlex.riksdagen.se/htbin/thw?%24%7BHTML%7D=SFST_LST&%24%7BOOHTML%7D=SFST_DOK&%24%7BSNHTML%7D=SFST_ERR&%24%7BMAXPAGE%7D=26&%24%7BTRIPSHOW%7D=format%3DTHW&%24%7BBASE%7D=SFST&%24%7BFREETEXT%7D=&BET=1988%3A254&RUB=&ORG=)


I found it from a forum for historical renactors(sp?).
Apparently it´s not wise to leave swords in the car when going to a bar.:-)
forum (http://www.historiska.se/histvarld/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1145&whichpage=2)

Another one reported about a friend who was on his way to an antinazism demostration wearing a skimask and carrying a BIG monkeywrench got away with the excuse that he was going to fix his bike with it :lol:

[Dan]

mikeymike wrote:
Chainsaws are not designed to kill people.
Neither are grand pianos,

They are included to, under "other objects", but I doubt you will manage to bring one along for a night at the town:lol:

[Dan]

KennyR wrote:
Speel wrote:
But 'there' is not 'here'

'Here' for you has a lot more lax view on everything. Whoring, drugs, killing old people...

Who are you and what have you done to KennyR? :-o
Anyway laws dont solve 1)Whoring or2)drugs that´s a FACT!

[T_Bone]

Dan wrote:

KennyR wrote:
Speel wrote:
But 'there' is not 'here'

'Here' for you has a lot more lax view on everything. Whoring, drugs, killing old people...

Who are you and what have you done to KennyR? :-o
Anyway laws dont solve 1)Whoring or2)drugs that´s a FACT!

:-)

You know what's wierd? Where KennyR differs from his party on these isues, I do too!! He veered right where I've veered left :-)

I've given up defending the war on drugs. Do drugs do damage to people? Well, yes, but the war on drugs has created a black market unsurpassed in scale since alcohol prohibition.

Anyway, I don't like laws that prempt crime. If people who use drugs commit crime, punish the crime they commit, not the drug use. Drug use itself is a health issue, not a criminal behavior, just like alcohol consumption.

As for killing old people, I won't ever support that, but I do think that if someone does want to end their own life, there should be no laws governing it one way or the other, it should neither be legal or illegal, it's a personal issue that should be handled discreetly like it's always been, between a patient and his doctor, and the doctor should know better than to listen to a patient that is simply depressed, like Dr K has done.

Prostitution? Well, I'm not really "for" it, but I'm against the Federal government deciding the issue, I'm happy with the way it is now, where the decision is up to the states.

I'm not really sure why I've lightened up in these areas, I was a staunch supporter of the drug war during the Reagan years, it just seemed like the right thing to do then, I've just lost faith that it's the right thing to do now.

[Bobsonsirjonny]

@ T Bone

You have not veered more to the left, just more to the libertarian, Stalin Chairman mow etc would have - and did have drug dealers and prostitutes executed. The Taliban even executed drug dealers. General Pinochet did the same. They are all authoritarians.

I do agree with you on Euthenasia - I am worried when people legistlate for Euthenasia. I find it quite frightening and open to abuse. I've been told by a Dr I know that the general concensus of oppinion is that you allow nature to take its course, that you administer pain killers for pain releif, and should it accelerate the course of nature - that is a side effect. But you do not explicitly intend to kill - your intent is to make it as comfortable for the patient as possible. I think that is the difference. Should a Dr be found to cross that line, then he/she will face criminal prosecution.

[KennyR]

Dan wrote:
Anyway laws dont solve 1)Whoring or2)drugs that´s a FACT!

Of course it is, social changes are needed, rather than unenforcable laws.

The permissiveness is my point. Simply turning a blind eye to anything that is socially wrong doesn't solve it either, and that's a fact. In the Netherlands, most illegal drugs are hard. Here, they are mostly soft (for now). In the Netherlands, most illegal prostitutes are underage. Here they are all in their 40s. How is the Dutch super-liberalism solving anything? Has it solved the problems of addiction or human sexual slavery? No, it hasn't. It's just ignored them. No, perhaps worse - it's made them more culturally acceptable.

Socialist or not, I'm afraid I'm a humanist first and foremost, so my ethics don't allow me to accept abortion, euthanasia, prostitution, or legal narcotics.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

The permissiveness is my point. Simply turning a blind eye to anything that is socially wrong doesn't solve it either, and that's a fact.It is NOT 'simply turning a blind eye to anything that is socially wrong' (even IF it is socially wrong)

Here they are all in their 40s. :roll:
dream on

In the Netherlands, most illegal drugs are hard. Here, they are mostly soft (for now)
:roll:
Our country has the biggest harbor in the world: Rotterdam. So, the most smuggling takes place there. And we pay a hell of a lot taxes to stop it.


my ethics don't allow me to accept abortion
Okay, a teenage pregnancy caused by rape, and then let her give birth (extremely painful process, you actually should have experienced it before you have your opinion the ready)

euthanasia,
Also, if you'd die of the disease anyway, but it'd be an extremely long and painfull process (like cancer), you should have experienced that to judge about these people.

prostitution,
:roll:
And you said you were against the church doctrine.

legal narcotics
:roll:
Look around you what happens if you 'ban' it.

You think we turn our backs on the downside of our policies KennyR?

Well, unlike countries like yours, WE DON'T.


(gosh, my eyes hurts)

[Bobsonsirjonny]

No area is grey. I dont agree with abortion - but can see some extreme cases where it can be argued as a course of action. For examople if a 12 year old girl is raped, and carrying the child will kill her..

But I dont want a society where a mother to be wishes to go on a skiing holiday so request a termination. It how we value life. Its all about attitudes - and people are sadly becoming more extreme in their actions.

[tormedhammaren]

Heck, I don't know why the ban was needed in Norway, why were they having a problem with knives? A good chunk (32-39%?) of households there have a gun already.


Because, as Dan said, we were having problems with youths carrying knifes for protection.

It's true that a big chunk of Norwegian households do have firearms (heck, I have a rifle and a shotgun myself), but this is hunting weapons, and you are only allowed to carry them while hunting, on shooting range and during transport to and from the hunt/training. Only the police can use firearms in self-defense. Note that the Norwegian police don't normally carry firearms.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Bobsonsirjonny wrote:

But I dont want a society where a mother to be wishes to go on a skiing holiday so request a termination. It how we value life. Its all about attitudes - and people are sadly becoming more extreme in their actions.As far as I know, there are strict laws about abortion here. You cannot have an abortion 'just for fun'.

[KennyR]

Speel wrote:
As far as I know, there are strict laws about abortion here. You cannot have an abortion 'just for fun'.

Now you're being naive. There are, on average, 5.5 per 1000 abortions per pregnancy in the Netherlands. The actual human serious mutation or deformity rate that would justify an abortion on medical grounds is close to 1 in 80,000. So obviously most abortions are not being done on medical grounds, so that myth can be exploded right now. They are done for convenience, financial reasons...or far far worse, simply as a routine form of contraception. The latter, as far as I'm concerned, is no better than strangling newborns like in the 1800s.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

In other words: you do not have a clue about their motives, yet you condemn it.

[KennyR]

No I do have a clue, but maybe you don't. In other words, 95% of the time, abortion is being used as a convenience tool and a contraceptive, exactly what pro-abortion people keep telling us it's not. Yes, the same pro-abortion people that almost started a riot when our government decided 10 minute "lunchtime" abortions were not justified and prevented them in law. They're not a lifestyle choice. Don't keep thinking they should be.

[Dan]

tormedhammaren wrote:
Only the police can use firearms in self-defense. Note that the Norwegian police don't normally carry firearms.
They have them secured in their cars. if I remmeber correctly?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

95% of the time, abortion is being used as a convenience tool and a contraceptiveSource?

[KennyR]

Source?

I already told you. You can go look up the abortion figures yourself. Even with teenage pregancies, rape, and genetic diseases all factored together, the total number of abortions is far, far larger. This only points to one inescapable fact. Abortions ARE being used as a lifestyle choice, and this is NOT what they were legalised for. So much for the laws being tight.

[Dan]

KennyR wrote:
Dan wrote:
Anyway laws dont solve 1)Whoring or2)drugs that´s a FACT!

Of course it is, social changes are needed, rather than unenforcable laws.

The permissiveness is my point. Simply turning a blind eye to anything that is socially wrong doesn't solve it either, and that's a fact. In the Netherlands, most illegal drugs are hard. Here, they are mostly soft (for now). In the Netherlands, most illegal prostitutes are underage.
Well since it´s legal if they are over 18, duh!
Here they are all in their 40s.
I doubt that.
The key is going after the pimps not the prostitutes. As long as it´s outlawed there will be pimps.
I don´t know the law and situation in Netherlands, but it seems to be pretty succesful in Denmark.



How is the Dutch super-liberalism solving anything?
How is authoritarian laws solving it
Has it solved the problems of addiction
It´s a social and psychological problem, but I give you that they dont seem to have less people addicted to hard drugs than any other western society

or human sexual slavery?
I can´t imagine the dutch law being diffrent on that!
In Denmark it´s pretty pointless for the eastblock mafia to do trafficking because the legal prostitutes finds out and report it to the police immediately.

No, it hasn't. It's just ignored them. No, perhaps worse - it's made them more culturally acceptable.
But banning prostitution makes it ok to abuse women!

Socialist or not, I'm afraid I'm a humanist first and foremost, so my ethics don't allow me to accept abortion,
Fetuses aren´t humans! or animals. Quick stop the killing off wheatseeds for use as humanfood. It shouldn´t be used as contraceptive however but that is for medical reasons(both STDs and future sterileness, not moral.
Information instead of harder laws!
euthanasia,
the cons outweigh the pros, but that can change with a different law in a different society
prostitution,
How do you suggest stoping it? And more important the other crimes that surrounds it!
or legal narcotics.
Let the grass grow

[KennyR]

Dan wrote:
Well since it´s legal if they are over 18, duh!

And the Dutch fool themselves into thinking that, if prostitution is legal, the problems will all go away. They don't. There's always someone who wants something more. What to do then, legalise sex with nine year olds because it becomes a large social issue?

How is authoritarian laws solving it

Laws work sometimes, don't they? They seem to, otherwise someone could just walk into your house and take all your stuff. Is putting them in jail for doing it authoritarian? No, it's punishing them for breaking your human rights - right to personal property.

I doubt that.
The key is going after the pimps not the prostitutes. As long as it´s outlawed there will be pimps.
I don´t know the law and situation in Netherlands, but it seems to be pretty succesful in Denmark.

Here, the key is not getting people hooked on drugs so they don't have to get on the game on the first place to feed their habit. Or didn't you know that most illegal prostitutes were addicts? Most here don't even have pimps.

Target the people who use the hookers, and maybe that will be more successful. They really aren't very nice people.

But banning prostitution makes it ok to abuse women!

Explain how that can be. Banning prostitution sends out a clear social message that human beings aren't objects for sexual gratification, or cattle, or subhuman things for pleasure.

Fetuses aren´t humans! or animals.

Says WHO??

Not science for sure, since it's already been proven that after a few weeks a foetus can think, feel pain, and dream. What exactly do you need to be 'fully' human? Birth? What if the baby isn't born but developed in an artificial womb? Are they always inhuman? How far can you extend the 'not being human' thing? To a year old? So then you can strangle babies and throw them in the trash to keep the population down?

As far as I'm concerned, foetuses are human beings and have full human rights, unalienable and untouchable.

Let the grass grow

Let the cancerous tumours grow.

[cecilia]

Fetuses aren´t humans! or animals. Quick stop the killing off wheatseeds for use as humanfood. It shouldn´t be used as contraceptive however but that is for medical reasons(both STDs and future sterileness, not moral. Information instead of harder laws!not only information, but develop contraception that is 100%

I just love it when people complain about abortion but no one ever seems to want to solve the problem logically. if you have contraception that worked perfectly, than there would be no common need for abortions. most abortions would be emergenies.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:
Dan wrote:
Well since it´s legal if they are over 18, duh!

And the Dutch fool themselves into thinking that, if prostitution is legal, the problems will all go away. They don't. There's always someone who wants something more. What to do then, legalise sex with nine year olds because it becomes a large social issue?

Mature persons can decide about themselves. Your argument does not differ from that of the church which condemns homosexuality.
It is decided that 18 is the age that you can make decisions on your own. You may vote, may drive a car, may drink booze, join the army, etcetera.
Also, life begins after 13 weeks of pregnancy.
Where to begin defining life? Well, if we follow your ideas, we might as well ban condoms and the pill.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

KennyR wrote:
Dan wrote:
Well since it´s legal if they are over 18, duh!

And the Dutch fool themselves into thinking that, if prostitution is legal, the problems will all go away. They don't. There's always someone who wants something more. What to do then, legalise sex with nine year olds because it becomes a large social issue?

Mature persons can decide about themselves. Your argument does not differ from that of the church which condemns homosexuality.

Just because the church supports a view that's wrong doesn't mean the church supporting a view makes it wrong! :lol:

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

KennyR wrote:
Dan wrote:
Well since it´s legal if they are over 18, duh!

And the Dutch fool themselves into thinking that, if prostitution is legal, the problems will all go away. They don't. There's always someone who wants something more. What to do then, legalise sex with nine year olds because it becomes a large social issue?

Mature persons can decide about themselves. Your argument does not differ from that of the church which condemns homosexuality.

Just because the church supports a view that's wrong doesn't mean the church supporting a view makes it wrong! :lol:

Well, prostitution is 'as is', and it does not harm anyone when it is performed according our law. On that point, there is freedom of choice.

[Glaucus]

T_Bone wrote:
Just because the church supports a view that's wrong doesn't mean the church supporting a view makes it wrong! :lol:
Nah, but a church all on it's own is wrong.

- Mike

[Dan]

KennyR wrote:
Fetuses aren´t humans! or animals.
Says WHO??
Not science for sure, since it's already been proven that after a few weeks a foetus can think, feel pain, and dream. What exactly do you need to be 'fully' human? Birth? What if the baby isn't born but developed in an artificial womb? Are they always inhuman? How far can you extend the 'not being human' thing? To a year old? So then you can strangle babies and throw them in the trash to keep the population down?

As far as I'm concerned, foetuses are human beings and have full human rights, unalienable and untouchable.
If it doesn´t breathe by itself...
...then it´s just dead meat.
That might sound hard but so is nature.
Of course that would be too hard on the parents, so I´m happy with current laws.
You discussed euthanasia earlier do you really want to discuss all the freaks who shouldn´t be born with me?


Let the grass grow
Let the cancerous tumours grow.
But you get the cancer mostly from tar, turpentine and that stuff, not to mention paperash from cigarettes, tobacco itselfs stand for a very little part of it.
The same is true for the grass.

[KennyR]

Dan wrote:
If it doesn´t breathe by itself...
...then it´s just dead meat.

Your definition is illogical. People have had assisted breathing for up to 50 years. They are not dead meat. They can do everything you can - except breathe on their own. And move of course, since they're inside the machine...

You don't have any definition of human, do you? I doubt it - because there isn't one. Nature was never that easy to define. Any more definitions to try? Able to communicate...oh wait, autistics can't. Able to think...oh wait, comatose patients can't.

The trouble is, most of the definitions people use for human are also applicable to the human fetus after just a few weeks of gestation.

Dehumanising is what Nazis did so they could justify killing 6 million Jews. It's what pro-abortionists do to justify abortion. I do not, and never will, accept dehumanisation of anyone or anything I consider to be human.

You discussed euthanasia earlier do you really want to discuss all the freaks who shouldn´t be born with me?

Depends what you define as 'freak'. If homosexuality was ever proven to be genetic, I bet people would want abortions for that too. Some people define 'having a normal life' as 'being able to reproduce'. Are you willing to go down that path? If not, I advise you to refine your definitions.

But you get the cancer mostly from tar, turpentine and that stuff, not to mention paperash from cigarettes, tobacco itselfs stand for a very little part of it.
The same is true for the grass.

Nicotine is a poisonous alkaloid of the same family as strychnine. If you boiled up some cigarettes in alcohol and drunk it you would die. It is a very nasty, addictive compound that should be avoided. THC is less addictive but don't think it doesn't have side effects. When you mess with the chemistry of the most complicated thing known to man, you can't begin to know what you'll do.

[Dan]

KennyR wrote:
Dan wrote:
Well since it´s legal if they are over 18, duh!

And the Dutch fool themselves into thinking that, if prostitution is legal, the problems will all go away. They don't.
Alot of them will go away, as seen in Denmark.

There's always someone who wants something more. What to do then, legalise sex with nine year olds because it becomes a large social issue?
I don´t get your reasoning here at all????:-?

How is authoritarian laws solving it

Laws work sometimes, don't they? They seem to, otherwise someone could just walk into your house and take all your stuff. Is putting them in jail for doing it authoritarian? No, it's punishing them for breaking your human rights - right to personal property.
Works great on the drug problem, does it?

I doubt that.
The key is going after the pimps not the prostitutes. As long as it´s outlawed there will be pimps.
I don´t know the law and situation in Netherlands, but it seems to be pretty succesful in Denmark.

Here, the key is not getting people hooked on drugs so they don't have to get on the game on the first place to feed their habit. Or didn't you know that most illegal prostitutes were addicts?
OF course I knew that.
Most here don't even have pimps.
In Denmark I definitely know that they don´t have pimps. Hell, they even stod up to a Hells Angels protection scheme.
Target the people who use the hookers, and maybe that will be more successful. They really aren't very nice people
They tried to do that here, doesn´t work.
Before we had no law, except that it was taxable income and of course against pimping.
Now we have a law that forbids the purchase of sex but not the selling. It didn´t work they could just as well have outlawed it totally, which is what the police wants.
Wonder why ;-)
They funny thing is that it´s still taxable income:
http://fb.provocation.net/www.flashback.net/~butte/English/
http://iafrica.com/loveandsex/news/225981.htm

But banning prostitution makes it ok to abuse women!

Explain how that can be. Banning prostitution sends out a clear social message that human beings aren't objects for sexual gratification, or cattle, or subhuman things for pleasure.
No, it sends the clear message that women, because it is mostly women, don´t have the right to decide over their own bodies!
You would fit nicely in with those old patriarch in OT!

[Dan]

KennyR wrote:
Dan wrote:
If it doesn´t breathe by itself...
...then it´s just dead meat.

Your definition is illogical. People have had assisted breathing for up to 50 years. They are not dead meat.
They can do everything you can - except breathe on their own. And move of course, since they're inside the machine...
Sorry but that doesn´t get you anywhere when talking about the moment someone becomes alive.

You don't have any definition of human, do you? They worst a**hole among the other animals:lol:


I doubt it - because there isn't one. Nature was never that easy to define. Any more definitions to try? Able to communicate...oh wait, autistics can't. Able to think...oh wait, comatose patients can't.
My cat can do both, so can a deer or a rabbit.
But I haven´t seen a incubator for a moose yet.
Why is humans so much better?

Nature isn´t nice!

The trouble is, most of the definitions people use for human are also applicable to the human fetus after just a few weeks of gestation.
Most of the definitons is based on prejudice because its about humans
Dehumanising is what Nazis did so they could justify killing 6 million Jews.
What they did to the horses on the eastern front was just as horrific.
It's what pro-abortionists do to justify abortion. I do not, and never will, accept dehumanisation of anyone or anything I consider to be human.
I consider my cat to be worth more than certain humans.
Giving the human a special status amongst animals isn´t right, because then you can give certain humans a special status among the humans. Like some jews do "Gods choosen people" or like the nazis did.

You discussed euthanasia earlier do you really want to discuss all the freaks who shouldn´t be born with me?
Depends what you define as 'freak'. If homosexuality was ever proven to be genetic, I bet people would want abortions for that too. Some people define 'having a normal life' as 'being able to reproduce'. Are you willing to go down that path? If not, I advise you to refine your definitions.
Try the ones you mentioned earlier!
Have you seen some of the people they keep around just because the parents is stupid?
For example this guy at a school for handicapped where I had sewing class, he couldn´t move, make sounds or even focus his eyes. He just sat in a wheelchair and stared at the same point in the air about a feet away from him. He only swallowed by reflex when they feed him.
There is braindead and there is those who never been brainalive.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuals, they are even present among the animals.

And the retards seems happy enough, even if I would never have a child with a hereditary mental retardation.
I just don´t see a point in letting them be born if they have a mental retardation that it is possible to diagnose relatively early in the pregnacy.
[edit-I didn´t really think this through, I don´t even know if there is a herditary condition where they end up as the guy above, probably not, its just as likely that it was a injury caused at birth then there is no choice]

[Glaucus]

Boy, this thread has sure covered a lot of ground! :hammer:

- Mike

[T_Bone]

Dan wrote:

But banning prostitution makes it ok to abuse women!

Explain how that can be. Banning prostitution sends out a clear social message that human beings aren't objects for sexual gratification, or cattle, or subhuman things for pleasure.
No, it sends the clear message that women, because it is mostly women, don´t have the right to decide over their own bodies!
You would fit nicely in with those old patriarch in OT!

It has nothing to do with women and what they do with their bodies. They may do what they like with their bodies, but if they decide to operate a business, they must follow business laws, regardless if the product fo sale is their bodies or oranges. :-)

I've given up on these things though, if it's going to happen, it's going to happen, so regulate it, and zone it to other areas if necessary :lol:

[T_Bone]

Dan wrote:

KennyR wrote:
Dan wrote:
If it doesn´t breathe by itself...
...then it´s just dead meat.

Your definition is illogical. People have had assisted breathing for up to 50 years. They are not dead meat.
They can do everything you can - except breathe on their own. And move of course, since they're inside the machine...
Sorry but that doesn´t get you anywhere when talking about the moment someone becomes alive.

The baby is alive, the moment we can determine it hasn't died.

[T_Bone]

Dan wrote:

KennyR wrote:
Dan wrote:
Anyway laws dont solve 1)Whoring or2)drugs that´s a FACT!

Of course it is, social changes are needed, rather than unenforcable laws.

The permissiveness is my point. Simply turning a blind eye to anything that is socially wrong doesn't solve it either, and that's a fact. In the Netherlands, most illegal drugs are hard. Here, they are mostly soft (for now). In the Netherlands, most illegal prostitutes are underage.
Well since it´s legal if they are over 18, duh!

:lol:

Good point.

Arn't statistics funny?

[KennyR]

Dan wrote:
I consider my cat to be worth more than certain humans.

Bravo. With one statement you invalidated your whole argument.

[Bobsonsirjonny]

One thing that people often overlook are the psychological implications on the mother.

I was outside blockbuster video once in Newcastle - a young girl was screaming her head of and completetly laying into this lad with her fists. Turns out that she had an abortion at his request, and he had been cheating on her. She felt doubly wrotten.

I dont think anyone would say no to someone wanting to have an abortion if carrying the child could result in their death, nor would they in the case of rape - for these are extremes, and impossible situations already: Do I choose the life of this child, at the risk of my own death, or both of our deaths?

But abortion seems to becoming a form of contraceptive. This is IMHO wholey abhorant. Where do we draw the line? Who desides where that line is drawn?

We have contraception, the pill is very successful, condoms also work, and serve as a form of protection against disease. And for when there are accidents there is emergency contraception in the form of the morning after pill (which is technically an abortion - but IIRC forces menstuation before the cells have actually done anything). I'm not blind to the fact that accidents happen, but the trouble is people shag like rabbits without thinking of the potential consequences, and planning to prevent them. Some girls in my sisters school - and shes in year 10, still think that you can't get pregnant if "you do it standing up". The education is there, but the urban ledgends still prevail.

[MAD]

Hoya!

I heartfully agree with you Bobsonsirjohnny!

Some (too many) people tend to see abortion as a means of contraception, it is NOT!

Women fought for decades to be seen as members of the soviety, resulting in the launch of the pill in the 60's.
So, for God's sake, USE it!!!

Besides, I think this is particularly a problem in England. Granted that in France many teenagers get preggo, I think the figures are far higher in the UK.

Moreover, although I have NOTHING against sex :-) I tend to think that getting laid too soon is not a good thing.
I believe one needs to have a bit of maturity to fully enjoy "The Thing".
So, instead of shunning sexual education in schools because "it's bad and Thou Shall not Shag Before Marriage!", governments should DO something to educate people BEFORE they make mistakes.

Even if some hate this, our society has evolved and teenage sex is not a myth anymore ;-)

/me put Cecilia smiley here ;-D

Besides, it is a good thing to do to protect people from AIDS, too.

Be funky

M A D

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Before you rant about the Dutch abortion policy, maybe you should read this (http://www.nlembassy.org.yu/contents/download/abortion_policy.pdf) (pdf)

[tormedhammaren]

They have them secured in their cars. if I remmeber correctly?


Yes, more and more patrol cars have locked down one hand firearms (pistols, revolvers). They are only allowed to lock them out on ordres from the police chief.

[Glaucus]

But abortion seems to becoming a form of contraceptive. This is IMHO wholey abhorant. Where do we draw the line? Who desides where that line is drawn?I don't see what the big deal is. It doesn't bother me one bit. In my mind I don't see the fetus as a person, and I don't care technically what it is. If the parents don't want it for whatever reason, then it's their decision as far as I'm concerned.

EDIT: I should mention that goes only for early term abortions. Once they have to start removing individual limbs out of the womb I think it changes things a bit.

- Mike

[mdwh2]

KennyR wrote:
The permissiveness is my point. Simply turning a blind eye to anything that is socially wrong doesn't solve it either, and that's a fact. In the Netherlands, most illegal drugs are hard. Here, they are mostly soft (for now). In the Netherlands, most illegal prostitutes are underage. Here they are all in their 40s. How is the Dutch super-liberalism solving anything? Has it solved the problems of addiction or human sexual slavery? No, it hasn't.
No one ever claimed it would, and nor should it.

However, if you're going to make something illegal, and lock people up, you need a damn good reason.

But then, I'm of the opinion that things should be legal by default (ie, in the absense of any benefit to society either way).

Socialist or not, I'm afraid I'm a humanist first and foremost, so my ethics don't allow me to accept abortion, euthanasia, prostitution, or legal narcotics.I'm a humanist, and in favour of all these things..

[mdwh2]

KennyR wrote:
Source?

I already told you. You can go look up the abortion figures yourself. Even with teenage pregancies, rape, and genetic diseases all factored together, the total number of abortions is far, far larger. This only points to one inescapable fact. Abortions ARE being used as a lifestyle choice, and this is NOT what they were legalised for. So much for the laws being tight.No, it doesn't follow that because people are using abortions because they don't want children, that therefore they are using it as contraception, because contraception is not 100% effective.

So, source?

I can just imagine people thinking to themselves "oh I can't be bothered to take this pill or get him to use a condom, it's a lot less hassle to go through the ordeal of having an operation everytime".

[mdwh2]

Bobsonsirjonny wrote:
I'm not blind to the fact that accidents happen, but the trouble is people shag like rabbits without thinking of the potential consequences, and planning to prevent them. Some girls in my sisters school - and shes in year 10, still think that you can't get pregnant if "you do it standing up". The education is there, but the urban ledgends still prevail.Yes, but these people don't do it because they know they can get an abortion - they're the sort who'll continue getting pregnant even if abortion was not an option (if they're not so stupid that they know of abortion as an option, then they'll surely know about contraception).

So banning abortion doesn't give us some world where everyone is suddenly more sensible, and where people use contraception (which would magically be 100% successful) - instead these people you speak of will still be shagging like rabbits without protection, and it'll just give us even more teenage mothers and unwanted children.