Free Discussion

I do respect and understand your beliefs Cody, you're right that people *should* be learning the language and customs (notice how when we travel through customs when flying, there's nothing about any of our nation's customs?) if they're immigrating to a new nation, but that doesn't always happen. Especially in places like the United States and Canada. I should also like to point out that in some parts of southwestern America, they do have dual signage, english and spanish.
Like I said earlier, the biggest worry I have is that drivers licenses aren't just used to let people drive, they're also an important form of identification and proof of citizenship; withholding such documents on the basis of language is discriminatory to those citizens who are trying to learn and haven't yet mastered the language.
Having said that, language classes can/should be made available for those who are struggling with the language.

I'm all for integration, and a big part of living in a country is speaking the language. But let me ask this: a whole lot of people in America speak Spanish. Surely the economic cost of having the test in Spanish as well is balanced out by the rights of the significant Spanish speaking minority, who might otherwise fail the test when they are perfectly capable of driving? I can't see why at least that level of linguistic flexibility should seem unreasonable.

Also... there's a great difference as well between reading road signs and such, the everyday practicalities of driving that require some knowledge of English, and being able to answer complex questions in that language. I mean, the driving theory test asks all kinds of things which often require quite complex technical language which even someone who had been speaking English as a second language for many years might not know. I might speak a fair bit of French, for example, but I have no idea how you'd say 'cross wind', 'towing restrictions' or 'transmission fluid' in that language, because those aren't things I'd regularly encounter. In the same way that I'd expect to score more poorly on a linguistic IQ test in French than in English, I'd be wary of taking a French-language driving test for the same reason. In fact, IQ tests are an excellent example - the guy who invented the IQ test used entirely written questions to measure IQ, and used these as the basis for his argument that whites were genetically superior because people of African origin were unable to score as highly. It's because of this that IQ tests are increasingly modified to focus on non-linguistic questions, requiring visual logic and other such pictoral concepts.

Trev, in response to your point that driving licenses are the primary form of identification for many people, I will suggest this counter-argument: I dunno about the US or Canada, but here in the UK you can get a provisional license which is perfectly acceptable as ID without taking any test, as this license is used for people learning to drive. Because of this, I don't think your argument is quite valid. Sorry, but I just HAVE to play Devil's Advocate

As for Cody's OTHER point, which was that only one test is insufficient, I completely agree. People become less capable of reacting at the necessary speeds for driving as they age, and furthermore laws about driving and the vehicles themselves develop frequently. Add to that changes in eyesight, possible accidents which make people less physically capable, and you have a whole basket of reasons for, say, a retest every decade. Even without all of these things, people sometimes fall into bad driving habits, and some kind of update test with a remedial course for those who fail would really reduce the numbers of incidents caused by stupid things like this.

On a final closing thought: http://xkcd.com/84/

alex, i agree with everything you said. sorry trevor, i agreed with most, lol. unfortunately i was going to say the same thing regarding the forms of ID. in the united states, each state has 2 types of license cards. one, the normal everyday driver's license, although prior to it being a temportary driver's license, and two, the state ID card which requires no test or exam, just a birth certificate or other form of ID to prove your existence, lol.

but i agree with pretty much everything in what you guys are saying. unfortunately i don't care about the people though in regards their need to drive. they will eventually be operating a 2 ton or greater mechanical object with speeds greater than 35 mph most times. my point is that if they can make the need to speak our language & comprehend things in the native language, then they DO need to take a city bus or transportation until they learn the requirements needed. i love it when people of all age groups yell about wanting a driver's license or botching about this or that regarding some stupid law or offense they broke. i'm sorry people, but at least in the united states of america, it is a priviledge to operate a vehicle or have a driver's license, not a right. you're not born with a stamp on your forehead saying you have the right to drive a car at the legal age. nope! you need to practice & take whatever requirements there are to get that priviledge. i mean, i might be stretching this one, but i was born without clothes. and although i love to walk around naked alot, the law says that i must cover certain parts first.

ok, i'm done. and thanks alos to alex in regards to the exam query. i'm glad i'm not that far off in believing that too. you made perfect sense in what you said & how you explained it. i probably slatered my explaining.

@ Alex: I won't speak for America as I don't know their system best, but in my neck of Canada there's a written test involved before you can be given your first learner's license. As I understand it, that same graduated licensing program is in use through most of Canada, but don't quote me on that. Hence why I used it as an argument, since there is a written test involved simply in getting the most basic of licenses. That doesn't preclude one from obtaining other identification of course, but photo ID is always best, and a driver's license happens to be one of the easiest to obtain.

@ Cody: No apologies are necessary ! There are disagreements here all the time about things, and having a difference of opinion on a matter of public discourse is no crime. As long as we're respectful and friends in the end, then there's no need to apologize for viewing things a different way.
In this case, I'll be conceding the issue, I wasn't aware that they had the state level identification cards that do not require a test or examination. That's actually quite interesting that they have those cards, are they similar to a green card, or how do they work? You mentioned that they're a state ID card, so would they still be valid if the owner of the card vacationed out of state, say for example if I received such a card from Washington state, would it still be valid as identification if I went on vacation in Oregon or Montana?

I think we're all in agreement that some form of assimilation is required if you're going to immigrate though. I know America fashions itself as the melting pot in which everyone forges a new American identity, which is a discussion all unto itself that we can talk about at length in a different thread if it is wished. In Canada its a bit different, which could explain why there's a bit of a difference in our two viewpoints. Canada fashions itself as a mutlicultural mosaic, in which different ethnic groups are able to maintain their heritage and cultures as distinct from a unifying 'Canadian' culture that binds us all together. I mean, yes, we do expect a working knowledge of one of the two official languages, but for the most part integration is done voluntarily. That's how we end up with cities in which we get different ethnic groups sequestering themselves away from other groups.

Like I said, its an interesting discussion to view the differing perspectives, so if you want to talk about that we can definately get a thread going.

painservedcold wrote:

You mentioned that they're a state ID card, so would they still be valid if the owner of the card vacationed out of state, say for example if I received such a card from Washington state, would it still be valid as identification if I went on vacation in Oregon or Montana?

One of the great advantages of identity cards is that they identify you. I'd assume they retain that capacity regardless of where you are. But don't quote me on that, I'm just a jerk.

HAY guys lets all get smart when dereks away

Sabazius wrote:

painservedcold wrote:

You mentioned that they're a state ID card, so would they still be valid if the owner of the card vacationed out of state, say for example if I received such a card from Washington state, would it still be valid as identification if I went on vacation in Oregon or Montana?

One of the great advantages of identity cards is that they identify you. I'd assume they retain that capacity regardless of where you are. But don't quote me on that, I'm just a jerk.

I did know this, I just had a moment where I forgot...really!

...
STOP JUDGING ME! :'(

ok, so i hear ya guys on the whole ID thing & what not. i will say that yes, those State Issued ID's are valid throughout the united states & possibly even in canada & mexico, not sure on that part, but i do know they're valid throughout here for ID purposes only. i guess i think they allow a person not to have to walk around with their birth certificates all the time needing to show proof of who they are. and no they are not like a "green card". a green card says that you are legally allowed to work within the united states territories, which would also allow you to get a State ID card because a green card doesn't have your picture on it. a green card is compared to our social security cards, which is a govt issued personal number for tracking purposes, mostly for taxes, but used for other things too.

now real quick, i got a question for you guys. i feel assured that a question like this may be allowed to be asked here. if not, sorry in advance and i will delete it if needed. but anyways, there's this guy that i've been kinda involved with the last year or so, off & on of course. anyways, with summer happening now, we've been talking about how horny both of us are all the time. we've played with each other alot too, but never went the whole way. so tomorrow night, my parents are going out of town for the entire weekend leaving the house completely empty, except for me of course. they are allowing me to have over my best friend, which happens to be my special friend too. he and i have discussed that we want to take this further, meaning intercourse. but that's not the problem because we both want it. the question is though, he wants to record it. i don't have a problem with recording it, because both of us know how it can never ever be viewed by anyone else without both our permissions. i guess what scares me about the whole thing, because i must admit, it's kinda hawt thinking about making a video of our first time. but i'm a little scared because look at the whole celebrity thing and videos being leaked. they never planned on anyone else seeing that and now they're out there for the whole world to see. would you guys allow your sexcapdes to be recorded, knowing that you both agree with it? and this doesn't just include intercourse, it can be anything. i'm just wondering what you guys think. i mean, it's going to happen, the sex that is. just not sure if we're going to tape it. plus, it's on my computer, so i'll be the only one to have a copy of it because his computer that he uses at home is the whole family's computer. i really like the guy & we both know that it's just a friendship thing. i would only do this with someone that i trust and really like. not some complete stranger, even if i did like another guy and was going to share my private parts with him, i don't think i'd allow it to be recorded. to put it simple, i'm a top, or plan on being a top only. my rearend is for exit only, haha. but, because of who it is and because i care about the dude more than anything, if he ever asked to try topping, i probably would let him. as for other guys in the future, not sure yet. i really need to know them first and go from there. and for any of the guys, or gals even, if you've already had sex, did you record it? just wondering. not looking for any details, unless you wanta tell em, lol. thanks in advance dudes.

Persuant to related comment, please delete this.

Hmm it sounds interesting tbh Cody, ofc it would be hot if you did it the first time, but still I prob wouldnt record it the first time but thats me.

As far as the hiding it goes tbh just throw it far into alot of folders on your PC so no1 can even get on it by an accident ^^

I wont say that there ain't a risk for it will be leaked caus there is but I would still tell ya to be careful no mater what with that video, as Trevor says it would suck if you want something big with your life later on and thats out.

Now just 1 final advice

REMEMBER THE CONDOM! (and perhaps lube)

first off cody, yer NOT a celebrity, so even if it DID get leaked, the entrie world wouldnt exactly be googling about it.

second, if u rly trust this guy, i say go for it. have a special little memory.

Persuant to related comment, please delete

you should. if you are like the only person who is going to have a copy i dont see why not. it'll be something cool to show your kids sometime, lol jk. lol. but anyway, you should. i dont see any harm in it.

To show his kids?........ I know you said jk E but just the thought of showing your kids porn with yourself in it as just so wrong.....

perv

JDK wrote:

To show his kids?........ I know you said jk E but just the thought of showing your kids porn with yourself in it as just so wrong.....

Absolutely agreed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_%28legal_term%29
I advise strongly against any act that involves the filming of any individual under the age of 18 engaging an any sexual act, regardless of consent or any other circumstances. I express no opinion about the morality or appropriateness of such behaviour, only that to do so would be a felony under USA and UK laws, as well as most likely the laws of the countries of this board's other frequent visitors, and that anyone who advocates such action might also be held criminally responsible under the charge of accessory to any crime committed. I advise very strongly against any continuation of this discussion, and furthermore I recommend that previous posts regarding this be deleted. This is a public forum, and there are no restrictions on who might be able to see this, especially the FBI or any other body imbued with judicial powers by one of our respective nations' governments.

Just thought I should point this out (!!!) Cody, I mean absolutely no offense to you, and I'm sure it's not the case at all, and I'm sorry that I can't help you out on this one, but for all we know you might be an undercover cop, and even though entrapment is illegal, and I'm not sure if anyone has actually done anything illegal yet, I sure as hell don't want anyone on this board, least of all me, to get fucked in the ass because of this discussion. Freedom of speech only goes so far as a defense. Hope everyone understands this.

thx guys for all your comments. i personally think i'm gonna go with what Trevor said initially & not do it. so to post something like this. if any comments get deleted, hopefully i saw them enough to realize my desicion. oh and sorry Alex, and i do see what you're saying.

oh and i know by saying this doesn't mean much, but seriously guys i'm not a cop or anything. again, i know that doesn't mean much bause God knows they would say the same thing, lol. but ya, me and cops don't quite get along. not that i do anything illegal or have ever been caught at this point, but ya, i hear what you're saying Alex. i feel so bad now in asking what i asked. i think i stepped my boundaries in this question. sorry guys.

FYI if anyone wants to hide some things on their computers I would recommend using TrueCrypt. It works well.

Wow Alex way to be a party pooper lol. None of us would've gotten in trouble for anything. My basic answer was go ahead, not to sell it to people and give me a copy. Nothing illegal took place.

Should I mention how many other illegal things happen behind closed doors? I understand that maybe it IS child porn. But its their own copy, belonging only to them and no one else. I stand by my decision.

im with kell on this one

dare de-vil wrote:

Wow Alex way to be a party pooper lol. None of us would've gotten in trouble for anything. My basic answer was go ahead, not to sell it to people and give me a copy. Nothing illegal took place.

Should I mention how many other illegal things happen behind closed doors? I understand that maybe it IS child porn. But its their own copy, belonging only to them and no one else. I stand by my decision.

Look, I'm just covering my ass so I don't get police busting my door down. And as for legality, I don't think it SHOULD be illegal for two consenting 16 year old to make a film of themselves getting it on, I'm just pointing out that it IS, and that's a very heavy consideration.
Excuse me if I seem a little paranoid, I just think prison wouldn't be good for me.

I realize the sensitive nature of the discussion and where its going, so I'm asking you BOTH to chill out. Both of you have made legitimate comments and have expressed your viewpoints, now I kindly suggest that we move onto a new topic.