Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

This is a sensible regulation that I'd support because it doesn't restrict the access for civilians to own firearms. Anyways, I required a training course to teach me how to drive properly when I came of age and a vehicle is arguably more dangerous to the public than a .22 handgun. So it stands to reason that teaching people how to responsibly handle the firearm is just common sense. Florida and a few other states already require training from certified courses in order to acquire a concealed carry permit so it isn't much of a stretch to require training to use a firearm.

Regulatory capture, access to public monopolies, Market distortions as corporations buy subsidies, tax breaks, regulations, etc that will promote their business/industry and yet harm the competition.

Therefore, corporations are essentially able to bargain money and power away from the citizens and into their own coffers.



>Implying that it is because they lacked corporate domination is why the committed genocide.



To an extent they do, however I'm more concerned with groups like A.L.E.C. (ALEC) writing our laws. Do a Google search if you're interested.

So the law is passed and a new government agency is created or the power of an already existing agency is expanded. So we'll have the government deciding for us what is true and what is false, especially in areas where data is grey or easily misconstrued.

So we've effectively handed over our right to freedom of the press to the government. A government which is heavily influenced by corporations and special interest groups (remember those organizations fund almost all election campaigns). What's the result? Corporations and special interest groups now have the ability to influence the information we get and where we can get it.

Before you say, "FPoD, we all know that couldn't happen", I recommend you look at the Incestuous Relationship Between Government and Corporate America

additional link
additional link 2
additional link 3

Our Government is heavily influenced by corporations which means corporations have a say in how our laws are enacted and how they are used. I don't know about you but, I don't want Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Disney and oil companies telling me what is true and what is false.

To be fair, she was using a revolver which makes her irrelevant to the argument for high capacity magazines as there are no revolvers on the market that use magazines. However if she was using a rifle of some sort that used a magazine, then we could argue for high capacity magazines.

Had to fix your quote for you since you failed to make the distinction that I did.

Abortion & child care related privileges are two common examples. Though, I speak of any law, legal tradition, societal tradition, etc that treats a woman differently than a man.

First, if a couple have sex and the woman doesn't want the child but, the man does, he's S.O.L. despite the child being 50% his property as well. In essence his property will be destroyed and he has no rights nor legal voice in the decision.

Second If the woman wants the child but, he doesn't then he's still S.O.L. for 18 years as he'll be forced to be extortion levels of money in child care while the legal system protects the woman from responsibility.

In other words, the woman can abort her responsibility for a child while the man has no voice in the decision.

Additionally, I believe if such women want equality then they should be fighting for inclusion in the selective service program (the draft) just like men do upon their 18th birthday.

Fourth, during custody cases it is extremely difficult for men to acquire custody of their child as the legal system is primarily on the side of the woman with a pre-existing bias that the woman will be a better parent.

Finally, I believe women should also be punished equally for sexual assault such as child molestation. Yet, the legal system tends to give these women a slap on the wrist when compared to a man in an equivalent situation.



I'm in agreement, it really shouldn't matter who picks up the check. However in some women expect the man to pick up the check, otherwise he's viewed as "cheap" and generally will be made fun of later for that behavior.

I fully support classical feminist ideals of an equal society (by equal I mean equality of opportunity not equality of outcome). I am general dismissive or disdainful of "modern" feminists for reasons stated in the quote above.



Images such as this I believe are an example of how modern feminism is becoming a joke. Society already teaches people to not rape because we punish them severely by;

- Force them to publicly register as sex offenders.
- Make sure the information of the offender including their name, face, last known place of residence is easily available to the public.
- Legally require those individuals to tell their immediate neighbors that they are a sex offender.
- Restrict where they can live to laughable degrees.
- Finally shunning and treating sex offenders with outright contempt in society.


all of these restrictions will remain with them for the rest of their life including whenever they receive a background check for a job.

However, such individuals as the one above imply (while perhaps not intentionally) that all men are unrelenting beasts that are a hair away from snapping and raping any woman who happens to be within reach. Teaching a woman how to defend herself from a deranged and sick individual is not a fault of "the patriarchy" it's people trying to inform you on methods to defend yourself from a sick individual. It is no different than telling someone to not go walking or jogging alone at night and to take a friend or to park in well lighted areas at night. It's not sexism, it's simple common sense to keep you from getting hurt because there are twisted individuals out there.

Another thing, some of these "feminists" would demand an "equal" society but, then fight when people attempt to remove the few privileges society has granted women because men were expected to do something for them (such as picking up the check after a meal).

tl;dr
If you support actual equality, kudos. If you support special legal privileges for women because they're women, fuck off.

Discussions tend to devolve into petty bickering because people have a tendency to argue with opinions as opposed to facts.

The simplest answer I can give without going on another one of my long winded diatribes is "Human Nature". It is in out nature to refuse to accept that we are wrong because it would harm our ego's and thus our self esteem.

"Speak of the devil and he doth appear".



This is a question that comes to the heart of a gun owners philosophy. The gun owners that I have spoken to believe that the citizens should have comparable weapons to that of the government that is supposed to protect them. The reason for this is, the founding fathers at the time of the Constitution's ratification had to deal with the real threat of government confiscating weapons from the population as a means to make them easier to control. I believe we both can agree that an unarmed population is easier to push around than an armed one. There have been several accounts throughout history where the governing body has used violence against unarmed civilians and even armed civilians that were on the "wrong side" of an issue.

PDF

Now, I won't go so far as to say that an unarmed population is asking for a genocide. However, the threat of an armed population is supposed to exist as a countermeasure to government abuses. People want weapons to protect themselves from more than common burglars they want to protect themselves from an abusive or tyrannical government. Since it's happened repeatedly in other countries, there is naive to say "it can't happen here"

To view it another way, the state keeps you in line by having threats of force against you. If you break a law, the state will fine or imprison you. If you resist, then the guns come out. An armed population is a similar measure towards the government. If local representatives, police, congress or the president goes against the will of the people then we vote them out. If they refuse to cooperate with the legal system, then the guns come out and we force them to cooperate with our laws.

It's obvious that a person will have to visit a hospital and that is not what I was arguing. Since you've failed to comprehend what I was referring to. Allow me to restate it for your convenience in simpler and more detailed terms.

The legality of tobacco products and the resulting diseases such as lung, mouth, throat and gullet cancers along with emphysema, some cardiovascular diseases and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) could produce a net drain of the healthcare system that outweighs the economic benefits from the tobacco industry.

In layman's terms, the diseases resulting from smoking could cost the population more money (in healthcare costs) than they gain from the taxes from the tobacco industry. This is particularly important to countries that have government run healthcare such as Canada and the United Kingdom.

Now, please elaborate on why that argument is not logical simply because you will have to visit the hospital sometime during your life for something else entirely.

Please enlighten me as to how lung cancer or emphysema can shorten the time span before your in the hospital for Alzheimer's, diabetes or any other non-cancer illnesses. I'd be interested in hearing the link between them with sources please.

The only logical reason to ban cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco related products in the "healthcare" argument which is that tobacco related products increase the likelihood of lung cancer/other diseases and that the cost of fighting those diseases could or does outweigh the economic boost from tobacco production, distribution & sale.

Other than that there is no argument against tobacco that can't be easily dismissed by the basic argument of a person should be allowed to do whatever they want with their property (in this case their own body) as long as they are no harming anyone who is not consenting.

First step, remove the stigma to those who seek mental health. To be "healthy" requires good mental health as well as physical health. However we have a stigma attached to anyone who even considers seeking help. Are you depressed? schizophrenic? or have any other mental health issue? Society shuns you, treats you like a leper, someone to be pitied or in some extreme cases someone who is better served by a bullet to the brain as opposed to any resources that could turn them into a productive member of society. This is erroneous and damaging to our society as more and more people fail to seek help and mentally degrading further .

Depression is increasing in our society but, rather than give these people help or find the answer to why such an illness is spreading, we take the "simple" action of ignoring them and hoping they'll rot away in some gutter.

While I disagree with flaser's implied Government healthcare (read: Universal). I do agree that our medical resources should be used in such a way that all who need access to such facilities or treatments can reasonable acquire them.

Simply put, We as a society are neglecting half of the equation to good overall health. The yin can not function without the yang.

This is merely the effects of a short sighted and sensationalist media. They (the 24hr corporate media) treats these disturbed individuals like celebrities, painting their faces all over every media outlet while they neglect to mention the names of even a single victim. Rather than address why such atrocities happen, the media immediately searches for palatable answers; blame video games, blame music, blame violence in the media (not the media itself), blame the weapons used in the attack or anything else. The media (and therefore society) never bothers to delve deeper into the issue and remains content with their knee-jerk reasons. Which serves to never address the bloody problem.

"This never happened when we had prayer in schools!" some conservatives cry out in response to the shooting as if we're a society in free fall because we have moved away from God and his teachings. This completely ignores the fact that the first shooting (in the U.S) happened on November 2, 1853 when a student shot a schoolmaster for "excessively punishing" his brother the previous day and shootings have regularly occurred since then.

Some people blame the gun and demand that they are banned. For if there was no gun, there could be no shooting correct? True enough, no access to firearms does put a severe crimp in a shooters ability to shoot up a school but, it wouldn't stop the violence, the disturbed individual would resort to something else to satisfy their disturbed minds. In the meantime we've removed a valid option of protection for law abiding citizens because of the actions of a deranged individual. We might as well ban all knives with points to prevent stabbings oh wait, someone beat us to it.

There are other reasons not to ban guns but, I don't wish to derail the topic.

Simply put, we need to find a way to find these disturbed individuals and to give them help with their problems or at least preventing their violent actions from causing significant damage. As opposed to the alternative of banning anything scarier than a basket of puppies.

USMC physical training which may involve any combination of the following.

Weekdays 1 hour of P.T. involving

Pyramids, pull ups, froggers, lunges, various sprinting exercises, up to 2 miles of running. Then finally a variety of exercises picked from the list below. Though exceptions have occurred where the entire P.T. was a 5 mile run.

Saturdays up to 5 hours involving

Initial Strength Test (Done only on Saturdays) which involves a max set of pull ups, crunches and a timed 1.5 mile run.

A circuit involving up to 5 of the following for a duration of 2 minutes each repeating for 2 hours hours total.

Push ups, Burpees, Froggers, lunges, suicide runs (involving a parking lot and every line on every parking stall), ammo can lifts, crunches w/ 20lb medicine ball, flutter/scissor kicks, uphill sprints, weighted sprints (30lb ammo can or 20lb truck tire), fireman carry's, squats, squat-thrusts (a.k.a "monkey fuckers), Kettle bell swings w/ 20lb kettle bell, side straddle hops.

Another hour of training involving lots of sprinting (usually up a hill)

An additional 3-5 mile "motivation run" sometimes calling cadence.

There are exceptions where after the IST we do something such as a 3 mile run (carrying weights) stopping every mile to do 10 minutes of high intensity exercises or even carrying people on stretchers up the local mountain (1,808 ft) while those not on the stretchers carry weights.

I'm currently in the process of enlisting with the Marine Corps. When I started the process my 1.5 mile (2.41km) run was an abysmal 15:14. Currently I am running a time between 10:40 and 11:20 depending on various factors (if it's cold, how I'm feeling, if I am sore for any reason).

The ways I've seen people improve is to pick a distance such as the 1.5 miles and run it often. By "often" I mean 3-5 times a week trying to keep your pace as fast as possible during the entire time. In other words, if you finish the run and you're not completely out of breath with the thought of "oh shit, I can't breath" lingering in the back of your mind. You need to step it up.

The method I personally used was doing run/walk intervals for a distance longer than my target which was a 1.5 mile. Every other day after work I would run/walk to the recruiting station which was 3 miles away. Each time I would run, I aimed to lengthen my run distance before I would eventually stop to walk. So I would aim to run .25 mile without stopping, then when I could do that I upped it to .5 then a full mile and so on so forth.

A couple of cardio exercises I recommend are;

Burpee's



and mountain climbers



We do these a lot during USMC PT (physical training).

I hope this helps.

I was joking? But, but I was already sharpening my K-bar! Fine, I'll put it away.

@Longevity: Love you too bro but, we're not meant to be together.

The question shouldn't be so much "is it worth it" as it is far too broad of a question. We should be asking "is college/university X worth the tuition cost for the education I'll receive?"

I think a lot of the universities and college simply don't provide an education that can justify their tuition cost. For example, Life University has a tuition cost of $30,000 a quarter. For those not familiar with the system. A school year is broken into 2 semester. Each semester is further broken into quarters. So in order to attend Life University for 1 year. It would cost you $120,000. Considering the average degree is 4 years. By the time you graduate with the lowest degree life university offers, you'll have paid $480,000. I dunno about you but, if I paid a school nearly half a million dollars, I better be walking away with at least a PHD, hopefully 2.

The education system in this country has developed a nice little bubble thanks to all the easy credit and government money that students had access too which allowed universities to continually raise the cost of their tuition simply because there wasn't a reason not to.

According to collegedata.com the sticker price to study at a private college for one year averages about $42,224.

This is in comparison to public universities that average out to about $3,000 a year but, that's still an increase of 8.7% from the previous year (according to collegedata)

Here is a nifty chart (and links) from the Washingtion post



Related Article
Additional Link

Additional Link 2

Personally, my college is worth the cost. I have 0 debt, and in fact, I've made money every semester due to the leftover money I have from my grants every semester. However, I have a friend who went to a prestigious school (Georgia Tech) and she's swimming in debt and the only job open to her is being a tutor at a learning center like Sylvans. She's unable to afford her student loan payments, while I'm earning around 1k every check with 0 debt.

Lay off my fiancé. She's mine.

The argument was provisions of the Patriot act and other legislation that I mentioned "had never been used". I proved those provisions had been used.

You're either trying to distort the argument to cover up your embarrassment or you're simply seeing what you want to see.

Regardless, Patriot act provisions have been used for unconstitutional acts. That is a fact, there is no further argument here.



Obama renewed the Patriot Act. The fact that the Patriot Act still exists as is despite Obama's campaign promises to add additional congressional oversight.

additional link.

He's continued to uphold the Patriot Act and has made no positive reforms or revisions to protect the civil liberties of American citizens. That is a clear strike against him.



By all means, use your education since arguing on the internet is really it's only use. My comment was a suggestion you pick a major that is actually useful in finding employment out here in the real world. Unless, you want to spend the rest of your life in the congratulatory circle jerk that is academia.




There is an equal chance that you've lied about your ethnicity. Just because the probability of a claim is high doesn't make it true.



High probability doesn't necessarily make something true. We could pick a random person out of a crowd at an event and say "This person does not abuse their significant other". While the probability is high that the person does not abuse their significant other in some fashion we do not know if our claim is true until we have evidence that the person in fact does not abuse their significant other.

In order for something to be true, you require evidence. That is unless you want to take a religious point of view and use the "because I said so" argument.



You attempted to twist my words. Since you've resorted to such tactics, I agree that we should move on. I won't waste my time with someone who fails basic reading comprehension.



You probably didn't watch the video. The first inconsistency is before 13 seconds into the video. I guess political flipping isn't considered inconsistent to you.



You resorted to the "blame congress" argument despite not acknowledging that his party had a super-majority in congress. So you're attempting to say that with a 90% control of congress that he somehow couldn't garner enough support to close a detention facility? Especially one that Democrats harped about all throughout the Bush years. There is nothing to concede there. You've only succeeded in pointing out that even with the near full support of congress that Obama is still incompetent. Which is another strike against him.



Popular opinion is that he is guilty and you've just said that "truth isn't determined by popular opinion". The legal sense is all that matters in this situation.



We're both using inductive reasoning to make our claims. Now, unless you want to admit that you're wrong, you have to admit that I am right. You need to end this double standard B.S. it's quite tiresome.



Orca whales become extinct. Sea lions lose 1 of their 2 natural predators. Either sharks would either multiply to take up the Orca's share of sea lions or the Sea lions would out pace their predators ability to hunt them. This would lead to a larger sea lion population, which would consume more fish. This puts them in direct conflict with commercial fishing vessels. Already Califonia is seeing a problem with an increasing population of California sea lions which are damaging docks, boating and even attacking swimmers.

That's just off the top of my head.




The fact that you're narrowly asserting that unless someone is taken to court, it cannot be objectively verified whether or not someone is guilty o an act, and have actually argued that if someone is declared innocent in court, it is true that they are innocent, is insane.[/quote]

The only insane thing here is your adherence to some universal truth like some religious zealot. There is nothing wrong with demanding that a trial take place for people accused of committing a crime. Instead you keep arguing that law enforcement can just arrest someone and convict them without a trial. If you are in favor of a trial to actual convict someone, then what the fuck are we arguing about?




True but, guilt and innocence are.



What is wrong with expecting that people receive a fair trial when they are accused of a crime?

My understanding of your arguments is that law enforcement should become judge, jury and executioner. That law enforcement can determine innocence or guilt without a trial. This is counter to what I am arguing which is the argument that it is not the job of law enforcement to determine innocence or guilt.




What a nice example of your failure at reading comprehension. Do me a favor and don't quite Ludwig von Mises unless you actually understand him.





Didn't say throw'em in jail. For a college educated person, you sure do suck at actually READING what's in front of you.



The first two don't matter because I want to throw the tax code out and replace it with something else. So the tax breaks and whatnot are irrelevant to me since I want to throw the entire thing out. Doesn't matter what is on page 135 when you're throwing the book out for the newest edition.

Violations to civil liberties are not "conspiracies". The HR 347 bill that was signed by Obama is an example of such violations. It further restricts our ability to protest under threat of incarceration. NDAA's ability to allow the U.S military to act as law enforcement and to indefinitely detain American citizens is not a conspiracy when it's a law. Government tracking of cell phones is not a conspiracy when they have repeatedly tried to do so.

The information was in response to the statement



Your argument was it had never occurred, I proved it had.



While they existed prior, the Patriot act expanded their use by allowing the scrutiny of US residents, visitors, or US citizens who are not suspects in any criminal investigation. It also granted the privilege to other federal agencies to use NSLs.



My apologies, I didn't go to college for Liberal Arts. Good to know that you could put your degree to use by arguing on the internet.

Since my own wording was subpar. I'll use the definition for Merriam-webster.

Skepticism: "an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object".

You claim to have a dog, I won't believe you until some evidence is presented. Whether it be a water/food bowl, a chew toy or just the smell or sound of a dog in the house. If I claimed to have 2 motorcylces, the first being a 1981 Honda GL500 Silverwing and the other is a 1999 Suzuki Marauder 800 then you may ask to see them since that claim would be counter to a claim I made in a previous argument with you. Since we agree that the amount of evidence required to be sufficient can vary by the size of the claim. There really isn't an argument here besides setting arbitrary levels for the evidence to be sufficient.



That's your personal view on things. You claim to not hit your significant other, I won't believe you 100% as I do not know you, I don't know what kind of relationship you have with that person. For all I know, there is an equal possibility that you're either perfect angel or a complete bastard towards them. As I get to know you and your significant other, that percentage will slide one way or the other by way of averages.



I didn't say Obama had <5 years. I said <5 years in reference to a random person with little credit history but, good job jumping to your own conclusions.












When he stops contradicting himself. His flip-flopping dug him a nice hole that he has yet to get himself out of when it comes to consistency. While his views may have remained consistent, his word has not.




You criticize me for using the same logic/argument but, then you end up using it yourself. Apparently, I have to play by a stricter set of rules than you. Also, a person is only guilty when they are pronounced guilty by a jury of their peers. Regardless of personal feelings, O.J. Simpson was found innocent by a jury of his peers, therefore he is innocent of those charges. Like you, I personally believe he was responsible for those murders but, he was declared innocent, so innocent he is.



When I make a claim, you see it as a "might" until it happens but, when you use it, then it's a "will" because you can see the future or something. Rick Santorum hasn't had the authority to use Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act because the power it conveys applies only to the President of the United State which Rick Santorum is not and has never been. Therefore, it has not occurred and simply "might" occur. Regardless of how fervently you feel he will be irresponsible with that power, you have no proof that he will. Unless you want to accept that, my statements earlier are no longer might occur but will occur.



Damaging an ecosystem results in negative impacts on that ecosystem. This is especially true if the damage is to the food chain.



So it's fine to kill people as long as they "MIGHT" be a terrorist. So I can kill someone as long as I think they "MIGHT" be a terrorist? So, rather than taking them to court and proving them to be a terrorist, someone can just say they are a terrorist and that's it.

That argument makes me feel like I'm being trolled. If you're serious, I'm surprised you're not a Republican, since you are fine with throwing out due process because someone, somewhere in the government thinks that someone "MIGHT" be a terrorist. Republicans get frisky at the idea of a big brother, strong police state. Gotta make sure those brown people learn their place right Lundi?



Unless it's a civil trial, it's a criminal trial. Last time I checked, treason was considered a Federal Crime (Felony).e Therefore it is a criminal prosecution. There is no such thing as a "traitorous prosecution.

Article 3 section 3 of the United States Constitution.

"No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."

In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).




You must not be reading what you type. You've attempted to justify that a person's rights can be taken away without trial because they are accused of terrorism. That applies to everyone whether it be an occupy movement protestor, a T.E.A. party member, a member of the animal liberation front, even a member of the Sea Shepherds as soon as they are merely accused their 6th amendment rights go out the window. That throws us all under the bus as our 6th amendment rights can be revoked by government fiat.

This is especially true for Americans of middle eastern descent. A donation to the wrong charity can get you accused of "sending material support" to terrorist groups. Praying in the wrong Mosque can get you accused of supporting terrorism.

All because a few people are scared of boogeymen.



So everyone who worships in a mosque is a suspected terrorist now? Better keep all those Muslims under surveillance.. That's only convicting an entire demographic of people without a trial.

[quote]Failing to expand child credit.

Failing to protect the taxes of seniors.

Failing to keep crooked business owners from giving themselves bonuses when they're bankrupt.

You were right, those got a resounding "meh" from me because I'm not fond of our tax system anyways. I'm a supporter of consumption tax such as the FairTax or a proportional tax as opposed to income which I feel is ultimately regressive.

The third one I morally agree with but, it conflicts with my principles and my views on the role of government in business.