Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

Just, a little thing I've been molding in my head



Regardless of how a person feels towards Ayn Rand. They have to admit the logic in that statement. If you recognize individuality at all, then logically you would have to admit the existence of an individual's rights. By acknowledging those rights you would have to consider that an individual has the right to own property. Does an individual's right to property they have earned, trump any claims to that society might have to the same property (example: Money)?

So, let me ask you this; Do you exist for yourself as an individual or do you exist as a member of a group or collective?

Every election season we hear about "the poor", "the less fortunate", repeated demands that "the rich" pay their "fair share". A lot is said about income redistribution such as welfare programs and the like. This completely ignores that the act of earning a living is a uniquely individual pursuit.

Every person is a unique individual, you are not a tool of the state. You are not to be used as cannon fodder to elevate the position of a politician. Like you, I am unique, not a stamped-out variation of some collective template. I don't exist to serve the government, it exists to protect my rights.

Thoughts?

I believe it is the formation of cliques. An example would be IRC and the Random Squad. When the R.S. members split it was due to the flaming and grief they took for their rampant spamming and topic derailments. So R.S. formed their own little clique while a few IRC members have already developed their own. I can't comment on chatroll as I never knew they existed before now.

In short, it's like high school and little social groups have been formed.

Swine Flu will destroy us all!

This is the beginning processes of broader censorship. Instead of going right for the throat which would prove to be an unpopular move. The intelligent would know that you can't destroy a mountain an once, so you chip away until you get their desired results. A interesting parallel can be drawn between this and American civil liberties.

I'm going with the old style. As Waar pointed out for a lot of people who post one sentence posts it leaves a large area of blank space. Especially, if they have a sig. Hell, look at mine.

I bet Jacob is as happy as a gear head that spent all summer putting a car together getting his car to work. Everything runs properly but, still needs some tweaks before its perfect. Other than that, just the creature comforts need to be added on. You know, like rear view mirrors wait, we're FAKKU we don't need any fucking rear view mirrors! Lets roll bitches!

From my personal experience with bi-sexual women. They tend to be unstable and by that I mean they suffer from some sort of trauma in their past. Rape victims, abuse victims, troubled homes,etc. Maybe my samples were just poor but, they were crazy. One girl I dated for four years could never trust me despite trying to make a history of me being trustworthy and honest. That's just one case but, I don't feel like laying the rest of my history out as proof.

I disagree and I have a friend who also disagrees

No but, I do have my towel.

Until you're killed by the U.S. military.

My t.v. rarely leaves the History channel unless its the food network for "Good Eats" or for the news. I like learning stuff...

During the cold war piracy actually went down as part of the increase activity of police and military around the world. Put more military ships in those regions and you'd stave off piracy, the problem is you can't have every ship have an armed escort. The cost is just too big. Arming every ship is another option but, again cost is an issue.

A major problem when dealing with pirates is the fact that they are in international waters. Who would be assigned the task to deal with them since no country has jurisdiction in international water. Another problem is the fact that most trade routes can't be avoided (like the ones near Somalia, Indonesia/Malaysia, Mediterranean). The third problem is corrupt governments who may be turning a blind eyes or worse, assisting in the pirating themselves. Somebody correct me if I am wrong but, I vaguely remember an incident where a military ship was moonlighting as a pirate ship. They boarded the target vessel acting as if they were going to search for drugs, and other things then they took over the ship and murdered the crew and passengers but, I can't confirm this so somebody back me up.

Another problem is that no international treaties or agreements allow for third parties to chase pirates into another country. Currently, the only thing the third party can do is chase them to the sovereign water while telling the other country who has jurisdiction in that area about the pirates themselves. This in turn has another problem, most pirate ships can easily vanish on coast lines since pirates don't really travel that far out to see.

Records say that only an estimated 1% of pirates are ever caught which only serves to encourage piracy since there is little risk and large reward. Some pirates are young kids such as the one who was captured by the American military. Which leaves the question of what to do with them once we catch them?

Army works in numbers, like the zerg. Marines are the exceptional individuals as they are trained to be exceptional. Totally different approach to combat than the army.

You are correct though, the marines will try to weed out the weak.

I thought it was the navy that was the butt of all the jokes? There is a reason the village people made a song about the Navy.

Reason to not join: You die in some god forsaken third world country where everybody hates you despite whatever reasons you're there for. More than likely you'll be sent to the middle east and all that sand will get into... places.

My money is one generations 3-5.

So we die (gen 0)
our kids die (gen 1)
our gran kids die (gen 2)
and then our great gran kids (gen 3) finally get off their asses and maybe get something done.

I didn't say it was logical. Though I agree that such a large migration would be plagued with problems as current technology only allows for a small payload to be carried into space. So a problems lies in the amount of cargo and the amount of available space for human passengers. In the end, only a handful of people will be saved dooming the rest of us to live on a dying or chaotic planet. It just seems that everybody has this plan. Fuck the planet up then jump ship when it takes on water wash, rinse, repeat.

It's not like we can afford it anyways lol j/k. I think a better solution would be to find a way to reduce the overall cost of pharmaceutical production. Which would remove their desire to dump in municipal water supplies.



For me, it's not only about the money. It's about the conflict between the individual and the collective. I'd elaborate on the topic but, I plan to make a thread with that as the topic at a later date.

Though, the cost of filtering the water and maintaining quality is obvious and really goes without saying. So I won't bother to address that.

What possible benefit is there for allowing drugs to be dumped into water supplies? Money? convenience? I fail to see any possible reason for this blatant irresponsibility on behalf of elected officials. There isn't a cost associated with not adding anything to the water with the exception of fluoride which I personally am a little uneasy about. Even if local government receive some amount of money for this. It only proves that politicians see that our health has a price tag.



Not at the expense of peoples lives. Same logic of removing asbestos from buildings.