Tsujoi Posts

From your own source:

"The Congressional Budget Office has found that "about half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology." Other factors included higher income levels, changes in insurance coverage, and rising prices."

So...yeah. See...the advancement in technology increases the prices...because it's expensive to install them, expensive to teach people to use them, expensive to actually implement them...so yes, the prices SHOULD go up with advancement in technology. Also, none of those sources said, "If we got rid of public health care, then prices would go down enough so the impoverished could afford it." at all.



No, they don't ESTABLISH schools and colleges, firstly, colleges are usually privatized organizations, secondly, they DO regulate the content,the level of education, and how schools go about their curriculum, to an extent. They keep schools from making huge inefficient budget cuts like grouping all the grades together into one auditorium to teach classes, or firing most teachers and putting most of the curriculum on the shoulders of one or two. These aren't allowed by public schools.

Plus, it's well known that public schools are better with their curriculum than private schools.

I'd provide more specific links than this, but for some odd reason, google's decided I don't get to click on anymore links.

http://www.google.com/search.php?hl=en&q=Public+v+private+schooling&btnG=Search




Ahhh that's the stuff, "IT's a conspiracy in the scientific community." So, in essence, even though you thought it was a reasonable position to deny evolution because the general public denies it in the united states at a rate of 44%, when I point out that people who are actually EDUCATED on the matter overwhelmingly accept evolution, and, the quote "Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution" was made over 40 years ago by a russian orthodox christian biologist, Theodosius Dobzhansk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution



With water and placebo. Clearly there was nothing seriously wrong with her if a homeopath could cure her. By definition, alternative medicine is either medicine that hasn't been proved to work or been proved not to work. You know what we call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine.



Right, it allows people to say, "Oh, that's a drug that doesn't work and could cause harm, but I believe in something as silly as homeopathy, so I'm giving it to my kid anyway."

I'm against that. So...yeah.



But there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from prescribing a medicine that doesn't work, or been shown by independent companies to not work, or really anything. There's absolutely nothing limiting the sales of medicine that doesn't do anything, or could even cause harm.



Did YOU read my source? He signed a pledge to protect fetuses under the 14th amendment. That's the constitution. That's federal. You're done.



And we'd take hits in other places. Seriously, can I ask you what you think happens to taxes? Do you think all taxes just go into government worker paychecks? And even then, you are aware that's the reason we have firefighters, police...literally all government workers that make your life better and more safe. Your belief is that "I don't believe all the money being put into foreign aid goes to poor people. I think they're keeping some of it for themselves" without any sources for that specific claim, and then you go off to say, "Screw it altogether, just donate if you want to help poor people." I want poor people helped, not just to help them personally. There's a bit of a difference there that the government's foreign aid can help.

Also I find it comical that you didn't feel Ron Paul's conspiracy theory that we need to pull out of the UN before "america disappears altogether" was worth addressing.



So they use their children, but it doesn't matter because they get deported anyway. IS THAT your argument?

And besides, you're the one making the claims here that the illegals are taking advantage of the system and being supported with taxpayer money without contributing. So yes, you DO have to provide sources to prove that.



http://www.chron.com/news/article/Public-schools-reminded-not-to-turn-away-illegal-1687878.php[/quote]

Yay! Children get to have a public education despite their parents not being legal immigrants. Good. I find this to be a POSITIVE thing. I WANT children to be educated. Thank goodness there's a supreme court ruling saying they have the right to have an education, legal or not.

Still though, you made it sound like the parents were the ones getting all sorts of taxpayer funded benefits. Still no sources on that front.

So I see after reading my first point, you just completely and utterly decided to skip the rest of my post, plug your ears and go, "La la la la la, you're just as bad as the mass media you bandwagon hopping half truth spewing guy who doesn't even read his sources."

Seriously, what part of "Side note: he's not pro discrimination, he just thinks it shouldn't be regulated that people not discriminate, which I still disagree with. Heavily. Seriously. Fuck. Bigots." don't you understand?



Yup, and I'm still staunchly opposed to his view. Just like I don't think murder should be legal because some murderers have their own arbitrary justification for murder, and we should just trust that they'll be punished by society, I don't believe that discrimination should just be allowed by any arbitrary justification with faith put in the human race to just 'do what's right'.





Source? Currently I know a lot of very poor people who have Obamacare to thank for being able to get ANY healthcare at all, and this includes myself. It's thanks to public regulation that things like...say...keeping people from being able to recieve coverage for 'pre existing conditions' isn't allowed anymore. Still though, Ron doesn't seem to agree with you. He doesn't think that poor people will just be able to AFFORD health care, just that doctors will be charitable and treat them anyway. Nonsense.





Yes, which includes public education. Again, I sourced it...go ahead and take a look. Seriously it's one of his policies, he doesn't think there should be any public education, and thinks it's a waste of taxpayer money.



Um...did you read your own source? You are aware that it says 95% of scientists believe in evolution...right? And those are the people who's opinions on scientific matters...matter. I don't care what the 'general public' thinks...I care about what the people who know what they're talking about think. All that source does is make me sad for america, but hopeful for scientists.





I did. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us/politics/08republican-debate-text.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39a7mP1JoUA

That make it clearer? Also, independent study and regulation of product to protect citizens doesn't guarantee anything. Unlike if the federal government says something can't be sold, or has to be recalled, if an independent organization does the research, nothing's stopping people from going, "Yeah, that's not too bad a consequence for that product, we'll sell it anyway." And what about the general public that...you know...don't research that kind of stuff? That don't have the time or researches to keep up to date on that kind of stuff? Those people are kind of eff'd out of luck in that scenario now aren't they?





*sigh*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/ron-paul-personhood-pledge_n_1170373.html

Yeah he does. Now hush.





Ah, common libertarian rhetoric, "If you want poor people to be helped, you do it. Don't pay the government to give your money to them."

Why not? Seems like a valuable expenditure of resources to me.



He was talking about what would happen if the suggested fence was built. the video didn't describe what the suggested fence was, which is kinda important. I don't think it's the same fence as the one he voted on, because that fence already exists, and he wouldn't be discussing it.[/quote]

What fence already exists? And besides, this really doesn't justify "The fence would keep americans inside the united states". I mean...it's sort of like, "We're gonna ghetto off the border."





So what you're saying is that parents of children born in the united states are never deported. Source? You're saying that the parents reap the benefits of taxpayer funded services without being citizens. Source? And besides that do they not work? Do they not...do things to earn a small base of money? And if not...source?

I have illegal immigrants here in PA too. Lots of them, because oil's prevalent here. Or at least was, they've apparently drained this place dry.

Edit: Also, a note to all the people saying I'm spewing 'half truths' without...you know...explaining HOW I'm spewing half truths?

IF you can argue my points, do so. If not...saying I'm spewing half truths without backing up your claim is as pointless as saying, "I see all your points and sources, but nuh uh. You're a big doo doo head."

Hard to believe considering they bought and sold and owned hundreds of slaves...each, and decided that freeing them took priority only AFTER they(the Founding Fathers) were dead : /.



And the Civil Rights Act was such a thing. It was a sign that consciousness was being raised, changing, and people in general were becoming more accepting of black people. It was also an acknowledgement that while people deserve equal rights, there are a good number of people that still exist today(20% of americans said they wouldn't vote for a black president simply because he's black, that's waaaaaay too much) and many more then that would dispute this, hold court cases, and try and trample on these rights in any seedy, slimy, greasy way possible (Jim Crow Laws, voting tests, etc.). And that there needed to be something to...prevent that.



Great. No more laws. Gotcha.

Srsly, anarchists confuse the hell out of me.



I'm getting a vibe from you that you're one of those 'race realist' types.

But more seriously, how is it not equality to say, "You know what? You're not 'the black people' and we're not 'the white people' we're all humans."?



[southern drawl] This is 'merrica! English 's our language god dangit!

Like it or not, there are a lot of people that speak spanish that come here and work her and do things for people in the country. the least we can do is say, "Don't feel like being totally bilingual? We've got you covered." People are different, the best way to acknowledge that isn't to put it under a magnifying glass, but to make it not an issue. Especially when genetically, the only differences between blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, etc. Is the alleles that change skin color, hair color, and eye color. That's it. And even that's blurry.



Says the guy that says, "Last I checked, we spoke enlgish here!" Well, maybe the spanish people don't want to speak english, why do you get to say, "NO! In america it's all english all the time or gtfo!"?

Though I do agree that affirmative action is balognae, even minorities make videos and put in votes and email their congresspeople that...they want it gone.



Right, like allowing people to speak their native tongue if they want to.



Yeah, but if there wasn't any legislation keeping people from doing back alley douchebaggery like...oh I don't know, constructing impossible tests for black people to complete to prove they're 'literate', and directly discriminating against them because of a priori knowledge of low income areas being primarily populated by African Americans...then people in power, are in the position to ACTUALLY ass fuck them. And they have before...and not that long ago.



Why can't we just call them all americans...without putting a stipulation of having to succeed? Seems kind of superfluous.



I think you've rehearsed this, because this FEELS like a speech someone might make. I mean, it's still wrong on many counts, and internally hypocritical, but...meh...nice try?

Ron Paul...is both socially...and economically conservative. However since he's also pro taking the government out of...everything, libertarians have fallen in love with this ancient douchebag doctor. I knew...well..next to nothing about the guy until a few months ago when my brother and all his friends decided to start talking him up. I don't like to jump to conclusions just becuase libertarians support him, or just because he's considered a 'conservative' or a 'republican'.
However, after doing a lot of research...I can safely say...fuck Ron Paul.
Here's some reasons why.
1. He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act.
2. He's against the Americans with Disabilities Act.. Sidenote: He's not pro discrimination, he just thinks regulating people to not discriminate is bad...which I still disagree with . Heavily. Seriously. Fuck. Bigots.
3. He's against public health care. And evidently thinks that in a private system...doctors will just pro bono help poor people.
4. He wants to dissolve public education. No srsly.
5. He thinks Global warming is a hoax And he doesn't think evolution is valid. Which, considering he's a doctor, surprises and scares and confuses the hell out of me.
6. he's against Federal testingthat prevents products that will kill you from being sold in mass retailers.
7. He's radically pro life And wants to make abortion federally considered murder.
8. He wants to do away with Foreign aid as well as pull out of The United Nations because...well...hey...isolationism worked so well in the past, right?
9. He's against the minimum wage which was established for the exact reason he feels it's unnecessary. Paul thinks that companies should be able to pay whatever they want to their workers...it was established in the first place because CEO's and company owners are assholes that don't WANT to pay their workers well. That's how illegal immigrants get work.
10. He voted to build a fence along mexico's border to, in his words, keep americans in. And he wants to end Birthright citizenship. Fuck those babies, what have they done for 'MERRICA?!

Sources:

1. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPOgzl1wvSA
3. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/health-care/
4. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/
5. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/ron-pauls-economic-plan-eliminates-department-of-education-and-5-others/
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCc5Gk1nops
7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
8. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us/politics/08republican-debate-text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
9. http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/27/25741/
10. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/18/ron_paul_foreign_aid_takes_money_from_poor_in_us_given_to_rich.html
11. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html
12. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jue6fNL0CaU
13. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/446/
14. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esp-ruhkZqQ
15. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html

I've got more, if anyone gives a crap.

*rubs eyes* Really? You don't understand what it means to draw a logical line to a piece of knowledge like, "Existence is independent and objective"? Again, simply saying, "You live like you're in a normal life" is not only not an implementation, but it's just one, not TERRIBLY convincing justification.

Once more, if you're going to say "Existence exists" then great, please don't mind the rest of us who have an inkling of knowing what we're talking about when we snicker at you.



Wonderful cop out.

"It was just my opinion, jeez..."

Great, then you'll be perfectly ok when I say that your statement being steeped in ignorance is 'my opinion' and you won't feel any need to argue it, nor ask me to justify the attack, now will you?(nevermind the fact that I already did before you even asked me to)

Also, is that not a tacit admission of ignorance? "I find these quotes annoying because I have trouble understanding them."

GRRR! YOUR PHILOSOPHY CONFOUNDS ME! SHUSH UP! TOO MUCH THINKING!

K, I could easily do that by cut and pasting my original response to you. If you can't understand the problem with what you said from my original response, you simply don't understand. Your position is an oversimplified utilitarian, "Things are as they appear." without any justification, without any pathway to get there, without any explanation as to how you implement this.

In short, if you have an epistemology, actually describe what it is.

And nice act of hypocrisy by the way. So I should explain what's wrong with your beliefs instead of just insulting them? Great, then your original response "I really find quotes like these to be very annoying." without any explanation as to why, is still completely unjustified.

The question is an arbitrary distinction.

There's nothing that constitutes a 'human' life that isn't completely and utterly arbitrary and defined by fiat. Put any other word in for 'human' and it sounds just as silly.

What constitutes a 'lion' life?
What constitutes a 'monkey' life?


Too silly?

What constitutes a 'Black' life?
What constitutes an 'Asian' life?

Too racist?

It's all arbitrary distinction.


A life, is just a life. whatever the life is, is the life of that organism. There's no such thing as an objective standard by which we all live our lives. Different things make different people happy or sad, satisfied or frustrated, depending on where they've been in the past.

A drug addict is happy and feels successful if he's lowered his methamphetamine intake per day.

A businessman can be frustrated for entering the triple digits in the Forbes 400.

Live your life, whatever your life is, is the life of A human. Not a 'human' life.

...What a dickish mentality steeped in ignorance. "I don't dream, so when other people talk about how dreams make reality skewed for them I find it annoying. Keep that shit to yourself and let me enjoy reality as I see it."

Well sorry, but the fact of the matter is that reality ISN'T as easy as, "I see it, so it's there." And if you operate off of the axiomatic idea that existence exists, then don't ever, EVER get involved in a conversation about epistemology like this, because that IS a vital issue that's being introduced all the time in the philosophical community. And people respond to it in a great number of ways. Some accept the Cartesian Cogito(I think therefore I am) as a sufficient proof of subjective reality, and presume everything else to be a probable illusion. These people are solipsistic epstomologists. Some people accept the Cogito and further presume that an objective reality that is reflected somewhat by our senses and evidence of all empirical sorts exists as well, apart from our subjective minds. These people can range from being rationalists, or evidentialists, or logical positivists. SOME people operate from a purely nihilistic "There is no reality" epistemology that don't even accept the Cogito, and find it to be arguable.

You're going to have to deal with all sorts of people who accept all sorts of levels of reality in the world, including those that think that dreams make it probable that existence is just as much a delusion as any dream.

As for me, I accept that reality is separate from my subjective experience for a variety of reasons, mainly utilitarian ones(I.E. I operate off the presumption that existence is objective and independent from my thought. I cannot manipulate reality with my mind. I don't accept that my mind is capable of making up everything that is within existence, including beautiful music, powerful conflicting speeches and a vast variety of different philosophies.)

+ rep for an epic title.

"'Murica!"

But yeah, Mitt Romney's a dumbass, what's new really?

There are some things I like and don't like about Penn Jillette...but goddamn he doesn't represent atheism or 'the atheist perspective' concerning the 2012 election.

Still though, he made some points, and while I disagree with the relevancy of Obama's religious views, I think his views on Romney, and Bachmann, are spot on.

What do you guys think? Does he have some points? Or is he just a blowhard?

I have a friend who's writing a story. And he only updates me with its chapters to see what feedback I can give. Lately he's been getting disinterested in it, and from talking to him, I think it's in huge part due to lack of feedback, and lack of excitement over each new chapter.

So, I'm putting him to the test, without him knowing it. He won't be informed that I'm making these posts, on this forum, and he will have no clue as to what you guys' feedback is, unless it's majoritively good. I'll only be telling him, "So I posted parts of your story up, and people are saying X about it."

If I could get some feedback to share with him from more experienced writing critics on this forum...that'd be sweet. :)

Ok, so...here's my thing. It might not be the most popular opinion, but...here goes.

Double standards exist. This is a fact.

Double standards aren't necessarily a bad thing. The fact is, there's a stark difference between men and women, in many different ways. Denying these differences only serves to make them awkward physical truths that we can no longer socially acknowledge. When I say the phrase, "In general, men tend to be stronger than women" I'm not being misogynistic. I'm stating an observed fact. When I say, "In general, women tend to be more emotional than men." I'm not being a hater of women...I'm stating an observed fact.

When I say men aren't as capable of working as a team as women, I'm stating an observed fact. The need to be the alpha is strong within the male kind of the species. When I say that men tend not to empathize as well as women...that's also an observed fact.

That all being said, I think the doub;e standard that's been brought up all over the world, in all sorts of venues, that men with multiple partners are applauded, and women with multiple partners are looked down on...isn't really true.

IT is true, the point that it happens. But it's not near as...prominent in the fields of being social, that people seem to think it is.

For instance, I'm of the position that I appreciate a woman who has, shall we say, been around? I'm of the position that a woman can do whatever she desires with her body, because....well...it's her body. IF she wants to be chaste, fine. IF she doesn't want to be, that's fine too. The difference is that the main people who DON'T appreciate the unchaste women are...usually, though not exclusively admittedly, other women.

Just like men don't like other men succeeding, because we all wish to be the superior specimen...women don't want other women having so much sex...because it increases the competitive field. It makes it difficult to trust boyfriends(or girlfriends if they're lesbians and bisexual) around those women that are more sexually open. It makes it difficult to COMPETE with those kinds of women.

IT stems, in part, I think, from the fact that women do have the right to their own bodies, and they wish to have no reprecussions for whatever choices they make. In their minds, they shouldn't have limitted relationship options because they're chaste, and men, in the modern day at least, tend to wish for a physical, as well as emotional relationship. In their minds it's not fair that because they've decided to be picky, or extremely patient, then the women who AREN'T picky, or patient, somehow get 'rewarded' with relationships and sexual intercourse.

Men aren't like that. Very, VERY rarely do men make the choice to remain chaste, and when they do, it's considered extremely odd. So...men don't judge eachother on the basis of how sexually open they are. Instead, we compete over who's the MOSt sexually open, with the goal of sleeping with the most women(or men, depending on preference) and having the most stories to share with our friends.

When it comes to dealing with the opposite sex, men and women are competing in two different fields. Women compete, in general, over who can have the most loving and stable relationship. And when other women are being sexually open, that indirectly, and sometimes directly, puts a strain on those relationships. Meanwhile men are competing to se who can have the most partners, and experience the most out of sex.

TL;DR

Yes, there's a double standard, and it's there for good reason. If you don't like it, I have only one thing to say: tough. Grow a backbone. You have chosen to live differently, and will be judged for it. You don't get to say, "But but but you should respect my life choices!" and then have everyone in the world go, "Oh, then you do what you wanna do." You don't get to dictate how your peers will judge you. Deal...with...it.

Edit: I've never seen Flaser mad before. It's smexy.

Mmmno, that's not how it works. If I think about either option, then in my mind I've considered what I would think or what I would gothrough with either option. IF I did nothing, then yes, the punishment for me would be nothing. However...that doesn't mean that I wouldn't feel immensely guilty. I would go through eery day of my life knowing full wel that I COULD have saved 5 people, directly, with minimal effort, but I didn't. That would wrack me for the rest of my life.



Depends. Are you accountable? Is it your fault that the truck hit the city? Could you have simply pushed a button and cause it to kill your home and loved ones instead? Nothing should happen to the person who does nothing, because...they didn't do anything. However, they WILL feel guilty, unless they're a sociopath.



Except in the matter of personal freedoms. Those can't be infringed upon no matter how many people in the country want t omake laws to do so.

Me.

...


Nobutseriously I'd say...mmm...most Popes, communistic leaders, national socialists(nazis)...Yeah that'll do it for now...if I think of more I'll add an edit. This was rather off the cuff compared to most of my posts.

My opinion on this issue constantly changes. Fiscally I'd have to say it's financially irresponsible to keep the death penalty.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/20/local/la-me-adv-death-penalty-costs-20110620

184 million dollars a year can suck my pringles can sized schlong.

The other arguments for and against seem to be based on utilitarian ethics, that is, if one kills someone, then they ought be killed, to prevent them from killing, and to give the victim's loved ones closure.

However, this is also in stark debate, because many loved ones of murder victims say that it's not all that comforting having the person that killed their loved one killed in return. Bloodshed for bloodshed isn't exactly comforting, it's just depressing.

I guess we'll see which way the vote sways over the next little while...and then I'll argue against that side....for shits and giggles.

Depends.

I'm rather politically apathetic for the most part. However, in my opinion it all depends on how you judge these facts:

Of all the things Obama has promised in his campaign, here the facts about them.

He has followed through on 160 campaign promises.

These include banning torture, protecting consumers from credit card ass fuckings, extended tax cuts for the poor, provide the medicare he promised, and hired over 100,000 federal employees with disabilities.

He has compromised, and then followed through in a bipartisan basis on 50.
These include expanding earned income tax credit, establshing a small business initiative for Rural america, create a National Health Insurance exchange, and Invest $10 billion per year in early intervention educational and developmental programs.

He has broken 56.
These include repealing the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes, forbidding companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses, and forming an international group to help Iraq refugees

He's been stalled on 65
These include eliminating all oil and gas tax loopholes, Closing loopholes in the corporate tax deductibility of CEO pay, and lifting the payroll tax cap on earnings above $250,000

And he's written up policies concerning, or is in the middle of being kept, or is being blocked by third parties on 175.
These include creating an international tax haven watch list, Creating a retirement savings tax credit for low incomes, and requiring full disclosure of company pension investments to employees.

It all depends on how you feel about those numbers and promises really. Considering he's a politician, I'm amazed he's kept as many as he has. *shrug*

I'm ignoring you because you're not saying anything new from the first time I responded to you...that and I'm already arguing with a libertarian, I find it tiresome to spread myself thin and argue with two people I'm staunchly politically opposed to, who also have different stances.

As far as laws governing and regulating society, I'd like to know how that takes away from my assertion that one of the many uses of law is to settle disputes between self given rights? It doesn't.



Wrong, that's not what I said.

I said that if it were proven that taking away porn would reduce rape to a significantly minimal low, I would have no problem giving up that right. There's a difference.



It was a hypothetical. I'm well aware why rape happens, where it happens, and what goes on through the minds of most rapists. And I'm not convinced, in any way, that porn is to blame.

Learn what a hypothetical is, please. You're arguing a stance I don't have.



Firstly, I feel the need to YET AGAIN tell you, it was a hypothetical. Lrn2comprehendarguments.

Secondly, I encourage all of that as well. I think sexual education is a must. So...you're not arguing with me at all.



Seriously...learn...what a hypothetical is.



You've clearly never had an argument with a racist. They don't think it's artificial at all. Here, I'll give you an example. Here's a racist I argued with recently on youtube:

"You need to research how genealogists have discovered that African blacks are missing DNA found in Caucasians and Asians originating from Neanderthals. Caucasians and Asians are therefore actually hybrids, Africans are not, making them a different species. The lack of Neanderthal DNA may explain the lower average IQ of African blacks, and their superiority in physical labour."

Now, before you go off on me and tell me why he's wrong, I already explained how wrong he is, and lol'd at him. The validity of the content of his post isn't the point. It's the fact that he literally thinks it's a scientific fact that africans are inferior to Caucasians.



Like, say, made up geneology facts? Like the guy I quoted above?



Yeah, I know, and it made me shake my head in boredom when I explained the problem with Nationalism, and you brushed it off by calling it "Anti-nationalist propaganda". Clearly you have no intention of critically examining your position.



We do choose. We aren't being forced to stay here. There's no military telling you that you don't get to move. There's nothing telling you that you don't get to go anywhere because you're part of a collective. I'm having a hard time deriving a point from your ramblings.



...I'm sorry, but you're advocating that fascism is a position of freedom.

I honestly don't know what to say. It's so stupid...it...wow...just...wow.

Oh then by all MEANS, if his economic policy resulted in fiscal prosperity, then we should just stay out of the implementation of monstrous policies like Sharia Law, indoctrinating school students with his ideology. Or maybe the fact that he delineated the importance of protecting oneself from diseases. Just like I call out the Catholic Church for saying Condoms are worse than AIDS? I condemn Gadafi for saying HIV is a peaceful virus that straight people have nothing to worry about.

Also, if he's going to make a speech and say that the United States needs to prevent wars more often, then maybe that's a tacit allowance that we ought to do everything in our power, in accordance to his own words, to stop oppression, wherever we find it.

I mean, jesus, his own people have tried to assassinate him in the past, clearly they had a problem with him.



Social contract theory is regularly applied to the government, but it's applied to other places as well, including the fact that we have to deal with EACHOTHEr on a regular basis. I surrender my right to kill you for various reasons, for instance.

We do give ourselves rights, we're also the ones that decide when they're allowed to be infringed upon, or when other people should have theirs infringed upon.

Also, social contract theory doesn't explain where rights COME from, just what we do with them. Rights still come from us regardless.



Anarchy? No. Otherwise I wouldn't be advocating the idea of Law, and the fact that I do believe the government should make laws keeping people from being "racist dickheads" on a large scale. Fighting other people infringing on our rights is necessarily done through legal channels, as well as rational discourse.

Oh ,and I never said government should regulate charity. Anarchy is a methodology, and not one that I've ever once implied to support. Anarchy states that there ought be NO regulation, NO laws, NO government, and that if your rights are being infringed on, the only recourse you should be allowed to have is either physical violence, or discourse. I offer another option, legal recourse.

How ELSE does one fight against people imposing their will on others in an anarchistic system? I don't support it, it's too limiting in what people can do to protect themselves. I support both being able to be aggressive, and defensive, at the same time, for all people.

[quote="Fiery_penguin_of_doom"]

You're a big boy but, here let me get you started.


Yaaay, took oyu long enough to link any of your claims to some type of source material.

Though, of course, i find it hilarious that you didn't do the same with the original claim you made about the current Libyan situation, which was the original thing I felt smelled of bullshit. I suppose when you don't have real sources for your claims, you make more claims until you do. Interesting argumentation style.



Firstly, the mass graves thing is just an example. Are you saying these guys weren't violently oppressing their people That their people were going, "Wow it's great to live under THIS guy's thumb."? I don't think so. Point still stands. I'm waiting for you to actually provide an argument, instead of introduce a bunch of red herrings.



Nope. You're perverting the burden of proof. If this were about belief in god, you're currently taking the stance "There is no god."

Which, DOES have a burden of proof with it, you silly.

Seriously, do you honestly think you have no burden of proof when you say, "Bullshit, you're wrong and stupid."? Because if so, you might want to take an intro to logic course bud.

As far as me demonstrating MY point: Rights are bestowed by the people. I am a part of the people, and I bestow that right to the united states, hence, the united states has that right. Do I need to spell out a syllogism for you? Because I'll do it if you want.



Libertarians ARE for doing whatever you want. They're for rich people keeping their money and using it for whatever they want, and for anyone to marry who they want, have whatever job they want, go where they want, all that. The Libertarian view is taking the stance of total social freedom, and total economic freedom. Which is...letting people do what they want.



I've remained consistent this whole time, the fact that you can't understand basic logic isn't my problem buddy. You're making the assertion that when I say, "I have the right to do X" then I'm also saying "I OUGHT to do X."


That's what we logical people call a non sequitor, and you're projecting it on me, so you're straw manning me with a non sequitor, and when I object to you doing it, you say, "Pfft, you can't remain consistent."

I feel like I'm arguing with an undergrad that took 4 political science courses and now thinks he knows everything.



Ahh there we go with the libertarian universal salve, "People will do what's right, and stop supporting racists like that." Sorry, but you're wrong. Big evil corporations do what they want, people KNOW the bullshit they do, and still buy from them to save whatever pennies they can.

Most people know the bad things about Wal Mart, they tend to ignore it, or rationalize it away though, because where else can you get two pairs of jeans for 10 dollars? Oh, and before you simply sum your counter argument with, "Lolurfullofshit" like you have been, how else do you think Wal Mart's been doing so well, when it's common knowledge that they're sexist when it comes to women in the workplace, they're anti-union to the point of spreading propaganda, and the destruction of mom and pop stores by its locations happens all the time.

Yet, none of that seems to stop people from shopping there. Funny that.



Go do some reading on social contract theory. It is my dad's right to hire someone or not, but the fact is, if he lives and does business in this country, then he agrees to abide by its laws, and social contracts, including the fact that racism? Not tolerated. The laws are way against someone who tries to do that, and they stand to lose their company in lawsuits. Is that the best way to go about it? No, I think it could be better, but it's a step in the right direction.



God job, completely disregard my point, don't bother trying to debunk it, and try and build your libertarian policies off of it. In any case, you're still wrong, because of reasons I've already stated. Discriminating against customers or having a bad reputation in no way necessarily hurts a company. Sorry, but that's the fact of life you're gonna have to deal with. :)



The difference is, you're equivocating affirmative action, with having laws keeping people from discriminating. Does it not occur to you that it's possible to have more comprehensive laws that don't have the flaws of affirmative action? That don't FORCE you to hire minorities, purely because they're minorities? And yes, I did say I was against business owners being forced to hire minorities just because. Again, not my fault you have an inability to pay attention.



Why thank you.



I gave myself that right...just like ALL rights that ALL people have. Do you honestly think if a right isn't written down somewhere, then it necessarily doesn't exist? That's insane. Rights come from us in the FIRST place.



Pot, kettle enjoyed your date yesterday and wants to go out again.

Not only have you agreed that this is the necessary conclusion of ANY political philosophy, but that's the way the world works in the FIRST place. Don't like it? Tough. If 99% of the world wanted to enslave the 1%? Guess what retaliation the 1% could do? None at all. The only thing they could do was try to fight, physically, argue about why slavery is wrong(my position) to see if they cant lower that 99%, or run away and form a commune isolated from the 99%.

Which is your position?



Except that the money you saved? Came from somewhere. Likely? People buying your services, or merchandise, or you receiving a loan from a bank, which used other people's money to do that. Money doesn't just appear out of nowhere and you just all of a sudden have money to own a business with. No, you have someone to thank for every cent you make, and it's not just yourself.



And other people spent THEIR time, and THEIR money, in a way that allowed you to HAVE that building, and that merchandise.

So no, you don't have exclusive ownership. Sorry.



I'm remaining consistent. the fact that your brain can't comprehend simple words isn't my fault.



BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously though. that was a funny joke. Lol, the idea that you've been consistent. Goodness. You've got me rolling on the floor.



Oh, so I'm a hypocrite because you simply assumed a conclusion that I never gave you.

In that case, you're a hypocrite, because I'm going to assume that you don't want Bill Gates to have the right to spend his money the way he could, because you REALLY feel like he should spend that money helping other people, and that you support laws making sure that rich people like him have to give money to charities.

Oh wait, you never said any of that, so that's not fair of me to say.

You idiot.

I'm PERFECTLY OK with people infringing on my rights, provided they've got some valid reasons to do it. Otherwise, I will fight it, as I already said, and you quoted.



I honestly can't see why you don't understand this.

I have the right to violate your rights, and YOU have the right to try and stop me, however you want, including, oh I don't know, convincing me that it's not a good idea. There's no hypocrisy here...I'm giving everyone the same exact rights that I extend to myself.



Yes, I know, because, like the founding fathers recognized, I believe that some rights ought to have limits, including speech.



Arguing with you is becoming a tiresome chore. You are causing physical pain. Seriously, your lack of understanding od anything I say is causing me physical pain via a headache.

See how much that accomplishes?



Yup, I said that. totally, oh wait...

Seriously, englishmotherfuckerdoyouspeakit.jpg



I'm going to do exactly what you've done to me, just to see how you like it. "You're not anti-war? You're ok with war? fucking neocon warmongering bullshit."

See what I did there? Completely ignoring what you're saying picking out select words and arguing against a complete non position that you don't hold? Yeah, doesn't feel good, does it?

Go ahead and fight for my right to say what I say. I appreciate it. I still think you're wrong though. :)



Ok, so what you're saying is, "Yes, I DO have '0' dollars."

Now, let me ask you a few questions. What if Ziggy, and your dad, never gave you that money or paid for your stuff? Where do you think scholarship money comes from? If they decided, "Nah, fuck you FPOD, I'm keeping my money." would you say, "Well that's your right, since it's your money, I understand." Or would you go, "Dude, I'm in a REALLY bad spot right now, a LITTle help won't hurt you, dick."?



I stand corrected then. I still don't believe that you'd literally adopt african families to move to america and live with you if you had...say...JUST ENOUGH money to do that though. The max I believe you MIGHT do is help some people you personally know.



Oh good, I was actually going to suggest we stop. The fact that you seem to willfully ignore my points and pluck new ones from the ether of an alternate reality is really starting to get on my tits.

In all seriousness though FPOD, for the most part, I have little to argue with you about. The only thing I think we really disagree on is the libertarian position's efficacy. It's a shame we disagree so whole heartedly that it's turned into an out and out flame war/bitchfest.




I really don't understand how you can understand my position, and call it hypocrisy. How can someone be a hypocrite for giving everyone the same rights he gives himself? I honestly don't get it. Do you think I say that people don't have the right to fight my attempts to infringe on their rights? Because they DO have that right, and I never, EVER denied it. I have no clue why you think I've decided that right disappears somehow when it's me doing the infringing. I've never indicated at all in our entire exchange that this was the case, yet you've presumed it just is.



Just knowing that the great FPOD pays attention to me brings a smile to my face.



Well you're certainly showing no signs of giving a shit towards being willing to change your mind now. Also, I think it's interesting that throughout your life you went from one political extreme, to another. Seems being a moderate just isn't in your vocabulary.



By the end of this post, I really feel like just becoming one. Especially since you show no signs of wanting to have any conversation that isn't me conceding every point to you that you've presumed is true from the get go.

Seriously, it's like talking to a wall.

And not a single scholarly link for any of them. Not only that, but you an't specify to what degree. By backing do you meant they led the assault? Or that they sold weapons? Because selling weapons is something we do all the time that I don't find all that controversial.



Yeah, I agree to that last bit. Unless diplomacy won't work. Like, say, with Hitler. And before you say, "Lol Godwin's Law" I AM right. Diplomacy was attempted with Hitler, and what happened? He took over countries and territory more and more until people said, "Right, enough of that, time to fight."

The United States, however, DOES have the right to interfere with domestic policies of other countries, either diplomatically or violently. I personally prefer diplomaticaly, though there ARE going to be instances when that's not enough. Are you seriously saying, our policy ought to be "Yeah, alll those mass graves of your citizens you've been putting in gass chambers? Could you...like..NOT do that? No? You're going to keep doing it? Well, I guess I tried."



Wah. If it's bullshit, show me why I'm wrong instead of just declaring it outright.



So...you're not for freedom? Good lord, can you at least TRY to remain consistent?



Unless diplomacy is proving to be completely ineffective. Seriously FPOD, do you honestly think that "having the right to do X" is an equivalent statement to "We ought to do X."? Because if so, I think you're on drugs.



Which I've already conceded, yet you continue to miss the point. IF there are people out there that ARe saying, "You don't get to be hired to this place because you are black" Then that is a problem that needs to be stopped.



You seem to think the only people who hire workers are the owners of businesses. Let me let you in a little secret: The owners of businesses regularly don't have the time to do the hiring, so they have someone else do it for them. I know. My dad's a business owner, and he doesn't hire anyone, nor get involved with what workers do.

Still, it's a moot point, because I disagree regardless. There's a difference between, "I don't want a black person in my house" and "A black person will never set foot in my company." The difference is that your company is only sccessful based on its consumer base. That consumer base may include black people, so black people are contributing the infrastructure of your company, meaning, they get to set foot in there, whether you like it or not.



I've already long conceded that I'm against affirmative action. I'm unsure why you keep asking me this question when I said as much already...unless...wait...are you just SKIMMING my posts to pick out little things to respond to? Are you not paying any attention to my posts? Shame.



No, because that's EVERYONE'S right. Did I say it's exclusively my right because of reason X or it's exclusively my right because of characteristic Y? No, I just said it's my right, which doesn't exclude anyone else.



And our responsibility ought to be making it as hard as fucking possible for him or her to do it without getting sued like a motherfucker. Why? Because if they can't develop with society's morals, then they DESERVE bad shit to happen to them.



See above as to how commercial property is the property of everyone.

Concerning your question of if you can come in and start taking things, no, though not because you don't in part own the property...it's because the owner of the business owns more of his property than you do, because he/she has sunk far more money into it, and has legal documentation to prove it. Therefore, whe nthey buy goods or merchandise, or tools or what have you, they have the right to have discretion as to how the tools can be used, or how much goods and merchandise should cost to the general public. There's a social contract in play where we, as the general public, agree to pay for goods and merchandise from a business in exchange for that business being able to provide us with those things, which includes us not taking directly from its profits.



Pot, meet kettle.



So..I'm a hypocrite because I'm extending the right I give myself to everyone else...what?



Of course they have the right to do it. And I have the right to fight it should I find it unjust. I'm wondering how you don't understand this.



Give it a shot. I'm willing to make compromises for, say, the safety of others. Say I'm a shitty guy that spreads misinformation on the internet and causes people to go out and do bad things...there's some ground there to maybe try and get me to stop spreading that misinformation.



See? You prove my point again. :D You would prefer to do something that personally makes you feel better, and that makes you personally feel like you've done something, than to do something that actually helps someone else. The time that you've been spending arguing with me could have been spent volunteering at a soup kitchen, or spending time going out and cleaning the highways, or whatever. There's always more you could do, yet you don't, because at a certain point you reach the point where you say, just like EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD, "Time for some time and energy spent on myself."



Nope, never said that you 'hate' anyone, didn't even imply it. If you don't volunteer in a laboratory, or go out and try to study to learn how to cure a disease, that doesn't mean that you hate people suffering from that disease, it just means you don't care about the subject as much as other people. And, news flash FPOD: THAT'S PERFECTLY ALRIGHT. Get it through your head.



Should have used the Marine Corps line in the beginning, though I suppose it kind of undermines the whole idea of being anti-war. you should join the Peace Corps, not the Marines.

You have money, you don't have '0' dollars, otherwise there's no way you'd be able to pay for all the things that you do, including the internet. This isn't an assumption about you made based off nothing, it's the logical conclusion. The fact is, you care about providing for yourself first, before the Africans. That's the fact, proving my point all the more.



So you're lying when you say you pay for a basic internet package?



No, I took what you said and took it to it's logical conclusion. You currently have money, as evidenced by the fact that you're paying for internet, and a place to stay. You could voluntarily go homeless, sell all your shit, and give all the proceeds to african families if you wanted to...but...well..you don't. I know this because you're still here, on Fakku.

These are evidence based logical conclusions, not gross assumptions that "I know nothing about".



Already explained why you have a misconception of my position, and that I extend all the rights that I have to everyone else. Try to actually understand someone's position before frothing at the mouth.



Aside from, you know, making assumptions about my person that you know nothing about, aside from what I share on Fakku, and all the other things YOU said when you got pissed off at thinking I was doing the same thing.

Now who's the hypocrite? ;)



Ah, the old standby, "This guy infuriates me with his contradictory position, this makes him a troll."

Are you so set in stone that your position is the only right one that you're not even amicable to the position that someone who's...say...anti libertarian might have some actual points?

Seriously, puling the troll card is the last line of defense when someone has no real argument to offer. If I were to call you a troll right about now, would I be justified just because your contradictory stance and inability to comprehend what my argument is annoys me?