1. Why is it wrong to kill a violent criminal but okay to kill an innocent fetus? I'm not particularly opposed to abortions, but it makes no sense that you rail against capital punishment while endorsing abortion.
2. Why do you despise Christianity but tell everyone else that their religions are beautiful and are to be respected? I don't understand how you can extol the greatness of science and education while while telling everyone (other than Christians) that their baseless beliefs should be protected. I'm generally opposed to religion, so I say if you're going to hate one of them, hate all of them.
3. Why is it wrong from conservatives to go on fear mongering about terrorism but it's okay for you to tell everyone the world is going to end because of global warming? Whether or not you believe in either of these supposed threats it's clear that both sides are using fear to manipulate people. Why not take the higher road if you're so educated and ethical?
4. Why do you like Mac so much?
5. Why do you believe the federal government can fix all of society's ills when it can barely deliver the mail? It has been proven throughout history that large central governments lead to corruption and abuse. Why do you continue to support big government?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 14:15
They are self hating Americans and self hating Whites. They get satisfaction from thinking they are helping people too weak to succedd themselves, but they betray their own by doing it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 14:21
1. The taking of life is wrong. But abortions do not qualify as the take of a human life.
2. Christianity is the religion, among them all, that forces it's way into politics and the social fabric of western culture. I like Buddists more than Christians because of this fact. Guess what? We ain't crazy about Islam, either.
3. Because the possibly of us creating an enviroment that we can't live in is more possible than a "terrorist" blowing up the "whole world"
4. Huh?
5. Neo liberals "Libfags" etc, don't believe this. In fact, present day government expansion has been a neo con project. And this is somewhat due to deterministic christian beliefs
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 14:26
>>3
1. Let's just go with your assertion that a fetus is not a human life. It still has the potential to become a human life. The criminal on death row however has already wasted any potential his life had. Wouldn't the fetus be more valuable as an asset to society? I mean, say that fetus is born and becomes a human being. It would have to get a job someday and then you could tax its income, right? Why waste such an important source of revenue?
Name:
Fuck McHitler2007-11-14 15:10
I think the underlying issue here is obesity in America.
Because without their participation in the economy, GDP will not be affected, and their taxes are not a necessity.
To answer your question about religion: I only respect Buddhism. While I don't agree with karma or reincarnation, I am fond of its asceticism and prudence.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 15:37
>>4
every time a woman ovulates, she loses an egg, eggs are potential fetuses.
so you want to ban ovulating without pregnancy?
women have the prospect of becoming mother's their entire life, i'd prefer they get an abortion when they accidently become pregnant with an unwanted child, than have a kid they don't really want. This gives better conditions for all the humans involved.
i'm against death penalty. Fetuses aren't living humans, so you can abort them just fine. the criminal however is a living human, and you can't just abort those.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 15:58
>>7
I agree that abortions should be available and legal, but I think it's retarded to defend the life of a criminal. What value could their life have when they've already devalued an innocent life by killing or raping someone? And why the fuck should they of all people get three meals a day and medical treatment for life when there are literally millions of people around the world much more deserving.
robbing people of their freedom should be the hardest punishment the state should be able to give, enabling the state to rob people of their lives is giving it too much power.
"Wouldn't the fetus be more valuable as an asset to society?"
That's the key difference in mentality between liberals and conservatives. Liberals value life for its own merits, not because of its "value to society". Hence, we want to protect the environment for its own sake, regardless of how much economic value it has.
Liberals want to make sure the elderly live comfortably, long after their economic value to society has diminished. Similarly, we want good education for the young, so that they can maximize their potential- not for society's sake, but simply because each individual is better off if he can get the highest degree and the best job that his talent and ambition can take him, regardless of how wealthy his family is. These kinds of things take high levels of taxation.
Conservatives, on the other hand, don't value other people intrinsically. Many of them (like on 4chan) are full of anger at society, as well. They want to torture and murder people, and so they look for excuses to do so (a few hundred years ago, it was witches; today, it's child molesters and more generic 'criminals').
Q1 - executing people for crimes they didn't actually commit is the problem, evidenced by all the recent releases of innocent people from death row (yea DNA)
Q2 - Christians won't stop trying to make all us non-christians live under their christian rules. shut the fuck up about the bible this or the bible that. that shit makes christians no different than the "islamo-fascists"
Q3 - conservatives get it wrong every time. conservatives go on about how to fight the "war on terror" but everything they say is bullshit. conservatives are why we're losing, conservatives are the problem.
Q4 - got me there. I use a pc myself.
Q5 - a false assumption. the problem is that corporations do worse than the gov't in providing essential services (fire/police/medical/utilities/etc). as an example, Walter Reed was a good hospital until the private contractors took over. corporations are also not as responsible to people as gov't. don't give me that shit about the market, because if the market determined these things microsoft would have gone under 20 years ago.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-15 1:25
>>Why do you believe the federal government can fix all of society's ills when it can barely deliver the mail?
In your shitty government. I live in fucking France and the government does shit loads, while keeping a market economy. Fucking Americans think that the whole world revolves around them, and can't comprehend working welfare states, like ALL OF FUCKING EUROPE has.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-15 2:04
Q1: A fetus isn't human. It's simple as that. Also, killing a convicted murderer who would get life in prison won't do anyone any good, as abortion may very well achieve.
Q2: I don't despise Christianity, I despise that fact that they keep on butting into things that will effect a large amount of people and changing it to serve their own false beliefs. I respect a person's beliefs and choice to believe, for that reason, I hate any Christian trying to impose religion on others through the government. If you notice, we aren't abolishing women's rights because of the Muslims in our society.
Q3: Terrorism doesn't pose any long-term threat. Global warming does.
Q4: I don't
Q5: It's been proven big government can work in providing rights, medical care, etc. in Europe. Also, corporations don't serve the people, as the government does. Also, if you haven't noticed, private contractors are cocking quite a few things up in Iraq.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-15 2:05
>>14
That's all well and good, but I was directing my questions toward Americans. Maybe you should check in on your ability to read context, because these issues tend to be some of the big ones among Americans.
And speaking of welfare states, I've heard France's unemployment rate is somewhere around 22%. What exactly does your government do with so many unemployed people? If I'm wrong on the figure let me know, I may have heard wrong.
you heard wrong, it's ~7-8% these days, through the 90's it was between 8-10%
Granted this is higher than the average american unemployment of what? 4-5% ? but nobody said having a welfare state didn't have a price.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-17 1:52
>>17
I'll take America and my liberties over a eurofag welfare state, thx.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-17 3:31
>>17
lul welfare state are supposed to be shitty but have EVERYONE employed, retard.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-17 4:33
>>19
no, the goal is that NO ONE works
why would they need welfare if they'd work?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-17 4:51
1. Killing a violent criminal won't really solve anything; better for him to rot in prison anyway. I'm ok with abortion as long as it doesn't go past a certain stage.
2. I don't despise Christianity, I despise the cunts that enforce their beliefs on to others for idiotic reasons. Example: bitching about a specific book, or movie, and demonizing it. Their views against sex are fucking idiotic, I think; celibacy is something which almost completely takes away the entire point of sex.
3. Because the world as a whole is obviously a thousand times more important than someone who is/was living in a cave, and will likely never be found. The world does not revolve around the fucking U.S.
4. I don't really care for Mac, except for their video editing capabilities and Adobe. Microsoft does however pump out shit after shit.
5. I don't support our government at all. In fact, I believe that government leads to corruption either way.
1. And the money to sustain his existence comes from ... ?! Listen. If you want criminals alive because, as we all know, libfags serve criminals, set up a fund raiser and who ever wants to pay for their being alive shall do so. Don't force everyone into your faggotry.
2. I don't despise Libfaggotry either, only the cunts that took over the media and academia and enforce their pipe dreams on to others for idiotic reasons. Example: Affirmative Action, Political Correctness, racial equality (This especially grinds my gears, as a population geneticist), and unnecessary spending. Also, the Wilsonian idea of going to wars, spreading democracy. Their views on spending money on niggers to supposedly improve them are idiotic, and have a total disregard of reality. For example, reparations for slavery, wtf?
3. OP is a faggot, conservatives are supposed to be anti-war.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-17 21:26
>racial equality (This especially grinds my gears, as a population geneticist)
lol, even the neocons wont go their
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-18 21:31
>>23
wow...you pretty much beat me to what i was gona say
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-18 22:13
>>23
Point 3 isn't about being for or against the war, faggot. It's about how Libfags scream "FEAR MONGER!" at conservatives for using scare tactics to influence people's opinions, but at the same time rely on more scare tactics to push a global warming agenda as if it were going to melt us all the day after tomorrow. In other words, the pot is calling the kettle black. Oh but wait, being a hypocrite is just part of the libfag moral code.
A failing attempt to compare fear-mongering to raising awareness.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-19 2:54
>>27
so you're telling me that raising awareness about the threats of the middle east and proposing a solution (carpet bombing) is fear mongering, where as raising awareness about the threats of global warming and proposing a solution (reduction of CO2 emissions) is not? pah!
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-19 3:24
>>28
Sadly the proposed solutions to both of those problems are absolute bullshit. The middle east won't be any less of a shithole if we pussy foot around it with half-assed "defeat an ideology" campaigns. And reducing CO2 will not affect global warming either, it is a process over which humans have no control whatsoever.
Rather the alternative for solving the middle east problem lies in freeing the women of the middle east. When women are treated as equals the middle east will know peace and civilization. As for global warming, you fags are just going to have to wait. The Earth will cool off eventually, as it always does. Then you can rant and rave about how "imaginary threat X" is causing glaciers to grow larger and larger.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-19 6:20
I hardly see the christian fundies who try to "enforce their beliefs on to others" in day to day life, not to say they don't exist just that the only way it seems I can come across them is if I go out and find them.
Libfags on the otherhand are everywhere. All large institutions have a diversity policy of some sort where they put up posters of smiling black people and go "WE ARE TEH MULTIDIVERSITOLERACULTURAL!!", frankly I find this shit patronising. The only time I've seen jesus campers succesfully affect national policy is gay marriage and creationism in schools of counties in which 99.5% of the population is mormon which is nothing compared to the effect liberals have had in curbing the United State's sovereign right to protect their borders from illegal immigration, curbing US citizen's right to bear arms and a plethora of taxes and state intervention in the economy that has seen 1000000s of jobs lost particularly those of vulnerable ethnic minorities.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-19 14:21
>>30
PROTIP:
excluding the past 1.5? years republicans and neocons haven't done shit about illegal immigration and outsourcing either, a lot are practically supporting it by blocking attempts hold business accountable for hiring illegals
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-20 4:39
>>30
really? listen to what james dobson, pat robertson, and what all the other duche bags say? how they rile up their retarded followers to pitch a hissy fit over retarded shit like a nipple, covered by a fucking pastie btw? or trying to teach horseshit like 'intelligent design' in our schools?
when I was a kid you couldn't buy most things at the store on sunday because of the fucking christians, it was the law (called blue laws). thankfully that shit ended in the 80's.
social conservatives can eat my shit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-20 18:50
As a law in some states, you cannot become a public servant unless you believe in God.
Seperation of state and church please?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-20 23:09
Q1, i love it when morons like Anne coulter go on about how liberals want to kill babies and free criminals. the case for abortion does not center on whether on not the child is alive, it centers on the lives of the people who are already living, namely the mother and the situation she is living in. If a young woman can look at her pregnancy as a corroding force in her life and wants to end it, what will it serve by forcing her to have a child she does not want and cannot care for?
News flash to the bleeding hearts, children take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise. they take untold ammounts of determination, devotion, love, and sacrifice to make into a worthwhile person who won't end up on death row like the aforementioned criminal.
We have too many criminals, psychos, child molesters, and illiterate urban trash as it is. If you can't do it right, please don't do it at all.
Oh, and I have a mac because it looks beautiful, it was cheaper, it came with more features right out of the box, it has a better operating system, and it doesn't crash. ever.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 0:56
>>34
I like how you mention that children have the potential to end up as criminals but you fail to bring up the notion they might also grow up to be good people or even the next Einstein. It certainly would be a shame if the (potential) man who discovers [amazing new technology X] were simply thrown in a trash can because a woman couldn't deal with her natural responsibilities in the cycle of life.
But I'm not saying that abortion should be illegal. It's just a shame that some people value the lives of criminals over limitless new potential.
And really, why is locking someone up for life any less cruel than putting them out of their misery? What kind of existence is worth having locked up in 6x12 cell with the possibility of being raped in the shower? Isn't that sort of treatment even worse than death? A life with no freedom and no opportunity to reach your dreams is somehow humane? LOL
and you can't use that argument, both 34 and 35, that "ohh, maybe once in the future this kid will grow up to be this and this and this". That's not relevant at all since it's in the future and we can't say anything certain about it.
1. Guess what? I don't want to have to pay for some prom night mistake conceived in the back of some hicks pick up.
2. NeoCon are doing the same thing. When it comes the stupidity of the two parties it's a zero sum game with politicians and beaucrats basing their ideals around fear and bullshit.
That threat, by now has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt to be existent. The only people who say other wise are ignorant fucktards.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 2:39
>>36
So now it's okay to treat criminals inhumanely as a deterrent against future crime, but it's wrong to use torture on enemy combatants? Do you libfags sit in your coffee shops all day just thinking of ways to contradict yourselves?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 4:08
>>38
god your a tool,
the problem is
A: enemy combatants don't get a trail
B: even if criminals were tortured beyond being confined it would be a finite punishment to fit the crime
(not imprisoned forever for ???)
C: enemy combatant has no fixed definition
(lol communist list)
D: every other point is moot becouse everything is happening behind closed doors except for a few media leaks
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 9:01
If a fetus is over 20 weeks aborting it is wrong. Under 20 weeks and it's fine.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 10:55
"That threat, by now has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt to be existent. The only people who say other wise are ignorant fucktards."
Yeah, those scientists who are in the minority are 'ignorant fucktards' aren't they? I'm sure you are WAY more informed/intelligent.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 11:00
With regard to the supposed global warming 'threat,' you need to consider what the impacts of global warming actually will be.
Hint: even were it true, the effects aren't going to be nearly as bad as all the envirofags are saying they will be. Gore had to do a good deal of fearmongering and doomsday preaching that just isn't conclusively supported by the data in order to sound interesting enough to make your average guy listen to his blather on the environment.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 15:16
"That threat, by now has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt to be existent. The only people who say other wise are ignorant fucktards."
And what about the threat of terrorism? I mean, it's not like there has never been a terrorist act anywhere ever. The only conclusive evidence for global warming is what a group of scientists has told you. So far, global warming has killed 0, that's ZERO, people. Islamic terrorists on the other hand have actually killed many many people. Hmmm, I wonder which is the more immediate threat?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 17:22
>>39
That's not the point, faggot. The point is that you should be opposed to all forms of human rights violations. Shouldn't you? Or can you just pick and choose now?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 17:38
>>42
yeah, worldwide crop failures, coastal cities going below sea level, stronger/more frequent storms... yeah, that shit's nothing. fucking moron. the only scientists that say global warming isn't real and isn't a threat are the same type that said cigarrettes aren't bad for you - lying sacks of shit.
>>43
global warming is the graver threat. its already killed people by storms/droughts. islamic terrorism is a social issue which cannot be solved by military intervention (short of exterminating all muslims). maybe if you actually learned about this shit instead of parroting what you hear on talk radio you wouldn't sound like such a retard.
it's not a human rights violation to imprison people, it's a human rights violation to do it because of things listed in the human rights charter. you can't imprison people because of what they say or think, or because of how they look, or because of where they're from, etc.
some people find prison inhuman, other's don't, as long as there is access to certain facilities it isn't considered inhuman according to the various international agreements on what is inhuman and not inhuman.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 21:19
>>45
Scientist say X, scientists say Y, scientists say....etc. etc.
True fact: Scientists are humans and are just as biased as anyone else. And you can minipulate a study or a statistic to say whatever the fuck you want.
Scientists want funding and grants for research, so why not tell everyone something interesting so maybe people will throw money at them for more studies?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 21:36
>>47
fucking retard. the evidence is beyond overwhelming, you're apparently just too stupid to understand it.
>>46
many of the holes in foreign countries we throw people in are inhuman. the do torture. too many of the people we imprison in the 'war on terror' are innocent - either mistaken identity or innocent people turned in by vindictive neighbors. this kind of shit just makes more terrorists.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 22:16
>>43
and terrorism is a issue that needs to be addresses,
but not by running around like a chicken with its head cut off and bombing anyone who looks at you the wrong way
It doesn't matter what "international charters" say. What is and is not humane treatment is metaphysically independent of that.
Prison and the death penalty are inhumane--which is why they're perfectly appropriate for those who choose to violate the sacred individual rights of others.
Name:
Largo Andante2007-11-21 23:24
The problem with government welfare is that it is slavery, which is wholly indefensible.
The individual is an end in himself, and exists solely for his own sake, to pursue his own rational self-interest. He has no obligation to provide for others, and others have no obligation to provide for him. The mere fact of his existence does not entitle him to the means by which to continue that existence.
As for global warming, it's absurd to say it's not happening unless you want to claim that everyone is lying about what they're reading off their thermometers (simplified, I know, but that's the gist of it). The problem, though, is this: is the cure worse than the disease?
Climatologists are uniquely qualified to tell us about what is likely to happen with the climate, what is causing it, and how it can be stopped. What neither they nor anyone else is qualified to answer is the normative question of whether it should be stopped. The answer to this question depends on the cumulative subjective value judgments of the entire world's population.
See, in the real world everything is a tradeoff. Every use of resources to stop or contain global warming proactively diverts them from other uses that might in fact have a more desirable net effect--and what constitutes a "desirable net effect" is based on the sum of the utility preferences of every single human being on earth. No climatologist, no government, no monolithic entity at all has the information necessary to decide which measure would be the best to take. But the free market, in which every individual implicitly contributes his own bit of knowledge and his own value preferences to maximize his own utility, can do just that.
So it's a horrible idea to try and get government involved in dealing with climate change. The market, by definition, will produce the outcome that best maximizes utility across the board--in other words, it will produce the solution that is best for actual people. It's the ultimate in distributed decision-making.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-22 1:17
>>51
the market alone doesn't work any more than communism works. your argument is pie in the sky horseshit. the market will do what looks best in next quarter's report.
Germany's a good example of how gov't can make change happen: they give tax breaks to homeowners who put solar cells on their property and connect them to the electric grid. solar collectors are popping up all over and are making a real contribution to electric power in Germany while also helping reduce global warming.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-22 2:28
>>52
lol @ libfags. who gives a fuck about global warming? I certainly don't.
i say let the world warm up.... we'll grow oranges in alaska! HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHA
But the truth is humans can do nothing to prevent global warming. They can't do anything to contribute to it either. I don't what fucking level of huburis libfags have but it must be amazing for them to actually think humans can have some sort of disasterous effect on the climate of the entire fucking planet.
Also, please do explain why the polar caps of Mars are also melting. Is my CO2 pumping car causing a warming effect there too?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-22 4:54
>>54
So ignore the numerous reports that it is actually happening.
Humans are having an extreme impact on the environment, research damage done to the Great Barrier reef is just a small example of this. Humans have been affecting the world, over fishing, over hunting has caused the extinction of numerous species and poor farming methods are also having effects on the environment. To say that humans arent having an impact is stupid, early farmers in the Fertile crescent over harvested nearby trees for fire wood, causing total deforestation, to which the region has not recovered. Were not looking at mars, which is a completely different thing. It is simple, were taking CO2 from under the ground (oil, coal, etc) and releasing it into the atmosphere and it is having an adverse affect on the environment.
yes, and those countries are doing human rights violations which we should try to stop, furthermore we should stop working with them.
Name:
Largo Andante2007-11-22 10:17
51: You're missing the point. You're saying the market won't do what you want done, which is probably correct if you think the only way to minimize its negative impact is to stop it outright.
But that's incredibly narrow-minded, not to mention megalomaniacal, thinking.
It isn't necessarily true that the most effective and efficient method of dealing with climate change is to proactively stop it. It could be that the method which best minimizes impact on human life--that is, the method which maximizes utility globally--is instead reactive. The ONLY means of discovering this method is through the workings of the free market.
Climate change isn't something that needs to be stopped for its own sake. It only needs to be dealt with to the extent that it negatively affects the actual interests of real people IF IN FACT IT DOES--and the market is the only mechanism capable of dealing with this, because it is the only means available of accumulating and processing all the information necessary to make such a decision.
And if the market winds up not dealing with climate change at all, it's because people have decided that it's not actually a problem--which is perfectly fine, and perfectly possible.
Your problem is that you are a megalomaniac.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-22 15:51
>>55
Yes let's just ignore what's happening on Mars. That couldn't possibly be related at all to what's happening on Earth. No, the sun's activity has nothing to do with it all. It's all the little green men on Mars with their SUVs that are causing Martian polar caps to melt.
If you're going to insist that scientists are right about what's happening on Earth you're going to have to accept what they say about Mars too. You can't choose to take in scientific evidence only when it's convenient you fucking prick.
Your Bush Administration currently uses terrorism as a means to a more sinister end. That is, a justification for the forcible sodomy of your Constitution.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-22 18:35
>>53 >>54
so, when the predictions come true, can we put you to death for your part? worthless piece of shit, go live in bangledesh and enjoy some death.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-22 18:47
>>60
Chances are you contributed just as much. So you can die too.
Or do you think that buying carbon credits (modern day indulgence certificates) exhonorates you.
I find this to be reckless thinking. You keep saying the market will take care of it as if (A) we should be relying solely on the market in the first place and (B) without stating what the market would do to solve it.
If I'm megalomaniac for questioning how a market, which as thus far proven to not give a shit about the present and has offered us shitty solutions for problems they've created, then the market itself is a tyrant.
We can sit here and flip around this market vs government shit all day, meanwhile I don't see anyone doing a god damn thing about a problem this IS FACT. This is what you fucks don't understand. This is happening.
You guys seem to rab medias attoin but feds seems to not care.
I would never join you as i have a belife of 4chan.....
I belive it was started to cause kids to repeal from rules even though they always do.. but biger rules...
the leader of 4chan i belive is infact a alcada member..
How i can tell?
You make encomy worse with your treats.
Hiting it online is a cheaper way.
But. IF the feds dont take you as a treat you are not one they would have data on you..
All of these theroys are not confirmed True just a opnoin.
Any how i find this place dangous to post at. No offnce but your guys are insane you probly cant even reson with human logic. Your mind have been whiped by Cult like tactics.
Just to say i do not Rep or am with 4chan infact i hope they are caught and sent to jail. Since you did that stunt feds probly crawl all over here.. Who ever this anomus is has to be caught and puneshd. And ive met you member Ian in secondlife. i reported him to linden lab hes banned but what gets me is his account was 1 year of age.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-23 11:40
I'm a Eurofag, and I believe that America's so called "liberals" have distorted the meaning of the word. It used to mean less government, not a huge state which they want.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-23 14:50
>>64
This is true. The definitions of the words we're using today are completely inaccurate (with respect to liberal -> conservative, that is).
To chime in on the original question (and the responses to it):
1. Criminals cost around 20k per year, per inmate. Some 4-member families can live on this. I say end them and save us all some scratch, or find a way to charge only those who oppose the death penalty.
By the same token, if a woman doesn't want her damned kid, see if someone will adopt, and, failing that, let her get rid of it. I don't want her raising a child any more than she does.
2. I'll reiterate what others have said: the far left agenda has had a far more profound effect on America than the Christian agenda. I don't care for either of them, personally, but I'd sooner live in a society with uptight Christian morals than the hyper-PC society we seem to be building up to today. I guess a happy middle is out of the question?
3. Excellent question, to which there has been little substantiative response, IMO. If terrorism is a threat at all, it is a big one. The second those fellows get a nuke will be end of global warming. Our new concern will be nuclear winter. Both issues have been over politicized, however, so a healthy consensus can no longer be reached. Oops.
5. The literature I've read sings a strong tune about the virtues of the free market (Look up John Stossel if you're interested). It lists a myriad of examples of the free market working, and government intervention failing. Two examples: rent control and the pharmaceutical industry. And of course, history is replete with "big governments" in general failing.
Name:
Largo Andante2007-11-23 17:27
If the market doesn't solve global warming, it means that IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A PROBLEM.
That is to say, it means that generally people have decided that the positive consequences of global warming outweigh the negative ones.
You're a megalomaniac because you're not okay with that if it happens. You want things your way, regardless of what everyone else prefers.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-23 19:33
>>66
there are no positives to global warming for us. it's also bad for all plants that cannot utilise the C4 or CAM pathways for fixing carbon into sugar (non tropical). it's bad for shell fish as the oceans become more acidic (CO2 in water = carbonic acid, also ties up more calcium). it's bad for us when nasty tropical diseases migrate further north. in fact, global warning is a lose for everyone, dipshit. belief in the market as some be all, end all system is moronic. you are a fucking retard.
There is no positive? Who are you to say that? Not even the most advanced global climate model can accurately predict what could happen.
You know what I say will happen? For every inch the water level rises, there's another inch of water contributing to the circumpolar currents. You know what those do? They keep the poles cold. It'll get warmer, sure, but who's to say that it won't get colder just as fast as it got warm? All we can say is that things are changing. It is arrogant to assert that you know what those changes will be.
As for the market, it will evaluate every single option that is presented and select the option(s) that are the most effective (cost effective inclusive). You know what breaks that? Artificial government controls.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-23 23:46
>>68
again with the talking about shit you have no clue about. nearly all the changes thus far have been very bad. biggest extinction in 65 million years.
when the water rises it doesn't help the currents that bring water to/from the poles - it stills them retard (all that cold, unsalted water fucks the currents up). and those currents distribute cold water south, evening out temps in Britain and Europe.
now, if you've anything useful to contribute (like actual facts) that would be nice, otherwise shut the fuck up and let the adults have grown up talk.
ps, the market doesn't work they way you've been told. without gov't controls, there's nobody to stop them from going all China on your ass - poison food, fake (deadly) drugs, lead/poison covered toys.... same thing as here in the USA about 100 years ago (lessez-faire and the guilded age), that's how the market actually works fucktard.
now go troll somewhere else.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-24 4:23
>>68 >>69
the biggest contributor to the water level isn't snow and ice etc. melting, it's water expanding as it's temperature increases.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-24 5:41
"3. Why is it wrong from conservatives to go on fear mongering about terrorism but it's okay for you to tell everyone the world is going to end because of global warming? Whether or not you believe in either of these supposed threats it's clear that both sides are using fear to manipulate people. Why not take the higher road if you're so educated and ethical?"
The thing to keep in mind is that while faggots like Al Gore say the sea levels will rise like 20 feet, the actual TRUTH is that they WON'T. They'll rise by roughly ONE foot. Gore's statistic shows an increase that is like 2000% greater than the actual sea level increase. Even if global warming is actually happening, it doesn't really mean shit anyways.
Also, the resulting temperature increase in northern areas will mean fewer people will die from cold deaths... and far more people die of cold deaths than die of heat-related deaths.
The cost of implimenting Kyoto would be about 160-180billion each year for five years... and would only postpone the effects of global warming by about 7 days at the end of the century. The costs of implementing Kyoto are FAR greater than the cost of simply sending direct aid to the people who need it NOW, which is yet another reason not to be concerned with it. The risks of global warming are worth considering, but in the end minuscule.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-24 15:48
>>71
the temp increase in northern areas means an increase in deaths from malaria and other tropical diseases. malaria kills over one million people per year already, imagine how much worse it will be when it starts happening in Europe and North America.
if you're gonna lie, try not to fail so hard at it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-24 15:56
>>70
for now its thermal expansion, but when significant portions of the polar icecaps/greenland melt its gonna play hell with the ocean currents that are a big contributer to global weather.
>>71
the cost of implementing kyoto pales in comparison to the cost of the shitstorm that will happen within 50 years if we do nothing. another specious argument from the oil/coal industry. try thinking for yourself, tool.
Name:
Largo Andante2007-11-24 16:33
You don't know what the costs--whether in terms of money, human life, quality of life, or any other form of utility--of not dealing with global warming proactively will be. You also don't know what the costs of implementing Kyoto or any of the other various proposals will be, either.
No one can. The number variables involved is too high, and their interactions too complex, to make it possible for any monolithic entity to make this judgment.
But markets can. Markets, the ultimate distributed decision-making mechanism, work by bringing together billions of people, each of whom possesses information regarding his own personal interests and preferences. By aggregating all this information, markets necessarily produce the outcome that best maximizes utility across the board.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-24 19:53
ITT: we're all experts in global climate, economics, and politics
Right?
WRONG.
I love how everyone in this thread speaks like they're some kind authority on whatever the fuck they're talking about. Truth is you know just about as much as anyone else who isn't seriously studying the data. Get real faggots.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-24 21:03
>>74
give it up retard, the markets simply don't work the way you think.
Name:
Largo Andante2007-11-24 23:59
Such a brilliant argument...
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-25 3:21
>>77
I knew you'd come around. welcome to the world of rational thought! its a lovely place, enjoy your stay!
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-25 16:59
1. There's a chance that capital punishment is taking an innocent, sentient life. With abortions before twenty weeks into the pregnancy, there's no chance of that, because its brain and nervous system have yet to be developed enough for it to happen. Furthermore, restricting legal abortions will just lead most women to get back-alley abortions, thereby not saving any fetuses' lives and causing quite a few more unnecessary injuries and deaths of pregnant women. Furthermore, anyone who trusts any government with the power of life and death over its citizens is asking for trouble.
2. I hate all religions equally.
3. Because, unlike terrorism, there are accredited, peer-reviewed scientists claiming that global warming is a threat to everyone's way of life, whereas terrorism affects only thousands of us each year at most. However , I actually do care about terrorism quite a bit, and it has also been established that the policies our government is pursuing in an attempt to curb it are failing miserably.
4. I don't really give a shit about the stupid operating system debate actually, but Windows *is* buggy as all get-out.
5. I don't support big government. My ideal government at this stage in time would educate, provide health care to its citizens, protect its citizens from external and internal threats, prosecute corporate fraud ruthlessly, and provide unemployment benefits. That's all. Compared to the borderline theocracy a lot of conservatives want to implement, that's a small government. And it's only "large government" in comparison to what most libertarians envision if one disregards corporations, which would under their system continue their trend of becoming even larger than most governments, so that (as of the most recent figures I've obtained) fifty-one of the world's hundred largest economies are corporations.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-25 19:24
>>1
killing a featus implies that its alive, and even then it assumes its human, when in actual fact a featus is a parasite
untill you can cut it out and it still have a reasonable chance to live, its not a baby but a parasite, and in my definition that isnt human
thats how im ok with abortion and not corperal punishment
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-26 18:44
Okay, >>80, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
I will not take a stand on this issue. I think >>79 said it pretty well, though I would disagree with him/her on some issues.
But I am not a liberal or a conservative, I am a human being. Fuck these labels and quasi-boundaries.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-26 23:36
1. I support both abortion and the death penalty. We need less people in the world.
2. I think all religions are stupid.
3. I know both sides use fear to get what they want. However, global warming will effect us more than terrorism ever will.
4. Macs suck.
5. We could do without some programs, granted, but corporations aren't established to support the averages Joes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 1:27
be anti-abortion. pregnancy is your punishment for being a whore. take it like a man.
Name:
Largo Andante2007-11-28 0:15
Why should "average Joes" be supported, anyway?
Why does the mere fact of one's existence entitle him to the means by which to continue that existence?
I am not a slave. I have no moral obligation whatsoever to provide for another. That you wish to impose such an obligation upon me anyway is indicative of your utterly vile and despicable nature.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 0:18
Because if you don't give him the means by which to continue his existence, then he won't be able to buy anyone's products anymore, thus causing the entire economy to stagnate.
Furthermore, assuming you own a business, to claim that the property you have allocated to yourself was obtained by your effort and your effort alone is highly misleading. Without the education system, the public transportation system, the efforts others have contributed to your business, and so forth, you would not have been able to keep your business running. While it is certainly true that you may have recompensed others for their efforts, under the parameters of our system it is at a price determined entirely by yourself. Workers who are not fortunate enough to have enough property to start their own business thus have no choice but to choose from among the employers who will hire them, and each worker's bargaining power is comparatively insubstantial as a result. If you claim that each individual has an equal chance of coming into enough property to start or obtain his or her own business, I'd suggest you take a look at the wide disparity of incomes in the society around you and reëvaluate your perceptions. The greatest barrier to equal opportunity in our society is an unequal start, and from our public school systems, which are vastly shittier in poor urban areas, to the amount of funds funneled into public works projects, the areas with higher incomes get vastly preferable treatment. The result takes our society far away from the meritocracy it pretends to be and back into the days of aristocratic dynasties. Thus, the odds that people are recompensed proportionally to the amount of work they've done are slim, especially in the absence of government laws regulating such things. (The $5.15/hr minimum wage law is ludicrous, it's barely enough to scrape together an existence in the *cheapest* parts of the country, let alone someplace like New York City or Los Angeles).
However, I don't think all business owners owe substantial amounts of taxes to the governments; just large ones. Similarly, if you don't own a business, then as long as your income is under $100,000 a year, I actually don't think you should pay any taxes at all. If it's above $100,000, then likely you owe some debt to society along similar lines as those described for business owners.
Finally, if you don't give him enough for food and shelter, he will starve or freeze, and thus society as a whole is guilty of homicide via collective negligence, as there are more than enough resources to prevent his death.
Name:
Largo Andante2007-11-29 0:37
His life is his responsibility. I possess no guilt if he dies from starvation. I have no obligation towards him. "Society" does not own resources--only individuals do.
"Because if you don't give him the means by which to continue his existence, then he won't be able to buy anyone's products anymore, thus causing the entire economy to stagnate."
This is absurd. Aside from the fact that keeping the economy going is not government's business in the first place, what is the difference between me just keeping my money versus giving it to some guy off the street so he can give it back to me when he buys stuff at my store?
The fact is, the individual is an end in himself. As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, no individual has an obligation to provide for or support another.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 0:59
So it's his responsibility, and *only* his responsibility, if he can't get a job because no one is hiring? Give me a break. The ability to earn a living is entirely dependent upon having a job, which in turn is entirely dependent upon the economy, which in turn is entirely beyond his control. Capitalism has never functioned so that it employs everyone in a society capable of working, and it never will. In fact, Heinlein demonstrated this in his 1939 novel For Us, the Living, wherein he laid out a system of capitalism in its entirety and demonstrated precisely why it never amounts to a perfectly efficient system, and while I disagree with a number of policy recommendations he comes to as a result of his model, that particular aspect of his analysis is, as far as I can tell, beyond criticism.
Individuals "own" resources because they have the ability to back up their "ownership" with the threat of force. No consensual society of free-thinking rationalists would have a distribution of goods as uneven as that which exists in modern society; thus, private ownership in modern society is explicitly based on coercion. Only a society in which the state of ownership is voluntarily accepted by all participants without the threat of force can absolute freedom of the individual truly be said to exist.
The difference between the two scenarios you have outlined is that one creates a flow of goods and thus stimulates the economy. The other results in stagnation and will ultimately result in reduced profits for everyone in the society, for reasons that once again go back to
Finally, Ayn Rand was a crackpot. She has clearly not read her Proudhon, as virtually every argument she makes in favour of unrestricted private property is countered in his writings half a century before hers. She also ignores the fact that "individuals" aren't - every bit of personal property in modern society was acquired as a result of the functioning of that society. I notice you ignored all of my previous reply pertaining to that point. Could that be because you have no rebuttal to it? Interesting indeed.
Take Chomsky and Marx and shove them up your ass, I'm an Objectivist and I won't hear any of this rambling nonsense any longer.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 8:49
So in other words, you have no rebuttal to my argument and you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and continue tonguing Ayn Rand. Good to hear. Objectivists are always such rational human beings. Hahahahahaha.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 22:07
>>86
your whole life philosophy seems to be utterly selfish and sociopathic. that's a mental disorder shared by despots and serial killers. your parents must be proud.
oh, and ayn rand IS in fact a wingnut. objectivism is no more valid than communism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-30 23:56
>>90
You're the sociopath, wanting to take people's money just because you can't be botherred to work.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-30 23:58
>>92
uh, retard, I'm at work RIGHT NOW. I'm the weekend manager for a delivery business, and also go to school full time. I'm in my fourth year studying biochemistry at a large american university (if I said more, I wouldn't be anon would I?).
1. A fetus is not a true living being in its early stages, simple as that. The fetus' brain doesn't even START developing until around 7 or so weeks, and even then it's not fully functional until about 20 or so weeks.
Plus, consider your average person who aborts. Teenagers or dirt-poor people who couldn't afford to raise a child -- Would the child be better off starving or going to an orphanage, or being killed before it could even be considered a sentient being?
2. I don't hate Christianity -- I hate those that try to force their religion on others. That goes for Christians, Jehova's Witlesses, etc etc, that try to scare you into believing you're going to suffer eternally if you don't believe in their particular dogmatic belief. Otherwise, I'm fine with religion and I have some friends who happen to be Christians -- They're just not the asshole kind.
3. I agree it is using fear tactics. However, I consider global warming to be more of a real threat then terrorism. Yeah sure, it sucks when a maniac suicide bomber kills a bunch of innocent civilians, but the potential for global warming has a much greater threat on a larger scale.
4. Most people I know who own Macs are snobs. I call them "Apple Snobs", cause they think they're so uppity with their Macs and iPods and whatever else it is they have.
5. If you're talking about the American government, I don't. The American government is pretty shitty, when you have a government who's primary purpose is to make a profit (I know you gotta put bread on the table, but a TRUE government should only take this but so far...), then they're gonna put the people's needs in the back seat and you end up with the crap we have now.
Personally, I think America needs a second revolution, sure it might set us back a bit, but it would at least allow us to start a relatively clean slate.
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-01 19:51
>>90 Nice strawman. For most of the people who get benefits from our government, it's not that they "can't be bothered to work," it's that no one will hire them, or that they simply can't make enough money to cover all the costs of living in modern America. The minimum wage is $5.15 right now. That means a person working 40 hours a week makes $824 a month. That was enough to live on in the 1970s when that minium wage was set, but inflation since then has rendered that a trifle.
(it's worth pointing out here that inflation *always* hurts the poor more than it hurts the rich, because the poor generally can't afford to invest in assets that don't devalue with currency; thus, a strong case could be made that fiat money should simply be banned)
There are a large number of people doing essential service jobs that no one else wants to do for virtually no money. Without them, the economy would collapse. I think the least we can do is make sure they have decent health care and can put food on the table for all their children.
>>98
You're right in that no one will hire them, but think about that. If no one will hire them, they obviously have no useful skills, witch means that they didn't bother to take advantage of all the educational opportunities that america has to offer. And that, to me, makes them pretty stupid.
Oh, and just as a random fact, the earth hasn't seen any appreciable warming in ten years and has actually been cooling for the last three years. Check it.
>>104 Yeah, too bad I was talking about our primary and secondary school systems, which are shit.
Name:
Amonsouy2007-12-23 21:32
Srsly? randroids? on MY 4chan?
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-29 4:51
ITT, everyone assumes that global warming is true.
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-10 1:12
>>104
Is there a naturally inexhaustible number of this kind of job? Aren't many people able to afford community college tuition only because the government subsidizes it, effectively paying them to go to school? Don't minimum-wage-paying jobs exist in the first place because they're necessary in order to provide services to others at a price those others are willing to pay? What would happen if some great percentage of minimum-wagers became educated and left their minimum-wage jobs? Wouldn't the minimum wage—and by extension, the cost for the services minimum-wagers provide which, again, they only provide in the first place because people who don't work minimum-wage jobs utilize the services—naturally increase as the available labor pool shrank?
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-29 9:10
>>84
What's interesting about this reasoning is that the door swings both ways.
Why should anyone give a fuck about YOU?
If you are confident in your independence, you should buy a patch of land and start growing you own food, making your own tools etc. Better learn medicine too, since you'll be your own doctor.
Hey, you don't need the help others right?
I don't know what a "Libfas" is, but I'll attempt to deal with some of these questions:
Why is it wrong to kill a violent criminal but okay to kill an innocent fetus? I'm not particularly opposed to abortions, but it makes no sense that you rail against capital punishment while endorsing abortion.
It can't be too difficult to consider the viewpoint that a violent criminal is still a thinking person seized of civil rights, and that a fetus is not yet a person (hence has no rights at all).
The person posting these questions obvious has a cognitive logjam or sorts, in that he assumed something was true and then was unable to see past the assumption in order to understand the viewpoints of others.
In other words, he was a Conservative. Conservatives don't CARE about the views of other people, and they do not try to empathize with others in order to understand other ways of living.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-29 12:48
>>113
Why does a person get charged with double homicide if he kills a pregnant woman, then, Mr. Libfas?
>>114
If killing a fetus is murder than all abortions in the USA are murder. Since that is NOT true, then what you posted is a technical detail about potential life. We prosecute people for abusing and killing animals, too. Those animals don't have the rights of a Human, do they? Of course not.
What you did there is called "proving the rule". Your exception only demonstrated that my rule is correct.
The meta-point to be made here is that killing a fetus is perfectly OK if done by the carrier (or "mother"). THAT is the truth that the Conservatards refuse to admit. Why is it OK to kill a fetus? Because the carrier ALWAYS has that right. A potential mother always has a CHOICE. And that choice should be honored by the abortion industry (which we should allow since it makes it highly likely the carrier's life will be saved after such a procedure).
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-29 18:19
>>115
A rare exposure of sanity and intelligence by RedCream.
We should take pictures.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-29 18:49
What I wonder is whether we have the right to judge anyone at all?
What gives us the right?
A murderer is still a thinking person and you wouldn't lock up a thinking person for the rest of their lives either.
Do I get my point across? Where do we draw the line?
Also, we have to remember that what is considered right or wrong differs greatly between cultures, and through time.
The vikings had no concept of murder - as long as you didn't strike from behind or in the sleep it was considered fair game.
I remember a old Roman Empire court record where a prostitute had been murdered by a client. The prostitute's mother was mainly concerned with the fact that the murderer had cut her source of income, rather than having lost her daughter.
Remember the following oxymoron:
A tolerant society can't tolerate intolerance, or they wouldn't be tolerant.
Hence we can't tolerate crime, but where do we draw the line?
Oh, and studies have actually shown differences in brain function in violent criminals. It can be cured just as soon as homosexuality. So is rehabilitation really possible?
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-29 19:29
>>115
Everyone here is a moral relativist.
Look it up, fags.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-29 19:31
>>115
On the contrary, you're point is the exception to my rule.
You know this to be true.
Why do you despise Christianity but tell everyone else that their religions are beautiful and are to be respected? I don't understand how you can extol the greatness of science and education while while telling everyone (other than Christians) that their baseless beliefs should be protected. I'm generally opposed to religion, so I say if you're going to hate one of them, hate all of them.
Because other religions are NOT trying to reform the USA into a fucking Theocracy. Christians are OK, except for the many Theocrats among their number in the USA. The Theocrats can just fuck off.
Naturally, since the OP is a Conservatard, he is UNABLE to see that his Christian majority's excesses form a severe problem for operating the US government as a true secular entity. Conservatards are completely blind to their own Fundamentalist shitheads. THAT'S WHY LIBERALS HATE YOU.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-30 8:30
>>120
"Because other religions are NOT trying to reform the USA into a fucking Theocracy."
Ummmm, ever hear of radical Islam?
Sidenote: Are you heavily medicated or something? I mean really, you can't be this stupid.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-30 8:43
1. Fetuses don't complain.
2. Because anglo saxons, whites, protestants and males did some bad things in the past so they must be punished for their collective crimes.
3. Because terrorism isn't real and global warming is.
4. Complicated things are hard to understand.
5. Because not everyone is willing to make sacrifice for the greater good, they must be forced to comply.
>>121 Ummmm, ever hear of radical Islam?
Yes, I hear about radical Islam running around the Middle East and Indonesia. However, there is no Islamic movement to take over the US. If there were, you could post a link to evidence of such, and of course you can't since there is no such movement and there are no Islamic riots in the US and there are no Sharia proclamations from the US, state and local governments and WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SO GODDAMNED BIASED AND STUPID!?!?
You must be confusing Islam's intent of kicking the West out of the Middle East, with some sort of attack on you (a dipshit Westerner).
The people who are the worst threat to the secular governance of the West ARE THE FUNDIE CHRISTIANS and their Armageddon mindset. THOSE FUCKERS have taken over the US government and THOSE FUCKERS are actively trying to start World War III in the Middle East.
Of course, you probably believe that invading Iraq TWICE was some sort of move to secure your borders (while Mexicans and Guatemalans pour north over your southern border, but I digress). This just means that you are deranged and your worldview is a pre-programmed thing created by Conservatards.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-01 3:56
>>125
I should have known that you wouldn't be able to extract the meaning behind that. There is no threat of radical islam takeover in America because simply there aren't that much muslims. There is a christfag majority, and if anything like that is going to happen, it's going to be from them. However, in Turkey there is a muslimfag majority and they are likely to cause the same problem christfags do in the US, however I'm sure there people whine about WAY DO YOU HATE MUZLIMS, YOU CHRISTIAN LOVERS. Getting a bit in there now?
>>117
It's not entirely true that Vikings could kill whomever. No one could go on a spree killing women and children. And if Thorgeir killed Eirik, Eirik's family would start a blood feud with Thorgeir and his family, effectively having eye for eye justice. If no peace could be made, the dispute would be settled at Tinget, which is sort of like a court, where the aggressors could settle things in a Holmgang (literally: going on a small island), which was a duel on a small island, usually ending in death, though one could yield, and be at the mercy of the opponent.
Thorgeir would of course have to have a "valid" reason for killing Eirik, he couldn't just kill him for the fun of it and expect no repercussions. But yeah, there are better legal systems.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-11 15:42
I hear muslims and jews still ritually molest their son's foreskins. Barbaric.
Mullahs secretly drop the foreskins in a jar of brine during circumcisions and every year during Ramadan they take the "pickles" to their Imam whom proceeds to feast on them.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-15 6:27
1: I personaly think a few criminals should fry, but that's just me. As far as fetuses go, men dont say eny thing becuase if the guy sugests abbortion and the woman has the baby and the kid finds out, he/she would hate said guys's guts for the rest of his natural life.
2: It's not Christianity that i hate, it's the ass hat hyporcits that use it for ther own personal gain or to be total tea bags that i hate.
3: It's not the message, it what it's used for that makes the difference. If the fear mongering wasnt used to pass every fucked up, unmangaged idea i wouldnt give a fuck about it.;
4: I perfer PCs. Macs are only for artst, and people who cant use Windows or Linex.
5: I think ther are some places that the goverment does belong, and some places that it doesnt belong. (like when im on the phone, trying order chines food for dinner.)
1. I support the Death Penalty. I don't really give a shit about abortion.
2. I don't. I despise fundamentalists. Also, I've personally found a lot more Athiests to be pricks as opposed to Christians.
3. While I do believe it, I don't take the issue all too seriously, at least not to the extent I've heard (all countries at sea level being flooded). However, Global Warming is a lot more believable than the notion that terrorists hate western civilization because of its liberalism.
4. I never liked Macs.
5. I don't. But I do believe it can handle social security and health insurance a hell lot better than the "free market" (it always amazed me that some libertarians still consider some GOVERNMENT regulation to businesses when it goes against the very definition of their beloved Laissez-faire capitalism).
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-15 12:00
>>146
Obvious full figured pre-op tranny is obvious.
>>151
does a fetus have a "life" in the sense that it has anybody that cares deeply about it? as deeply as one can care about someone whom they've known for years and years and years? no. it is not a person. the main reason that killing is wrong is the untold pain it inflicts on those still living who were deeply attached to the person killed.
you could say that the mother already does care that deeply about her unborn child. if so, said mother can just NOT have an abortion. problem solved.
you could also argue that by way of slippery slope this gets into "dumpster baby" territory. but obviously innate squeamishness takes hold of too many of us so that "dumpster babies" will NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS be something that is kindly looked upon. so trust me, you DO NOT have to worry about that.
then there's the bridge between "a thing that looks kind of like a fish" and "miniature baby".
that line should also be drawn by squeamishness. and that's exactly what is happening right now in many developed countries' legal systems. i maintain though that the mother's health takes precedence because, as i've said before, she is a fully developed person, while the life growing inside her is not.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 9:15
>>15
You did not answer my question, but perhaps that's my fault. More specifically what is the criteria necessary to justify abortion?
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 9:53
>>153
are you talking to me? >>152
i suspect that you are. i don't see how that's not an answer to your question.
people need abortion, this is enough to justify it. the question is why should they NOT continue to practice it? and i said that since fetuses are not persons there is no moral problem, and therefore no reason stop the practice.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 10:07
abortion is wrong because without it there'd be more population and unemployment, reducing average real labor cost
death penalty is wrong because he could be utilized as slave labor
AMERICA FUCK YEAH!!!!
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 11:36
>>154
What a deluded sense of logic you have.
Because people need something is enough reason to justify it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 11:39
>>155
Didn't you mean to say "Abortion is RIGHT because without it ..."
Or are you mentally handicapped.
(I have a suspicion it's the latter and not the former.)
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 11:56
>>156
well what i mean is that anything which you cannot otherwise condemn is automatically justified. if you can't tell me why i shouldn't do it, why shouldn't i do it?
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 12:10
>>157
Uhh... the post wants more population, so I'm pretty sure it's trying to say abortion is wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 13:03
>>158
wat???
Scenario: I can't condemn you for murdering your pedophile neighbor, so why shouldn't you do it?
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 13:35
>>160
that's easily condemnable. anyway.. im done.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 14:32
>>161
Just about anything a person does can be condemned by one group or another.
That's why your FAILURE is so immense.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 20:57
FUCKING LIBFAS
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-19 0:37
>>154 >>153 here. I mean criteria such as that which would be used in a court of law. Most crucially is the point in which a fetus become a person and thus subject to all our ethics concerning how a person is treated.
When brain activity first occurs? When it can survive outside the womb? When it's head pops out?
We have no scientific definition for sapience but we know it at least requires an active human brain, significant brain activity first occurs when a fetus is 20 weeks old so this is the grey area, after that it is only a month before the brain of the fetus is little different from that of a newborn baby. If you are to abort 6 month fetuses by that logic you might aswell legalise killing newborn babies.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-19 19:18
everything wrong with the world is a libfas conspiracy. I know it.
Also, jews.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-21 21:34
this thread was made to inspire rage and trolling, get back to /b/ where you belong
1. I support both reproductive choice and capital punishment. But they are apples and oranges...I don't support personhood and the rights thereof to a nonviable fetus. So I don't favor abortion after viability...third trimester. Before that, it's part of the mother frankly and up to her what to do with her body. Also, I only support capital punishment if it can be shown without a doubt that someone is guilty of a capital crime. If you are a southern red state and all your blacks go to the chair and none of your whites do, you gots some 'splainin to do.
2. I'm not religious and support the right of others to believe as they see fit, up to the point where they want to take some sort of god mandate and run my life/run the country/rule the world. Christianity passes that point consistently so it pisses me off. You just don't see Buddhists trying to stack the courts, suppress rights, dominate political discourse, fight against science, butt into everyone's private lives while racking up sex scandals, I could go on... Basically, Christianity is the AIDS of spirituality. Has produced more harm than good for 2000 years and counting.
3. Because the GOP uses fear to get its way, while environmentalists are trying to save the fucking planet. Waterboarding never made us safe, but several major coastal cities probably will wind up underwater. Warning against a real threat we can act upon is not mongering...scaring people about made up terror to score political points is. Science is not a political party.
4. I don't like Mac. I'm a PC.
5. I don't believe the federal govt can fix all of society's ills, that's a GOP fantasy about liberals that they've repeated so much they believe it. I'm also fascinated to hear that conservatives are against corruption and abuse (*cough*TomDelay*cough*) and big government. The government and spending expanded exponentially under Bush, took the national debt from like 4 to 9 trillion dollars or something. Most of it to Halliburton.
Liberals just don't live in a fantasy where we can have all the programs people can't do without (libs and cons alike) while demanding to pay no taxes. Yes, I'm looking at you, teabaggers. The teabags they bought and the clothes they wore and the road they drove on to the rally and the law enforcement to keep the roads safe and the medicare and SS they will all be counting on in old age are because of big government. No taxes? Build your own fucking highways, it'll be fun. Here's a trowel and a bucket.
Name:
Varyk2009-05-26 18:43
oh and on #2, Christianity pisses me off the most when they justify their jihad against everyone's freedom by saying this is a Christian nation. Fuck that.
I might note for the historically challenged that the earliest colonists fled to this country to escape from the King of England who wanted to use religion like a blunt object to tell them how they should live their lives. A fact that modern holy warriors either are either deliberately ignoring or never were taught in homeschooling.
We founded America to get away from the Dobsons of that day.
I recognize that Christianity at its best is a religion of uplifting love and deep faith. It is not represented well at all by the dingleberries who want to pervert it into a weapon for wealth and power. If there is a "moral majority" within Christianity they should take these idiots who make them all look like ignorant lunatics out to the shed and make them see the light.
Depending on what part of America you're talking about, you're right and wrong. The Puritans just wanted their own colony so that their religion could rule. Pennsylvania, Maryland, Rhode Island and a few other colonies were founded on religious "freedom" but America was built on Christian rejects from England.
America was founded by the Dobsons of that day.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-27 22:57
>>174 "3. Because the GOP uses fear to get its way, while environmentalists are trying to save the fucking planet."
Projection much?
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-28 3:43
>>1
Explain my ethics to a murderer? A thief, a liar, a torturer, and a coward? It's all we do, yet you refuse to listen to us or the lessons of history.
It is simply the way of things. The liberals drag the conservatives, kicking and screaming, into the future.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-28 5:22
>>178
So criticism and logical debate are absent in your perfect future.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-30 9:20
>>179
Of course they are. He's a liberal. They hate logic and reason, hate it, hate it, hate it. They hate science, they hate objective truth, they hate the White race, and deep down, they hate themselves and they're all still angry at Daddy for not buying them a pony when they were nine.
"If you get caught at some crucial point and somebody tells you that your doctrine doesn't make sense - you're ready for him. You tell him there's something above sense. That here he must not try to think, he must feel. He must believe. Suspend reason and you can play it deuces wild." Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-30 10:52
>>180
They hate the white race? The majority of those I've seen bashing the white race for the colonial era and so forth are white themselves, usually whilst sipping champagne or a frappuchino.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-30 21:56
>>181
Yes. White liberals suffer from tremendous self-hatred, which they project onto their own race and their own civilization.
1, Because a fetus is not a human being, nor is it innocent. In order to be innocent, something must possess the capability of guilt.
2. I don't, I protect christianty's right to be illogical and asinine as much as any other, and I don't want any religion at all entering my educational facilities.
3. Actions taken to counter-act global warming don't circumvent people's inalienable rights, and if someone proposed actions that did I would oppose them.
4. I use Linux.
5. I'm an anarchist.
I'm a libfag, but I'm not necessarily a democrat.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-03 4:35
CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-03 7:19
>>190
1: So you think an 8 month "fetus" isn't conscious in any way. shape or form?
2: What if people want their religion to enter educational facilities? Do you enjoy denying people freedom?
3: The problem isn't global warming, the problem is that the atmosphere is public property and we should reach a consensus on deciding what to do with it. Turning global warming into a religion so can pretend to be chicken little is totally illogical, it's egotistical sensationalism which will only achieve a token level of reduction in greenhouse gases at great expense as you jet your celebrity sponsors back and forth across the country to collect more donations and lobby for more taxpayer money.
4: I use it sometimes, but I also use windows because I don't have a statement to make.
5: Good, in theory, but human nature etc.. Live in Somalia for a week.
1: I think a fetal dog at 8 weeks is "conscious" in some "way, shape or form". You have a point?
2: The existence of any common endeavor restricts freedom. Government administered education in the United States is subject to it's laws, in this case the First Amendment. If you want your religion in a school, you are free to start your own school.
3: Global warming... The problem is the climate, our lack of understanding of how it really works, and our certainty that though we don't know exactly how it works, we do know that we are capable of having a profound effect on it that would compromise our ability to survive. The idea that "The atmosphere is public property" is the kind of foolish, greedy, and arrogant thinking encouraged by the current economic system that put us in these straits to begin with.
4: Oh, you seem to have many statements to make. You just don't seem to be interested in the free exchange of information. Pretty predictable in light of the positions you advocate in the rest of the post.
5: What the fuck do you know about living in Somalia, or any other underdeveloped, troubled nation? Please tell me you are speaking from experience; that you've actually been somewhere, and aren't just regurgitating the shit you've been fed by the media. You have been somewhere else, haven't you?
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-05 7:09
Dumbfucks have been brainwashed into thinking conservatism is evil or some shit. I am saying this right fucking now everyone your all dumb fucks. If you honestly think that you are a 'liberal' or a 'conservatist' etc you are stupid. I am sick of this shit, Conservatism (notice the capital fucking C, a great man once explained this) is not what fuckhead republicans like George Bush follow.... Truly, everyone has a mixed political ideology and if you think one is better than the other your a dumb fuck.... It is like economics not all theories are good for every society you must apply things differently to each topic...
tl;dr: this board is a piece of shit, i hope it stays an text based board and never becomes image, this way hopefully all you lonely fuckers who think you are all so logical and intelligent can just be ignored forever..
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-05 18:30
tl;dr "global warming" is a lie, has always been a lie, and its proponents have always known it was a lie, intended to terrify the people into giving them power.
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." --Steven Schneider, "climate scientist."
They LIE. Every word these people say is a lie, including "a," "an," and "the." The truth is not in them.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-05 23:04
>>194 your all dumb fucks
all dumb fucks your
（ ≖‿≖）
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-06 2:25
>>193
1: Saying babies magically come alive when they leave the womb is as retarded as saying they become alive when an egg is fertilized. If you want to legalise aborting 8 month fetuses you might aswell legalise going around shooting babies.
2: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I fail to see why you are so desperate to throw a hissy fit over a nativity scene for a school play or an after school christian charity thing anyway.
3: If the atmosphere were declared public property then the world can decide on it's content in a UN convention and charge those who use oxygen to pay to remove the carbon. But whatever.
4: Well since I use both linux and windows while you only use linux it follows that you are less interested in the free exchange of information.
5: And I suppose you can tell me about your experiences in anarchist catalonia and what a utopia it was.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-08 17:09
i dont personally think any religions are beautiful and require respect because i find all of them absolutely ridiculous and also EXTREMELY destructive to all humans. I do believe in personal liberty, however, and i suppose, as much as i would like to see all religion wiped off the face of the earth in an effort to save humanity from its own insanity, that all people should be allowed to do what they want. If you want to believe in some gay faggot space alien story because it makes you feel better about how shitty life is, then by all means go ahead. JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP AND KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. The rest of us sane people dont want to hear your stupid little kid stories.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-09 1:56
>>198
Ok so it's the dark ages and there is endemic warfare, it's so bad people can't even build permanent settlements because any concentration of wealth will get stolen by a group of thugs and eventually torn down in the chaos. Then a charlemagne figure carves his way through the barbarian tribes, starts building churches occupied by clergymen who are probably the only literate people in a 50 mile radius, these churches proceed to indoctrinate the thugs from infancy to be obedient to their feudal lords and the peasants to grow crops and take the produce to towns to support iron smiths, carpenters, shipbuilders, wool workers, masons and all manner of tradesmen who go about making their prince's fief more wealthy. Life expectancy rises from 25 to 40 and about 5% of the population now live in relative comfort for their entire lives instead of the 1% that were lucky enough to become the leader of a warband for a brief period before they were killed or assassinated. Why is this a bad thing? So what if there is more inequality? A rising tide floats all boats.
Cry more.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-09 15:31
>>199
Well, I'm glad we're still living in the 7th century. No wait, you're just babbling.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-10 20:32
>>197
I'm with Philip K. Dick. Abortion should be legal until children learn Algebra. Until then, they should be classified as "pre-persons."
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-11 3:56
>>200
So you admit religion was a good thing in the 7th century.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-11 15:36
Aren't authoritarian governments supposed to be homophobic? This is gay.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-11 21:13
>>202
And you admit we don't live in the 7th century any more. Super! Now we can be done with all that superstitious claptrap, finally allowing us to claim our intellectual superiority over the hajjis.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-12 1:04
>>204
Maybe, but you're still excessively biased against religion. You can solve this problem by admitting that Constantine was an awesome emperor who re-unified the empire and exterminated the huns.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-17 5:31
>>206
I'll admit all that, and still call you a soft-headed baby. Stop playing Rome:Total War quite so much, and start realizing that we live in the fucking 21st century.
itt: liberals and conservatives with no idea what liberalism & conservatism actually entail. ah, 4chan, you never fail to disappoint.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-21 1:01
The Bible supports abortion. not directly, of course, but it does not find the harm of a pregnant woman that results in the loss of a pregnancy (in essence, an abortion) to be any more sinful than hurting a woman who isnt pregnant
"When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of hum and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooh, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Exodus 21: 22-25
I'm a liberal, not because I dont like conservative ideals, but because the conservatives cant even read the goddamn bible LITERALLY correctly, much less interpret it worth two shits. It takes depths of deliberate ignorance to not even get THAT much right.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-25 8:09
To really understand the liberals you must get into the ideological root of the left and liberals.
The cultural and sociological side of the left is rooted in what we call "cultural-marxism", they believe that capitalism must be destroyed for the good of the future. But also believe that capitalism is rooted in western society and that therefore western civilization must be destroyed.
You might notice how they never complain about the sandniggers stance on abortion and capital punishment only the western one.
1. Criminals are bad for western society therefore they are good, meanwhile an increased population is good for western society and therefore bad. That's why it's AWWWW RITE to kill babies but not criminals.
2. Religion such as christianity creates an uniformity and altruism in the populace that is good for western society which means it's bad. However an increased muslim/whateverthefuck religion population creates cultural/ethnic conflicts which is bad therefore good.
3. They don't like the terrorism fearmongering because it shows us that foreign cultures/races are usually inferiour to us according to our present value system which actually is deeply rooted in christianity. Meanwhile Global warming fearmongering is good because it's proves the point that CAPITALISM/WESTERN SOCIETY = BAAAD.
4. Because they're gay, what can i say!
5. i honestly don't know.
This all might sound like conspiracy but it really isn't. Alot of the people who adhere to these sick degenerate values are not really aware of it but are intensively indoctrinated into it. However recently in time these things have started being used against the people who it really was meant to serve, for example the politically correct opposition to Israel. The jews have always been parasites on western society and therefore good, as a matter of fact one can argue whether the Politically correct movement is really a zionist movement seeing as how a free western society would be the biggest threat against the jews and their degenerate culture.
But now that the kikes have started massacring palestinians people have started shitting on them. One speculate it looks like the zionists are about to get eaten alive by their own frankenstein monster! However they are constantly trying to shove it in our throats that it's okay for the kikes to act this because they are parasites which makes them a victim.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-25 8:33
oh yeah and another thing.
If you believe in "taking a life is wrong" and want to refuse to kill a criminal who is very likely going to kill people if he gets out won't you yourself be indirectly responsible for the lifes he takes when you refuse to kill him?
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-25 16:53
>>212
holy shit, you have no idea what half of those words mean do you?
you're just reciting shit you saw on tv or heard on the radio
"cultural-marxism" such bullshit I cant even believe someone could think it up
I don't really have anything against the left in it's original conception.
Problem is that it was born in a time where some people lived in shacks out in the woods and ate their own shit while others lived in gigantic castles made entirely out of diamonds.
Nowadays the major difference between rich and poor people is that rich people live in slightly bigger houses.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-25 17:59
>>214
I gotta be honest here, i have never ever heard KIKE, SANDNIGGERS or CULTURAL-MARXISM on tv or on the radio.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-26 7:10
>>212 >>213 >>215
There is certainly a minority of people who enjoy the delusion they are living in some kind of dystopia and they are heroically trying to overturn everything and create a utopia. However the conditions do not exist for anyone like them to gain some sort of power, I say "anyone like them" since current marxists/socialists/anarchists in America are not the worldly thugs who have experienced and dealt brutality first hand, they are usually deluded social outcasts due to serious character flaws and have lived a largely sheltered existence. >>214
>ur dumb
That's not a compelling counter-argument. Try again. >>216
Pretty much, though there are still many people who enjoy ingesting faeces. I believe one such individual frequents this forum and goes by the name "RedCream" but I haven't seen him around very much recently. >>217
I hear a lot about marxism and the occasional person calling everyone racist.
>>218
There is certainly a majority of people on this site who enjoy the delusion that their arrogance, unfounded assumptions, projections, and insults, are a rational foundation for argument.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-30 7:11
>>218
Sadly the conditions exist for absolutely anyone to gain any amount of power as long as they are not open about their opinions.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-30 8:39
Q4: Macs? I think you're thinking of English professors and homosexuals.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-05 7:43
wow....all i can say is, objectivists are a bunch of retards,
it's so funny to see this losers rail against taxes....brrrrr damnation.
get the hint boys its over socialism has come to america, the birther movement has lost, and soon the co
Asking a libfag about his ethics is like asking a snake about his long slender legs.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-06 7:41
>>224
I don't get it. You weren't talking about snipers and you didn't say candleja
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-06 7:53
>>226
Some snakes grow legs due to freak mutations.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-06 7:56
>>221
Oh dear. >>222
So? It's been like this since Sumeria was founded.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-19 16:07
>>228
Those legs are however disgusting mutations, just like libfags ethics.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-21 9:31
>>230
Oh I see, your analogy does bear strong correlation.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-26 7:14
1.) I actually oppose both, except for the most violent criminals. Abortion isn't a good thing, it's a tragedy that shows the callousness of our culture and our failure to protect the most vulnerable parts of our society. No society has ever thrived by killing off the weak.
2.) Christianity is no better or worse than anything else. No religion should have power over the nonbeliever. I oppose ANY religion that would try to manipulate the political system to try to make "sin" a crime.
3.) Both are serious problems. Global warming is real, though I think the changes made should be balanced against what humans need in the here and now. I refuse to live like a caveman because someone decides electricity is a bad idea. Setting aside national parks and encouraging reasonable conservation is fine, just don't go nuts.
4.) I don't, I use windows.
5.) I don't blindly support big government. I'm more of a firm believer in using the right tool for the right job. There are a few cases in which government is better suited to handle a problem than business. The Interstate Highway system is a great example of this -- no private company had enough of an interest in building thousands of miles of roadway across the country, yet this IHS helped to produce great prosperity for the whole country. The other one is the Tennesee Valley Authority. There were small valleys in Tennessee that it was too costly to provide electricity for -- so the government built an electrical grid that could reach the small towns in those valleys. Other things like sewage treatment are too costly for a business to do, yet need to be done. Government IMO is best suited to building and preserving infrastructure. Social tampering usually causes more problems than it solves.
Partisan government is as Dispicable as "professional Politicians" it needs to be dealt with accordingly as do all religions that have fought over GOD. These stupid people have fought the "MY GOD IS BETTER THAN YOUR GOD WARS FOR OVER 2000 YEARS." Get a life you are fighting over the same god. and as for Professional Politicians get a life you greedy basturds and get out of my wallet
Marxist ideology as >>212 states is western negative.
He brings God into it, and although I am a devout atheist, I would believe that Christianity would be tackled as a western system for those reasons of unity and internal development.
Schooling is taught in a post-modern sense, it loses function and definitive answers, it becomes less important to search for the direct reasoning and multiple answers are right at once confusing the idea of learning.
Minority cultures are accentuated and majority cultures are stolen and made bland and ridiculed.
There are many ways in which they break down the system and these marxists openly express this until you tie it to being directly negative to westerners, when they will try to confuse it to some sort of more abstract definition of an enemy, and the utopian socialist environment.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-23 15:55
>>1 Why is it wrong to kill a violent criminal but okay to kill an innocent fetus?
The nasciturus is ablank slate and don't vote commie-jew.
Hence it's a non-person.
My Ayn Rand figurine fell in the toilet. That's OK, because floating about in a bowl of shit must surely be better than where she really is now, and that's BURNIN' IN HELL, folks. Demons are prodding her with hot forks as we speak. Every now and again, Jesus or Martin Luther King take pity on her and have a couple of beers sent down; something she wouldn't do for them because she hates hates hates hates altruists.
She deserves it as well, lame-ass adulterous child-hating misanthropic bitch-faced slag that she was. If I were a better man, I wouldn't say that, but I'm not, so what the hell. Looking back at her life, there was one sad miserable woman.
>>240
When OP meant libfags, he wasn't talking about libertarians or objectivists, or whatever the hell you're talking about in that drivel you just wrote. Also, way to bump a five year old thread.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-14 16:50
Listen, cornholes, the OP is talking about LIBFAS. If you're not informed enough to comment on LIBFAS, pleasse don't.
Name:
penisparty2010-08-16 8:30
A: I think you should be able to kill a baby if it's more than 3 weeks old. What is more cruel, putting a painless needle in the baby's brain or leaving it to a life of hardship, poverty, starvation and decease.
B: I oppose any theory where a wizard created the world. But I think you should have the freedom to practice what ever religion you want. They need to tax religion, it's just unfair to everyone else when you call your visage monopoly a religion and no have to pay taxes. I am more acceptable of Christians because I am western.
C: silly question
D: Wtf, never go near that shit.
E: I don't like big government. I think a country should be rules by the people. Some rulers may be great, but there will always be a tyrant waiting to succeed them. But a government if vital.
Name:
my ethics2010-08-16 10:56
You fucked with me so now it's a must that I fuck with you.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-16 13:06
>>243
Sounds like you're more of a "conservative" than a "liberal" (going by standard USA terms of course).
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-16 16:06
1) You're right. It doesn't make sense. If you think of them in terms of social justice, it makes more sense. Abortion is about women's rights and capitol punishment is about the rights of people who may be wrongly convicted. I'm not for abortion, and keep in mind that many people who are vegitarians due to moral concerns also support abortion.
2) I do hate all religions. I hate all religions equally, and don't believe that they shoould go around picking on each other. If one religion overpowers others, all religions are less likely to die out.
3) Terrorist fearmongering is about controlling people, while global warming fearmongering is about ensuring that the human race can "be fruitful and multiply". Not everyone believes the Christian Cult of Death: that armegeddon will occur before we have to worry about the environment.
4) Only faggots use Macs.
5) Why do people give tithes to the church? It has been proven throughout history that large organized religions lead to corruption and abuse. Why do people continue to support big religion? As an American, I have a stake in my government, and I'd like to see it do something more than administer itself. With the money that we use to sustain the largest army in the world, we could fix many of society's ills.
Long story short is that liberals hate anything white and western. So since respect for human life, Christianity, and development of the planet are specifically WESTERN WHITE ideas, they are hated by liberals. As for macs, well liberals are faggots, what can I say?
>>247
Wait, killing criminals constitutes respect for human life?
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-17 16:26
>>249
Yeah, why not? If some nutter rapes, kills, and eats the dismembered remains of some nice law abiding family, why should they be awarded a lifetime of free housing, food, clothing, recreational activities, electricity, running water, modern plumbing, cable television, and all the things that I as a law abiding free man have to labor and sweat for to EARN?
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-17 18:06
>>248
Yes, it does actually.
A society that respects life makes a law that says if you take a life, unjustly, we (the society) will take yours.
That's the highest form of respect for life.
I'm not 128, but the idea is to not let people get into such a powerful position that they can take you down. And the fact of the matter is that as the population of muslims in a nation increases so does the number of calls for Sharia. Ask Europeans. They know what Islam does when it becomes a large minority.
As to what to do about it -- I'd suggest limiting immigration. Not that it's possible with our PC government shilling for the muslims. Look at Germany or England and behold your fate.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-18 10:50
1. Because I can.
2. I don't I hate all religions.
3. Because that what they get paid for.
4. Mac's are gay for gay people who can't use computer for real.
5. They can't and I don't care!
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-06 22:45
Bump!
>>80
So... How's every pregnant woman in the world feel like carrying around a parasite? Why don't we just jam a coat hanger up there since the word parasite implies something you would not want attached to your body?
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-07 13:16
There are once a doll a little girl had and she said goodnight to it. it was a sonic doll. when she woke up the sonic doll was on the end of her bed with a remote and he turned it to channel 666. on it there was a picture of a box. then the little girl sat up and looked at sonic. he had become tails. no one knows where the body was found.
>>258 America originally was a theocracy
When it was a collection of loosely-knit colonies, maybe. The US has never had theocratic government(except maybe at state level), and hopefully, it never will.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-09 0:21
One of the biggest controversies today is abortion. Many non-Christian women think that it is perfectly fine, because they don't believe the Bible. As Christians, we need to be aware that God clearly does not approve. Psalm 139:13 says, "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb." Obviously, God created us special, and to "abort" one of God's children is murder (which God CLEARLY states is not okay either) When the babies are aborted, they are already distinct with fingers, toes, and they can suck their thumb. People try to say that abortion is not murder; that the baby is not a person. Anything that moves around and has a heartbeat is alive.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-09 2:16
>>260 Many non-Christian women think that it is perfectly fine
A total myth. Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and Islam all encourage abstinence and/or adherents of these religions preach against the utilization of abortion to some degree (if interpreting liberally), or completely (if interpreting conservatively).[1][2][3][4]
1. I think it's wrong to kill in general, I don't support abortion, but it's not my place to be agaisnt it either. How can you stand to bring a life into this world that nobody wants?
2. I am Catholic, I don't despise Christianity. I despise those who claim to be Christian and then are intolerant of all religions. I also despise anybody like this.
3. We've tried and it isn't working. Especially with the masses being so easy to manipulate.
4. Lol Mac sucks.
5. I don't believe it can fix all of society's ills. I do, however, believe that it can have a helping hand in it. I don't think people should be given free rides like welfare. But I don't mind paying taxes for foodstamps for the people who don't abuse them. Yea so there are a lot of people who do abuse them, but there are a lot of hard working Americans who do need them just to get by.
As for healthcare I support both public and private. For the public let everyone get the minimum and anybody who wants more can just buy on top of that. I only think that citezins should get it and nobody here illegally
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-11 18:51
>>266
You must obviously not believe the Catholic Church is true with all of your faith if you think other religions have a possibility of being the true ones.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-11 20:19
>>267
your argument makes absolutely no sense. I never said anything about all of my faith, nor did I say that the other ones have any possiblility to be true.
1. Because a Fetus doesn't live or think.
2. Because just look at Christianity in comparison to other religions.
3. Because there's scientific evidence in Climate Change.
4. Because I don't. I double boot mac because it can be useful, but PC is overall more useful.
5. Because it's also proven that a small government is pretty fucked up (ex. Herbert Hoover).
By the way, you're making meaningless connections. You're substituting one thing for another. Just think.
Fetus ≠ Criminal
Christianity ≠ Buddhism
Terror ≠ Climate Change
Liberal ≠ Mac
>>275 Also, what's a "libfa?"
It's suppose to be "libfags", but OP missed typing the "g".
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-18 5:16
1.Endorsing abortion is a strong claim. I'm pro-choice, not pro abortion. There is a level where it disgusts me that people use abortion as a form of birth control. Then again there would be those who would abuse drugs in order to try to miscarriage if we banned abortion. There would also be unregulated clinics that would pop up out of nowhere that would have questionable safety practices.
We still do have legal abortions, yet their have still been instances of children being left in dumpsters. What makes us think we can force Americans to become parents? Yes, I would rather see everyone become responsible & avoid unwanted pregnancy all together, but unfortunately that isn't going to happen.
2. Are you familiar with the bumper sticker that says "Jesus, please save me from your followers"? That is how I feel about the situation. I don't believe that conservative that fight against humane social values have any idea what Jesus was trying to teach his disciples. Yet they invoke his name in order to save the rich money & take away programs from those who need them.
3. The war on terror isn't going to solve the problem. We can do something to fix the environment. Yet all this war on terror has accomplished is bankrupting the nation. Yeah, the propaganda sounds similar I guess. But polluting the planet is effecting our health.People have died from the pollutants we put into the air and using up our resources. People have also died and resources have also been drained on this so is the war on terror. That's on the other side of the argument however.
4.lol, idk. Macs get less viruses so people claim they're better. Never owned one myself. If I did art or produced music I would have one, but I don't.
5. Again that comes down to a matter of spending. I've seen a town that was a crime filled abyss being rebuilt because of federal spending. Regrowth of such a community is obviously good for the economy both locally & nationally. Of coarse those programs were funded by earmarks which have been demonized & eliminated.
As I said previously, our country collects taxes & then we spend money. What we spend it on just depends on who's in office & what their agenda happens to be.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-18 6:38
>>276
I know. I'm just rubbing it in with sweet, painful lemon juice.
>>281
That doesn't prove anything. That just suggests that different people have different moral reasoning, which was always the case throughout human history.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-19 22:17
If a fetus isn't a human being, then neither is a negro.
Discuss.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-20 0:52
>>281 >>287
281, that is a total misinterpretation. We live by our own morals, simply to live happier, longer lives. We declare that morals are relative but that doesn't mean we don't have any.
287, this is an example of illogical comparison. Arguments through comparison are invalid, as one thing is not another. A point proven through comparison is a point proven through ignorance of difference.
You are, actually, both guilty of illogical comparison.
281:
Relativism ≠ Immoral
287:
Fetus ≠ African American
And also:
Using the term "Negro" = Racist
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-20 1:32
>>288
A word can not be racist because it has no feelings and, furthermore, does not mean anyone harm. The context of the sentence in which the word is used, on the other hand, can be considered racist, which implicates that word with the same context, when in reality we should be shunning the speaker and not the sentence. So, calling "negro" a racist word is being doubly evasive, ignoring where the real blame should be placed.
Nigger.
>>289
Sure, in the context of posting it on a bulletin board, it's not causing anyone any immediate harm, but you're being deliberately obtuse and using faulty reasoning as an excuse to mindlessly write the word out of some strange gratification you receive from the posting of it. It's like an alcoholic or drug addict saying "Hey! I'm not causing anyone any immediate harm to anyone else! So why bother ceasing?".
>>290
Just because you can do fancy BBCODE, #does not mean that you actually belong here on world4ch.
Go back to /b/, or /int/, as it's become a pseudo /new/ already.
>>292,293
Consider this: A pack of wild Niggers.
Savage, slavering Niggers nearing your white home. Trampling your white lawn. Raping your white daughter.
And you can't do shit since they're savages. The Nigger leader grabs your wife and fucks her with his shaman stick.
The primal Niggers finally dominate your household. They watch barbaric shows on TV and you are forced to be their slave.
Such is the downfall of White Man.
>>307
It's a paradox. Postmodern "Liberalism" and Classical Christianity are both anarchistic, pacifistic, nihilistic, antinomian creeds that declare the existing order corrupt and contemptible. Christians ignored the material world and sat back and did nothing as Rome fell; modern "Progressives" trip over their own feet running to open the gates for the barbarians. In the end both roads lead to the same place: dust and darkness.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-28 23:13
>>309
And yet modern "liberals" hate Christianity, because it has become part of the tradition of Western Civilization, a tradition they loathe and want to expunge.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-27 21:53
>>309
That's where everything ends, bro. Doesn't matter what you do, it all has to fall.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-27 23:09
>>311
...and then we can rebuild!
Bring it all down, man!
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-28 2:20
>>311 >>312 "Progressives" trip over their own feet running to open the gates for the barbarians. Case in point.
Name:
Anonymous2011-09-18 9:14
I RED AYN AND AND I HAZ NO OBLIGATION TO DO ANYTHING K
Fair enough man. Go live on your own independent of any mutual relation and see how that works out for you.
1. Because a fetus is not a living being. It is a mass of cells with no thought. And yes, we can prove that. Get your fucking religious bullshit out of government, you conservatives have lower average IQs than liberals, and Atheists have higher average IQs than people of any religion. You are not intelligent enough to speak on this subject, please go back to binge drinking and beating your wife and be sure to attend church on Sunday so you can justify your actions by asking your imaginary friend for forgiveness.
2. Maybe it's because Christians were burning other religions and atheists at the stake for hundreds of years, and still discriminate against them today? Or maybe it's because Christians are still favored by the government charity-wise, their shitty dark-age morals still influence government (lololol no gays no sex until marriage no abortion), they generally won't shut the fuck up, and are immune to logic and reason?It's the affirmative action of religion.
3. Because we don't need to strip everyone of their rights in order to stop global warming, nor will taking steps to stop it result in government having the power to declare anyone they don't like a terrorist, stripping them of all rights and allowing them to be abused/silenced.
4. Only hipster faggots.
5. Yeah and historically democracies always descended to Tyranny in time. We'd be able to fix the inefficiency of the government if the Conservatives weren't so obsessed with providing 'jobs' to everyone, even when ridiculous job security backfires.
Name:
Anonymous2011-09-22 0:59
>>317 1 KILLING BABIES IS COOL! Atheists durr R smart!
Nice, a baby killer that hates Christains and who seems extra butthurt about it.
2 Religion is EVILLLLL!!!
Godless Communists killed more. LOL.
>3 global warming hate freedom or something
Lefties love liberty until they find out you can vote against them or you might disagree with them.
>4 Gays are coooool
>5 Conservatives bad cuz that want us to have jobs or something.
You lost me with this one. When have Conservatives stopped anyone from making things more efficient. Obama's 2000 page health care reform says you have a very warped idea of inefficiency.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-30 14:24
>a fetus is not a living being. It is a mass of cells with no thought. And yes, we can prove that
>>317 1. Because a fetus is not a living being. It is a mass of cells with no thought. And yes, we can prove that.
I wouldn't say it's not ``a living thing'', but certainly it is not entirely cognizant of its existence. The whole abortion issue was already declared decades ago; the incessant whining from agitators doesn't change anything.
>>318
Christianity has the most adherents of any other religion on the planet, naturally it would be the one that gets the most criticism.