Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/14/14 07:21 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: sorry were we talking about the national debt or something

We're discussing where we believe money should be spent, which is vital to any discussion of the national debt.

At 10/14/14 12:59 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: Redskins is used all over the nation in different reservations as a team name for their Schools for christ sake! What do you have to say to that? Would a Hebrew school ever use that slur you so failed to try to pass as a comparison? No because it's not the same thing.

And the N word is used by a ton of black people, yet that doesn't lessen the offensive value of it.

You still fail to answer me on that. Because you can't argue a fallacy, you are wrong. Redskins is not a slur.

You don't get to make that decision. I've told you what you CAN do, and your argument fits much better there.

Liberal failure that's what you are. I'm not failing to answer anything, you're the one that's ignoring the question I've asked like 3 posts now and you can't answer it because you have nothing and are no authority.

OK, ask again and I'll answer.

At least I present fact

Irrelevant facts are nice. Too bad they're irrelevant. If the determination of whther something is offensive or not is entirely personal to the group that finds offense, nothing anyone outside that group says, no matter how on point or not, is irrelevant.

You lost, Redskins is not a slur.

My evidence showed that 67% believe it is a slur. The massive outrage shows that many think it is a slur. Please show me something that says these people are lying. Because, either they're lying or it is a slur, whether you want it to be or not.

Ignoring the important things doesn't make you right or make it go away.

If only you followed this statement.

Tell me, why do the high schools pick Redskins as their name?

I don't care why. Some people don't think it is a slur. Also, when used by native americans to describe native americans it may not be a slur, but when used by non-native americans to describe native americans it is a slur. You're trying to objectively disprove a subjective view. If a sizeable portion of people believe something is a slur, than it is. No amount of facts, however on point or not change that. It would be like me trying to say you are not happy when yu are, because no amount of logic I use has any bearing on your subjective emotion.

Same as if you took whatever african americans used in their own tongue before slave ships arrived to describe themselves, translated that to english and tried to do a misinformation campaign to say that's racist.

If the black community largely believed it was, it would be.

Your "proof" is just more of the misinformation campaign, look where it came from, CSUSB, a liberal organization. Not proof.

That is not an adequate reason to toss aside a study. Sure they may have biased goals. However, you need to show biased means or an improper conclusion. Merely saying "Smart peopel are DUM!" doesn't mean the study is wrong.

I think your hatred of universities is precisely your problem is here. Had you attened one, you might know how to properly compartmentalize your arguments. You're making a far more narrow argument that you think you are. It appears you're trying to sledgehammer arguments about whether it is a slur, the validity of the offense to the slur, and whether or not you believe it should be a slur into one hamfisted argument. You'd actually be getting somewhere if you only focused on the last two.

There have been valid questions as to how sincere and widespread the offense to the term redskins is. There is also a valid question as to whether the term should objectively be a slur. However, you're trying to disprove a subjective viewpoint, and that is far more difficult than you believe. You're wating a lot of arguments on the wrong points and you're losing a great deal of debateability by constant insults. You make Memorize look like a pleasant fellow.

At 10/14/14 06:45 PM, Organguy41 wrote: My dad taught school in Wisconsin and I teach privately in NC now. When my dad was on the hiring board, they pushed him to hire teachers who could coach. The school LOST money on sports and in states like Texas, teachers who coach make more a year. There is no profit in youth sports in the public or private schools unless people send their kids to those schools specifically for those programs. Schools are alotted money based on the school's population, not by how good their sports programs are. Also, I played sports for my middle school and the school district paid for those games.

Hmm. I guess things must be run differently elsewhere. When I grew up, coaches recieved a small stipend for their work, if they got any money at all. The football team was paid for wholly with ticket revenue, which even with dirt cheap high school tickets could still bring in $10,000 or so a game. Not only that, the school district recieved millions of dollars to put one of the gaudiest ads I have ever seen in the endzones.

During my college days, I worked in politics for both parties back when the GOP wasn't so Tea Party nut job. The GOP loved the idea of celebrating those who achieved and giving them more opportunities. Here in the South, we have Governor's Schools for many of those students but it's not enough. When I worked for the DNC in 2008, they liked the idea of a work-at-your-own-pace alternative format. My dad's district employed this method for the lowest of the low and the dropout rate ceased to exist. In fact, some students worked hard enough to get out early and have been successful ever since. Those would be where the failing students would go. The majority of these students are rednecks living in rural America who just want to get passed through school so they can go work on cars, weld, or do some other low-level blue-collar job. As mentioned elsewhere(by Orangebomb I believe), our current curriculum isn't practical; or as he said it(paraphrasing here), we're shoving our students through a system in which they learn just about nothing.

I have a slightly (OK, probably very) elitist view when it comes to achievement. So, please take my response with that in mind. I like both goals, and I think they are valiant. Sadly, schools have neither expertise nor the funds to promote both. If I had to choose between pushing the college bounds to achieve more, and keeping the dropout candidates from dropping out, I'd pick the former. When it comes down to it, those at the higher end stand to gain a heck of a lot more through the extra help, than the dropout candidates stand to lose by not recieving extra attention. I saw this first hand as my school took a strong effort to keep graduation rates up (I blame my brother's class which entered with 400+ freshman and graduated less than 250). What ended up happening is that the advanced students who needed that little extra help were left to their own devices. The dropout rate wis significantly lowered, but then again the level of collegiate entrance was also significantly lowered. The school, which had been rated the best in the suburb, and top 5 in the city of 3 million, placed less than 10 students out of 400+ graduates into colleges that would be considered advanced. A school that had the potential to place students into collegiate powerhouses such as Stanford, Harvard, Michigan, California, and Yale produced ZERO who went to any of those.

I consider myself to have lost out because of this. Take one other person I knew from band class. I was struggling with homework. I just needed that extra bit of help to get me over the hump, The other person decided he just wouldn't go to school. The school spent hundred of hours trying to get him to come back, eventually just giving him a free year of credits. The school left me alone and gave me no extra help. While I got into a good college and the one I wanted (partially because I knew I couldn;t get into the powerhouses), I could have done better. He went on to graduate high school and work where he spent his time instead of going to high school (a resounding success).

I see things differently, I see an education system that doesn't teach a practical education. Why not teach students an education they'll actually use. We don't do that.

I do agree, 100%. Only those who are college bound need the academic side of teaching. The other 50-70% need practical teaching. A few math classes, some basic reading, the full lineup of civics, and a good amount of hands on classes. This will teach people how to get a job and how to be good citizens.

Also, hate groups in Europe are fairly rare because "intimidation" is seen as an act of violence and a punishable offense.

I'd have to see the laws, but we do have laws against intimidation. However, we also have a first amendment. The laws that attempt to minimize intimidation must also ensure that no opinion, no matter how reprehensible, is quashed.

Hate groups in this country, including street gangs, run intimidation to see if anyone will lash out back at them.

Street gangs are criminal enterprises, not hate groups. While they may, and sometimes do, overlap, they are two very distinct things. Most hate groups, defined by the SPLC, are 100% law abiding, and sometimes (quite ironically) are the pillars of their respective communities.

Now you have Posse Commitatus wanna-bes who claim that they will be spying on polling places in poor, black districts in Wisconsin.

Just an FYI, you're misusing the term posse comitatus, but I understand what you meant to say.

Again, it's the intent we're going for here and these ARE acts of terrorism. You might not like hearing this, but it's true and there are no conspiracies here.

I agree. Not only are gangs a form of terrorism (California's street gang law overtly labels them as such), but hate crimes are a form of terrorism. Hate speech can be a form of terrorism, but that doesn't make it a crime. It's shit. It should not exist, but in order to protect our free discourse we MUST allow speech we do not like to ecoexist with speech we do like, lest the boundaries of what is liked and disliked change and include speech that is vital to a free state and a free culture.

At 10/14/14 06:26 PM, Organguy41 wrote: Zero Tolerance policies lead to expulsion, frustration, and rebellion.

Yes and no. Depends very strongly on what the zero tolerance is applied to. There are certain acts that should be zero tolerance, or very low tolerance. These include assaulting a teacher, bringing weapons to school, and other like acts that both endanger the safety of fellow student and teachers, but have a dramatic chilling effect on the ability for students to learn.

I live in an impoverished community with half my community on food stamps. Gang crime is HUGE here because people have to beg, borrow, or steal to survive because many of them couldn't finish high school due to zero tolerance policies.

First off, no. No one has to steal because they couldn't finish high school. That's a shitty cop out. They steal because they don't want to put forth the effort it takes to make money or get a high school equivalent. Anyone can make a living wage, it may take extreme work (which I am sympathetic toward) but it can be done. I take no sympathy toward those who choose to commit crimes.

Teachers at our local High School refer to it as the prisoner ward in waiting.

That's sad in many respects. First it shows the school has essentially given up hope for most of its students. It reflects really poorly on the community as the most integral part of education is the home life. Very few teachers, let alone schools, can make up for parents who teach their children to not care, or worse, actively interfere with their ability to learn and focus at school.

There are people constantly heading to jail for writing worthless checks because their credit cards are all maxed out and the collection agencies come calling. Also, check the Southern Poverty Law Site. They've already shut down debtors' prisons in Alabama. It's coming back whether you believe it or not.

You dramatically misunderstand what a debtor's prison is. We do not have a debtor's prison. Our current laws do not allow for a debtor's prison. A debtor's prison is for those who do not pay an already existing debt. What you are speaking of is closer to theft and fraud. The writing of a check knowing you have no money is both theft and fraud. By doing this you are knowingly depriving the owner of the item with intent to possess it, and you are using a misrepresentation to induce someone else to give you something they woould otherwise not do had they the full and correct information. FYI, you cannot go to jail for negligently writing a check you could not actually honor.

They may sound the same to the untrained ear, but there's a key difference: Intent. Debtor's prisons were strict liability. You had to pay the debt, regardless of how you entered into the contract. You could have been 100% legit and then just unable to pay. It happens, a lot. In knowingly writing an unsupported check, you make the active move to do it. You know you cannot pay, and yet you take the item anyway. The only difference with shoplifting is that you are not thieving through slight of hand, but through fraud.

I have sympathy for those who have trouble paying for things. I have no sympathy for those who use a lack of money as a pretense for criminal activity. I know far too many families who have two parents working 2 jobs apiece (often with children working a job as well) just to get by. The claim that someone is so poor they have to steal is a slap in the face to these hardworking and upstanding people.

At 10/14/14 12:46 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: Why don't you show your credentials first since you seem to be the authority on the subject simply because you say so.

Do I need to be an authority to notice that there is a group a native americans who think the name is racist? It's plastered over the news. I have several native american friends who have vocally shown their dislike of the name.

But, here's some proof.

Again, I am waiting for you to tell me why you get to decide for native americans what is and is not a offensive to them.

Oh, and one more thing, would you please show us the documentation of when the native peoples of american granted you the sole discretion over what they should and should not consider a slur?

At 10/14/14 11:30 AM, mrgreg846 wrote: Already WON! Lol, you just repeat yourself and skip over whatever you want to because you have no logic to back up any reasonable counter. Go back and read what I said about the High School Redskin teams, why did they choose that name?

I have said that it does not matter where the name comes from. If the group that is the subject of the term sincerely believes it is a slur on them, it is a slur. Is that so hard to understand?

Go ahead and question the sincerity of it, but your insistance that it has benign origins changes nothing.

You also completely ignore the whole concept that a people should have the right to control how their representation is used.

Using lots of caps, ignoring arguments, and making ignorant and incorrect insults (you have yet to catch on to this one) is not debate. If you would stop tripping over yourself, you might actually be able to make a good argument.

At 10/14/14 08:16 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So..not biological factors then?

And you act all surprised when I say you are racist. HAHAHA.

At 10/14/14 11:05 AM, mrgreg846 wrote: I can't put it any simpler, NONE OF THOSE ARE VALID EXAMPLES

They say it's offensive. So, what about the history of the word invalidates their current offense?

Oh, and incorrect insults in all caps won't win an argument for you, just an FYI.

A big problem with this argument is that many don't understand what makes something offensive. They act as if there's some sort of objective reason or that something can be patently offensive. That's just not how it works.

Offense is something entirely subjective to a group. If a group sincerely believes something to be offensive than that word is offensive to them.

So, you cannot say that Redskins is not offensive, regardless of how many reasons you try to give. You don't get to decide what does and does not offend others

What you CAN do, as many have attempted in the numerous iterations of this issue on the BBS, is question the sincerity of this offense.

This is why there are little to no words actually offensive to white people about white people. Due to the lack of any baggage associated with any of these words, most white are not being sincere when they say that being called cracker or honky offends them.

So to all of your other examples in that hackneyed first post of yours, if a group came forward as sincerely offended by any of those names, there would be an honest discussion about it. Until then, trying to say that there are other racist names is just a straw man, and a really pathetic one at that.

At 10/13/14 10:57 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: And that's the dumbest fuckin contradiction! What a dumbass, the whole reason the slurs you just listed are because of HISTORICAL usage and definition! Go troll somewhere else, you're adding nothing here.

Call a Jew a circle today and see if they get mad. Chances are they'll just be confused. Call them a K*ke and they'll be mad.

Ask an italian american if they have papers and see if they get mad, they'll like be confused. Call them a W*P and they'll be mad.

Go tell a gay person to pick up sticks for money. They'll likely be confused as well. However, call them a fa**ot, and they'll get mad.

Understand now? If you'd made the scantest of effort you'd actucally have realized I was showing how the historical meanings and definitions fo words often have little to no meaning, but the word itself does. Same goes for redksins. Its shistroical meaning has at least two meanings, one being benign and the other not so much so. However, the term today, to many native americans is representative of the dumb indians like those in Disney's Peter Pan.

At 10/13/14 10:03 PM, Organguy41 wrote: If our government actually cared about the country we'd be privatizing youth sports

Most youth Sports are private up until high school. Once it hits high school they are able to generate enough money, usually, to cover their own expenses. No need for privatization as they become revenue neutral for schools.

while removing the failing students who express no desire for academic success by putting them into a vocational program that gives them enough education to graduate

American citizens would never go for this. The Japanese and Germand systems of education do exactly this and serve those countries very well, however, such an education system is entirely antithetical to the American Dream and the American Spirit. We, quite naively, believe that anyone can do anything. There is always a really tiny portion of people who rise above thier class, and because of this miniscule fraction of a percent, we believe anyone can do it, even though 99.999% do not. The freedom to better yourself sounds pretty and all, but by forcing all people into the mid-high end route of education the 99.999% of lower end (of both potential and resources). These people get hamfistedly mashed through a system that is too difficult for them and that teaches them little that they will actually use in life.

Hate groups, street gangs, and drug cartels would all be eliminated on the spot by military personnel.

No. This is not good governance at all. Not liking what somebody says or how they live theiur lives is not grounds to shut them up or eliminate them. (Just realized that your position emulates the position of the hate groups you dislike, IRONY!)

Military veterans would not need to pay taxes unless their income was over $75,000.

Good idea. I like the basis, but I think number is a bit too high. Making all military veteran income non-taxable up to $30K-$40K would do the trick just fine.

At 10/14/14 01:26 AM, Light wrote: If you think Africa is not as advanced as the more developed areas of the world because they're so lazy, you're pretty ignorant of economic history and the geographic, biological, and political factors that make it difficult, if not impossible for Africa to completely industrialize.

First, I didn't say they were lazy, and second, I don't buy your argument at all.

I merely said that the reason African nations are down is because of African nations. They've have every opportunity to get going and have decided to infight, be massively corrupt, do nothing, torture their own citizen, and so on and so forth.

The only thing you say that's right, is the political mess, and African countries only have themselves to blame.

Your arguents are all convenient excuses, but they fall flat as numerous countries hve overcome every single one. India had just as shitty of a history, has a great deal of georgraphical obstacles, and is a cesspool of extremely dangerous biology. Yet, India has worked to pull iteself up by its bootstraps and become a player, not exactly First World yet, but definitely better than all but 2 or 3 (South Africa, Egypt, and maybe Morocco) African countries. Ohter countries, like Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia all had these problems, but they decided they wanted something better and got it.

Now, things have gotten so bad in Africa that these countries cannot do better on their own. That still doesn;t change the fact that their position is almost entirely their own fault.

At 10/13/14 07:10 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: I wouldn't care if there was a team like that but that's not even a valid example. Redskins is a traditional name they use to call themselves.

K*ke means circle. Wop mean without papers. N****r is a variation on the word black. Fa**ot used to mean a poor person.

The dictionary meaning or historical usage are irrelevant. It is the current view of the word that matters.

At 10/13/14 11:55 AM, ChloeFlora wrote: Oh gosh! I'm so damn tired of you deleting my treads! Are you capable of reading and analyzing?
Moreover if you thought that was some conspiracy bu!!sh!t, I also posted stats beneath for you! So it's really likely to be true!
Anyway if you don't like the source I used here, could you be so kind to list all the media sources I have permission to use no to be banned!

Your OPs always tend to be constraining. The way you write them leaves nowhere to go. In the end, they largely end up being a rant with a cursory note of a source.

There are a couple ways to start a thread that work simply.

- There's the short and sweet version. You state the issue, with a slight explanation, and ask for people's opinions. You can link a source here, and the quality of the source doesn't matter too much, except for credibility of the facts. The key to this type of OP is that you hold off on your opinion in an attempt to assure that the thread becomes a dicussion, not just a rant that backs the remainder of the thread into a wall.

- There's also the longer version. This starts off the same as above, but you add a piece stating your opinion and backing it up with explained factoids, not mere source links. This works best in topics you know will have a strong dichomoty of views among on the BBS. That way, your opinion elicits a reaction as opposed to backing the discussion into a corner.

You tend to leave out a few key elements of these. You often don't clearly state your issue, or will mix the issue with your opinion. Also, when you go for the statement of your opinion you don't back it up turning it from what could be a discussion launching point into a rant that comes off as conspiracy theory-esque. One of the quickest ways to kill a thread here before it starts is to take the "Come on Sheeple" attitude.

The goal of an OP isn't to voice your opinion. The goal is to elicit opinions from others and to start a discussion. Remember, you have the entire thread after the OP to state your opinion if you are burning to state your end of the argument. There are tons of adequate OPs on the forum to look at. Take some time to see what they do and emulate it.

Note: this is based on my experience with what works and does not work as a regular. I am not a mod and cannot speak for the rules.

At 10/12/14 07:27 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: I think there's a pattern, that if you tried a historically inaccurate caricature of like the historical Black or native american equivalent of a Viking it would cause problems.

Now, I'd have to disagree. Mere historical inaccuracy alone does not make something racist. Many of the our projections of past peoples are inaccurate. It's what the charicature represents that makes something racist.

To your point, I'd actually say, many benign colorizations of mascots as black would not be a problem. (sure there would always be a small section of the usual whiners who would take anything bad, but it would not be an objectively racist mascot, like the redskins is.

You do have a basic point in that what is and is not racist can vary wildly in a society and seems to have little or no rhyme or reason (except the reason is clear.) What is racist often has less to do with the charicature, and more to do with the history, emotional ,a nd intent behind that charicture. This is why the Blackhawks has almost no problem, and the Reskins does. Sure, they both paint relatively innacurate portraits on native americans, but redskins carries that derogatory baggage of the Indian Wars and everything else bad with it.

Why does every idiot think they are so smart bringing up this poorly created straw man so often?

NO. You're not smart. If you have any sense, you'd realize that your argument is based on little to nothing and has no real clue what the actual problem with the Redskins is.

At 10/10/14 06:39 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Claiming ISIS is our problem certainly makes a lot more sense than Ebola is (unless you're a pussy who thinks that measures to stop the spread of the disease to the west are 'racist').

How is ISIS our problem? ISIS has yet to kill anyone in America, last I checked.

My point is either: NEITHER are our problem, or Ebola is our problem and ISIS is not.

I have never cared for Africa. They have had so many opportunities to advance into the 17th Century in the past 100 year, but are too content living in extreme squalor. The reason Ebola has spread so well is precisely because they have had some internal aversion to getting their shit tpogether. However, Ebola is a dangerous disease and in our current world of extreme access, it's damn near impossible to contain. Shit, we in the US are suposed to be barred from Cuba, yet I know a ton of people who did a patheticlly easy sidestep of the rules and vacationed there.

Ebola has already infected two people in the US, an could do a shit ton more in the developed world if we don't nip it at the source.

ISIS, on the other hand, while having extreme power in the middle of the desert, hasn't done a single thing outside of their borders. Oh, and the locals, if they weren't selfish and greedy fuckbags, could handle this issue on their own, and do so with remarkable ease.

At 10/11/14 10:09 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: In theory, perhaps.

No, in reality.

which goes to show how idiotic such laws are.

It's not idiotic. It's confusing, and nuts, but the laws are perfectly logical and sane. Consent is on the same level as any other big legal decision, such as writing a will and entering into a contract. In none of the other cases where a person is making a legal decision, can they make the decision while drunk. Hell, a person can never in most (if not all US states) commit first degree murder while drunk.

Sex is an odd animal out (along with forming a contract) of the bunch where BOTH parties must be in a capacity to consent. It creates and odd and very difficult question of whether impropriety existed if both parties were unable to make a decision. Personally, if I were a judge and a criminl case came before me where it was proven that both sides were drunk, I would issue a Directed Verdict in favr of the defense. It's a shitty situation where someone was harmed, but no criminally culpable act actually took place.

You seem to be bringing up black people more than I do so...?

I'm just poking at you. Oddball theories and wholly untenable positions with a history of known and strong racism? It's like shooting fish in a barrel; a barrel full of fish.

At 10/11/14 09:03 AM, MrPercie wrote: Because the thieving cunts in government aren't paying theirs.

A small and easily fixable injustice in a system is not reason to villify the entire system. Just fix the problem.

At 10/11/14 02:34 AM, RealityPwnz wrote: Best way to decrease national debt = voter ID

Please explain.

At 10/11/14 02:30 AM, RealityPwnz wrote: Go back and try again,

Likewise, young child.

Next time you criticize someone for an argument they make, please make sure they actually are making the argument you claim they are. Here, you do not. Warforger was mocking an old argument made by conservatives that higher CO2 in the air would cause the Sahara to becom a jungle. He then pointed out that this was not only worng, it was very wrong, as we have slightly elevated CO2 levels and the Sahara has not become a jungle, it has become an even bigger desert than before.

At 10/11/14 09:32 AM, Kwing wrote: I think there's a difference between free will and obligation, though. Hypothetically, any member of a species could kill the alpha of the group in their sleep, though they feel obligated to fall under their leadership instead. Heck, there are plenty of things you could do when someone holds power over you in a small, isolated situation like that. You can run, you can challenge them, or you could continue acting lawlessly and barge right through the consequences (this is actually what my older sister did for her entire childhood.)

So? You've essentially just stated what the OP said, which has been strongly shown to have no real point at all.

The ability of people to buck the system and the rules does not mean that no system and no rules exist. You actually point this out yourself by saying that when you break the rules you can "barge right through the consequences."

At 10/10/14 06:41 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So your ideology trumps empirical evidence?

First off, this is ironic coming from the guy who posted an opinion piece youtube video by an overtly an unabashedly biased party.

Second, The video dramatically misstates what civilization is. It is a general consensus that social hierarchy and complexity is a core criterion for something to be considered, academically, civilization.

You're trying to say that if you put wheels on a box it's automatically an automobile and then trying to say "SEE self locootion isn't necessary for something to be an automobile!!!" While self locomotion may not be necessary to create a moving car, self locomotion is a core element of what it means to be an automobile.

Same for civlization. While a society can exist without a complex government, and has before, true civlization as defined by acadmic scholars requires the complex social hierarchy, i.e. a government.

Also, I would not only say you are flat out wrong on the facts (find a way to blame black people for that one), your point fails on basic logic. You claim these people had no government because they were egalitarian. But wait. Egalitarianism IS a form of governance. People give to the community because they know they will recieve back in kind. They also steer clear of doing things that hurt the communiyt as, again, the community will respond in kind. In short, an egalitarian society still had laws and still required the parting with one's own things for the betterment of the community (sounds like a tax to me).

Heck, even your poorly made and academically flawed youtube video had it better off than you. It doesn;t claim no government existed. It says no state existed. Then it goes on to completely and wholly ignore why the concept of the state was created and why it became necessary for prosperity. Like others have said, if you truly want to live without the state, go live as a hermit in the forest. Wait, not in a US forest though, as the state keeps those forest fre of brigands and bandits for you. Same goes for any developed nation's forests and most third world nations as well. I think the ilds of north eastrn Nigeria would better fit your political ideology, but you better keep yourself protected. They slit people's genitalia for fun out there.

At 10/10/14 04:32 PM, cga-999 wrote: Although law technically is optional for every country, they all have laws, so no where has an anarchist government.

Anarchy is actually technically impossible when there exists two or more human beings in close proximity. When De Jure laws do no exist, things such as "Consequences" still do exist and are usually strictly enforced by the other seeking to protect their interest. This inveitbly sets up a de facto system of laws, thus meaning anarchy no longer exists.

At 10/10/14 10:28 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Surprised

I am surprised that if you are the sole owner of a business, why would you ever pick a corporate business structure? It needlessly subjects you to more taxes for benefits you don't use (save the title of President or CEO). The only benefit of a corporation over other models is the ease of transfering ownership interest. The downsides of a corporation are that it taxes your income AND your stock income, and that it requires you to jump through tons of hoops to retain corporate status (should you be pulled into court).

Then again, Canada may have slightly different rules.

You say Ebola is not our problem, but ISIS is? I'm not sure there's much to say with this sort of massive logical breakdown.

At 10/10/14 06:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/10/14 12:46 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: OHHH so your saying that we don't NEED a government in order to have a civilization.

Well empirically speaking civilization predates governments, but aside from that I mostly meant that many of the services provided by the government can be provided privately.

Empirically hogwash. The existence of a form of government is a vital criteria for civilization.

At 10/9/14 01:48 PM, TNT wrote: Some of my co-workers were talking about forfeiture at work. They also brought up Florida and Las Vegas being the most notorious for committing these unconstitutional acts. So, maybe it holds some light somewhere? Have you check any of the states Penal Codes?

I tried the United States Code, but got nowhere. This isn't as easy as looking up a specific crime in the penal code. I don't even know in which sections to look. This is in relation to a criminal act, but most places have been calling it civil forfeiture.

Without a good starting point, or even a good clue as to what exactly I am looking for, looking up the statutes is like a Wheres Waldo picture, except, I don't know what Waldo looks like.

At 10/8/14 10:49 PM, RacistBassist wrote: To continue your metaphor, the people who generally have a problem with paying the bill of the service is they will go in for a house salad and maybe a fountain drink while the table next to them has a three course meal with multiple mixed drinks and you're both expected to split the bill.

Well, if the wealthy were taxed at a proper rate... Yuk Yuk Yuk

Your metaphor is off. Think of it like a $50 fee to enter a party. Sure, some people may take more of the complimentary food and drinks than others do, but most of your $50 goes to pay for the background stuff that benefits everyone there, whether you notice it or not.

Same with taxes here. Most of what you pay in taxes goes to things that generate the basis of the safe and stable economy upon which we all rely and live in. Things as simple as food stamps which seem like robbing peter to pay aul actually assist peter by keeping big box stores like walmart in business providing a stable place for peter to shop, and creating jobs for peter's friends and family.