Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/6/13 06:20 PM, Feoric wrote: Who is enforcing the law and property rights without the government?

Some kind of union for consumers. An alternate mode of business, maybe a cooperative like a building society.

At 4/6/13 05:28 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: these companies are getting sued over some very trivial matters
when the company pisses off the customer enough to switch to a different service provider (the competition).

This true but what if the government is in the company's pocket and they are in a cartel with the competition?

You can't run to the government for help, obviously. This is where the hippies come in.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism?s=t

a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts.

In their most strict definitions I would say anarchism, because it is a general doctrine it doesn't easily trump other practical considerations, whereas in order to be minarchist the state must refrain from disaster relief and such things, or at the very least plow through some complicated legal process and confusing jargon to authorize it, for example redefining the purpose of the military to protect citizens from natural disasters.

tell them you are a nigerian prince and they have inherited $1000000000000000000000000 but they have to give you a mere $100 in order to receive the winnings

He can't say in case someone is listeing in.

At 4/2/13 04:08 PM, AshtonW wrote: Of course, the most well known advocates of neoliberalism are the conservative republicans.

I agree that most advocates of politicized terms like "neoliberalism" are wingnuts but there is a minority who are not so you should not be prejudiced against them. If you reject ideas just because they are different from your own or because you don't fully understand them then you have pretty much rejected every new idea in existence.

Without government regulation among industries and businesses, monopolies are formed by the more powerful players.
And what happens when monopolies form? Prices can change radically, work is outsourced with no real consequence and it benefits the elite few.

You say without any government regulation at all, "neoliberal" is an ambiguous politicized term but I don't think it stretches to "anarcho-capitalist". There are many different kinds of regulations and I'm pretty sure neoliberals would not oppose regulations to preserve property rights or lower the cost of government. Wanting to remove arbitrary financial regulation with a spurious basis does not mean you want to remove an essential regulation to prevent fraud.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/20 11_cb/2011_cba_report.pdf
This provides many examples of regulations, most of them show positive benefits, some pose difficult questions like deciding if it is worth spending $200 million per life saved (how many cancer operations would that fund?) or costing the economy millions to prevent the construction of roads in pristine areas.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103172296/Tip-of-the-Costberg-On-t he-Invalidity-of-All-Cost-of-Regulation-Estimates-and-the-Ne ed-to-Compile-Them-Anyway-August-17-2012-Uncopyedited-Draft
This questions the official statistics given for the net benefits of regulations and uncovers the potential for incompetence and corruption.

There are also many different factors that contribute to price instability and different effects of outsourcing. For instance many businesses in the US benefit from cheap Chinese steel, by placing a tariff on Chinese steel you may actually be harming the economy overall.

Privately owned corporations are the bane of society. The workers are not benefitted as they should be and the oligarchy reigns supreme. The proletariat deserves, not only more power in production, but in government too. The state should be there to execute the will of the populace, lest the state be totally dismantled.

You say you oppose the exclusive legal rights given to corporations by the state, then you claim that the state executes the will of the populace without mentioning the limitations of the state in representing the will of the people, other methods by which the populace can execute their will or the ethical issues that result when different groups or individuals are at odds with the rest of the populace. I believe you need to be more specific about what you mean.

At 4/3/13 08:56 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: More Vague cynical banter to cover up the fact you are scared and confused. The truth is much more scary than all all the what ifs. Better off to stay cynical and in the dark for sure. Just keep paying your taxes and going to work and buy bullshit you dont need and it will all go away and the Matrix will take care of you ! The American Government is your friend and the news is always on point as are American Politics and Military and the Church. God Bless America !

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!! Why do you say all these things about me??? None of that applies to me, I'm not being cynical I'm being a realist! I can handle the truth, all I'm saying is that GM is a tool like any other technology, it is like a shovel or a pair of clippers, we should lay some smack down on evil corporations and make sure they don't misuse GM but there is nothing wrong with science and progress.

There are conformist squares who believe everything the government tells them.

Then there are people like you who believe everything Alex Jones or someone tells them.

I am neither.

What is so difficult to understand about that? I have watched some of Alex Jones' videos and I agree with some things and disagree with others. Not saying I have all the answers, I'm not perfect but I'm pretty good, enough to think for myself and ask questions like "what is wrong with GMing a tomato to produce more vitamin C".

Smart scientist advancing science and trying to make the world a better place: oh, hay guiz, I just GM'd this tomato here to produce more vitamin C
Leanlifter1: HAHA NERD DO YOU EVEN LIFT BRO? DON'T YOU REALIZE GM IS AN EVIL CONSPIRACY BY THE MATRIX!! #yolo
Smart scientist advancing science and trying to make the world a better place: I respect the fact you resist oppressive authority figures but I for one believe we should move forward together to make real improvements to people's lives instead of throw a giant hissy fit to feel better, but that's your opinion and I can respect that. Looks like you've got some growing up to do
Leanlifter1: hurr durr, look at mr smartypants with all his long words, I don't understand what you're saying so I will just assume you're ONE OF THEM #swag

That's you that is.

At 4/2/13 03:21 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: How the fuck did I give permission to have my Genetic makeup clandestinely fucked with ?

There is no out of control wing of the CIA that as been secretly abducting US citizens and performing medical experiments on them in an attempt to alter the structure of their DNA. That is a lie made up by America's enemies to discredit the government, hippies and terrorists and stuff. There is always a perfectly rational explanation for sudden inexplicable memory loss, "missing days" and strange marks appearing on your body. Hahaha HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAAA

Your logic is completely vague about the shovel.

A shovel can be used to plant a carrot or a tobacco plant. GM can be used to increase the vitamin C in a tomato or make the plant produce harmful chemicals. It is a tool and not inherently evil.

What if the laughter is from a live audience?

People don't seem to be getting this distinction.

Monsanto might be evil.

Genetic engineering is not evil.

It is like a shovel, you can use a shovel to smack someone across the head, which is usually evil, or you can use it to plant carrots. That doesn't mean the shovel is evil.

At 4/2/13 02:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: sarcasm

noooo, i've been had

At 4/2/13 04:22 AM, Cootie wrote: Poor people are poor because they are ignorant mongoloid

You would be singing a different tune if you were born in the slums of Dhaka.

Technically the department of health can prevent practices like adding salt to beer or sawdust to bread. Bloomberg believes banning double galp is in line with these sorts of things.

At 3/31/13 10:32 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Not really. I think for most people *doing something* is better than doing nothing, and the burden of proof is always on those who claim the cure is worse than the disease.

There might be some bias in that favor but it doesn't explain everything.

Which is what I'm aiming for; unambiguous and one sided control of government.

Including propaganda, which means whatever the goal of the party it will get drowned out by the noise made by their opponents, few will hear them say "i told you so" even if their predictions of the economy collapsing after being left in the hands of their opponents comes true.

At 3/30/13 07:17 PM, Warforger wrote: But the original GM was just taking one plant which exhibited better charastiics than the rest and replanting that one. For example if there's one strand of the crop that survived drought then a farmer would take that plant, burn the other strands down and plant the seeds of the drought resistant crop thereby growing a master race of plants. This is why carrots are orange, in the wild they're mainly purple and red but Dutch farmers decided to plant exclusively Orange carrots in tribute to their monarch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding

There is nothing to stop biologists doing both. For instance guinea pigs cannot produce vitamin C in their bodies like cows can. They could reactivate the genes needed to produce vitamin C, then they could selectively breed the guinea pigs until any adverse health effects resulting from the alterations leave the gene pool through natural selection. Then they could introduce the superpigs into the wild and let them multiply uncontrollably.

At 3/30/13 02:12 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Americans have very little conception of prior or extant interventions having an effect on current social ills. If one politician tries to pass a law to solve some problem and the other gets in the way, the one who interferes is by default "part of the problem"

Are you sure? It could also be argued that someone trying to pass a law will contribute to a problem.

This is really bothering me, people can't read the argument, Tea Party Types would be best served forcing the worst government policies on the people by refusing to interfere with progressive policy.

I'm saying that the effect your predict will be overwhelmed by all the other things that are going on. If one party lets go of the reins the other party will be in a prime position to influence the civil service, push its own propaganda and things.

I have been wrongfully arrested twice.

Your entire argument hinges on this.

the latter will use the interference of the former as an excuse for why economic and social conditions are not improving

This isn't really significant, the opposition could easily argue that they are trying to stop economic and social stagnation which is being caused by the dominant progressives, there are also plenty of other arguments that don't involve playing the blame game.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar2 8.html

The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent).

Statistics indicate there are more liberal professors but it is not overwhelming and I do not know which proportion of these would be classified as progressive, the public chooses who it listens to, anyone can easily find a conservative professor to speak for them even if they are outnumbered 2 to 1 by liberal professors. These are factors, I only question their importance.

I would agree there is an equilibrium and this equilibrium is shifting towards state planning and progressive ideology, I don't think you've quite nailed the wide variety of causes though. It is perfectly possible for someone to agree with the values of progressivism yet oppose progressivism as a political group and the means in which they are trying to apply these values, it is also possible for someone to be apathetic or oppose all 3 ideologies you mention, progressivism, conservatism and libertarianism. You will find the majority of people are apathetic and do not have an ideology of choice that they treat like their favorite sports team.

I think libertarians and the tea party have confused you. Most people do not choose to become capitalist because they thought it would be a nice ideology. Reality chose for them. Through the course of people's life experiences they gravitated towards favoring economic autonomy for purely practical reasons.

Imagine you are the son of a fireman and started out as a technician operating mining equipment then over the years you became totally engrossed in scientific research and economics, contributing to the business then starting your own in an attempt to make an idea a reality, then suddenly some goatee'd polo neck sweater wearing intellectual pops out of nowhere and says "you're a capitalist". What would you think? You could be the biggest progressive in the world yet you're still going to act like a "capitalist".

The concept of capitalism is kind of like evil spirits, it gets blamed for every problem and there are even voodoo witch doctors peddling charms and spells that supposedly ward away capitalism, apparently listening to greenday and smoking certain plants will help stop sweatshops in China. If you had malaria would you go to a shaman or a doctor? They doctor may well be a "suit" or a "stiff", being told you need to stay in a hospital for a few weeks and take injections and pills doesn't make you feel better, but they will treat your malaria. It is the same in the real world, there are people peddling "cures for all ills" for all the problems of the world and in order to actually accomplish anything you need to be ruthlessly pragmatic.

Some support capitalism, some oppose capitalism. I for one do not believe in evil spirits. What am I?

At 3/29/13 11:20 PM, Warforger wrote: GMO's are good for the short run, but the long run effects it's not too sustainable.

Its perfectly possible to GM an organism to be better at growing without fertilizer or pesticides and without depleting soil nutrients. So wouldn't that mean after the apocalypse GM will be more important than ever?

This might explain what is wrong with your cat.

http://pets.webmd.com/cats/anal-sac-problems-cats

i have absolutely no idea what good friday is

facebook is evil, I might use myspace instead

At 3/28/13 12:22 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Interesting article! I had no idea something as odd as finger length could play a role in determining one's sexual tendencies. However, from what I saw, the study was not indicative of anything objective (plus, they mentioned a problem with the males requiring "several older brothers").

There is a strong correlation though, this suggests there is a range of factors which affect prenatal hormones and contribute to the likelihood of someone becoming a homosexual.

I am not sure what this one was for. A defect in the defeminization and/or masculinization process causing "homosexuality" would have to be true in nearly 100% of cases. Moreover, this same function is not present in females; therefore, it cannot explain lesbianism.

If the brain fails to masculinize in a male the male will become homosexual, if the brain masculinizes in a female the female will become homosexual, the trigger for masculinization or lack thereof is abnormal prenatal hormones. In theory, it would be possible to clone you and create the conditions in the womb needed to make the clone a homosexual. Of note is the fact that hypermasculinization in men can result in homosexuality along with lack of masculinization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_sexual_orienta tion

Independent studies indicate that homosexual women have masculinized (lower) digit ratios, and homosexual men show either hyper-masculinized or feminized ratios. These findings reinforce the prenatal androgen model - abnormal prenatal hormone exposure is related to the development of human homosexuality.

Whoops, you misread! I was describing a broad category - different types of benefits and their functions as such; not different types of marriage benefits. Apologies for the confusion!

So why does the state need to step in? Why don't people just decide on an agreement on their own accord, maybe sign a legitimate business deal in a civil court at their own legal expense if they want to share property or whatever?

GMOs are potentially harmful and there should always be high standards of food safety but GM is not necessarily harmful. So someone GMs a tomato to produce more vitamin C, for some reason because it is GM that means it is insidiously evil even though nothing is physically different apart from a higher concentration of vitamin C? Do people have some kind of difficulty understanding this concept?? hahahahahaha

At least monsanto are not snake oil salesmen trying to sell "organic vegan wholefood holistic medicine" and other bullpoop to desperate people suffering from serious illnesses like Steve Jobs.

Yes there are many examples of where selfishness is good, if someone stands up to a bully that is selfish but not a bad thing.

At 3/27/13 04:30 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: A homosexual gene cannot be solely dependent upon some sort of hormonal dysfunction.
While hormonal factors may play a role in a person's probability of becoming homosexual, since they are absolutely not primary

There is a lot of misunderstanding over the "gay gene", some people think it is a gene with direct effects that only a few people have like the genes for green eyes or blonde hair and do not understand that brain development is a much more complex process and everyone has genes that cause a likelihood of having gay offspring, some people instantly assume anyone who rejects the gay gene is trying to argue that being gay is a choice. Hormones are a link in the mechanism of action so it is fundamental to this.

All hullabaloo aside... Both genetics and environment are always involved to some extent and some traits may increase the prevalence of homosexuality but there is much evidence suggesting other factors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695142.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeminization_and_masculinizat ion

Dr Sharpe said

animal studies had shown how female sex hormones could affect sexual differentiation in the brain and regulate sexual behaviour, but this had still to be proved in humans. It could well be different, he said.

There are many adults who suffer from a lack of, or excess of a certain hormone, yet do not engage in homosexual behaviors.

The effect of hormones on prenatal development of the brain is different from the effects of hormones on an adult brain.

I believe you have a misconception of the idea of benefits and discrimination. Benefits are given to serve a purpose or function, and also to reward members of a certain group. For example, there are employment benefits, military benefits, and insurance benefits - all of which are intended to attract more able members and/or create an easier environment for current members to operate. Marriage, without a purpose or function, lacks the need for benefits; they must then be revoked if homosexuals are allowed to marry. This is because benefits cannot be given to one type of marriage (that would certainly be discrimination), yet also cannot be given to all members because the investment no longer offers a return.

I am very confused by all this, now it is your turn to educate me. Do married soldiers have more loyalty or something that makes them better? Do unmarried soldiers have no loved ones? It seems to me a better idea to instead just pay all the soldiers more money and let them buy life insurance if that is what they want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_or ientation

Homosexuality is due to prenatal hormones. The genes for the development of the brain are not stored in the XY or XX sex chromosones, they are stored elsewhere and activated by hormones released by the genitals which develop due to the individual's XY or XX sex chromosone, sometimes the hormonal stage is disrupted and the brain develops like that of the opposite sex or both to varying degrees. This has led to some confusion, there is no need to apologize just confirm that you are not one of those people who can never admit they are wrong.

Anyway, the state shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals but why should the state step in and discriminate against the unmarried in favor of the married in the first place? Gay marriage promotes discussion about this issue and help people become conscious of the heavy hand of government.

Then there is the abuse of the gay rights movement, as can also be seen in ethnic group movements and women's movements, their leaders claim anyone who disagrees with their particular ideology opposes equality, they are demagogues who prey on the fears of their followers so they can use their political capital, for instance if a politician wants to drop a tariff on sugar a sugar company might pay them to falsely accuse the politician of homophobia. Some of their followers take the ideology to embarrassing extremes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfzSTx2peeo

Gay marriage could be used as a bargaining chip, if their followers categorically reject their leaders we can say "I guess it is not a complete farce, I suppose it would make things simpler and allow us to concentrate on more important things, ok we will help".

If the government has to get money they should always have to do it through taxation, no exception. Just so that it is visible to voters how much is being taken and so that it affects everyone instead of just people who saved or whatever. People who save have taken less from the economy, every time you spend money you remove resources from the economy, so basically you are punishing them for being altruistic.

a light blue rabbit with a white belly

he told me to burn things

chicken and asparagus

I don't like cooked fruit in general, maybe meringue is ok, I would have iceream or yoghurt mixed with fresh fruit glazed on sugar on top of a meringue pie for my sweetpie.

A pie with a filling that contains all the essence of pie, a pie pie, if you will, that would be good also.