Obviously, as long as my child can pick up a TV remote while I'm not in the room and flip through channels, I am pro-censorship.

Aside from protecting children, enforcing a little decency is fine. Nobody needs to be swearing like a sailor on public TV channels--we have less-censored premium channels for that. If you can't voice something in a non-profane manner, you fail at speaking. It makes no sense to have uncensored nudity on TV, either. What does either one accomplish in the way of transmitting concepts? Jack shit.

With that, I suggest that the freedom of speech does not lie within the meansof the speech, but instead within the ideasof the speech. It's one thing to keep people from swearing, because an idea can be conveyed without it, but a completely different thing to keep people from voicing opinions.

Imagine what O'Reilly would be like with no media censorship. Yeah.

At 12/1/09 11:59 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Obviously, ideally I'd prefer everyone to have such a mindset. What are some other ways that we as society could go about affecting such a responsibility that the Dalai Lama speaks of?

Raising our kids right. All the new parenting techniques are fucking up our future generations to be more xenophobic and overly cautious of people strange to them. I mean, we don't let our children play unsupervised, we don't let them trick-or-treat unsupervised, we teach them all about "stranger danger." It's breeding a nation of cowards, and it takes some courage and initiative to help others.

Unfortunately, everyone is more than willing to spend money while only few are willing to spend real effort.

I believe that the point isn't just to give financial aid, but to have honest empathy for people in need, which means that one must do so of his own free will.

How would spending tax dollars serve that end?

At 10/4/09 08:11 PM, AapoJoki wrote: I think Israel often uses excessive, disproportionate amount of force to counter relatively small threats, causing unforgivable amounts of "collateral damage" on the civilian population.

Well, Israel has its back against the wall as a shining gem of democracy and Western culture in the middle of an area that rejects Western culture... I understand why they don't want to take chances.

Why do we send doctors through a bunch of useless classes (read: all classes) before medical school?

I dunno, maybe it has something to do with academic rigor and weeding out kids.

At 9/27/09 03:13 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 9/23/09 03:25 AM, fli wrote: Jesus had friends who were tax collectors...
Jesus collected taxes too... (although, in form of charity of course.)

Unrelated nitpicking, Jesus never accepted money for his services, to my knowledge.

Shit, forgot to post a separate comment with that last post:

The way the original Christian church was set up was that there were rich people and poor people within the church, but should anyone NEED anything, the others would all help as best they could, including the rich. There's no sin at all in having a lot of money--the sin associated with it falls under greed and pride.

Money comes with responsibilities.

At 9/23/09 03:25 AM, fli wrote: Jesus had friends who were tax collectors...
Jesus collected taxes too... (although, in form of charity of course.)

Unrelated nitpicking, Jesus never accepted money for his services, to my knowledge.

Apparently their voters don't seem to mind.

Well, shit, guys, what have I been thinking?

Let's all just be funemployed!

At 8/18/09 10:02 PM, Kajio wrote:

At 8/18/09 09:54 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 8/18/09 09:46 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 8/18/09 09:45 PM, Christopherr wrote: Haha, I'm going to come live on the land you want to live on.

So am I, we can have orgy!

can I koin becausethats what happens in anarchism no rules so I can do what I want and nothing can stop me.

I have a gun.

Just because the government can't stop it doesn't mean that no one can.

The implicit message being that you believe in the ownership of property. What happens when your gun isn't enough to defend your land rights that wouldn't really exist anyways? A group of guys with more guns will just take it away. What if you get a group of people to defend your land? Well, then other groups will get bigger as well. What happens when the groups grow and grow? You eventually have established governments. Anarchy is such a pipe dream.

Haha, I'm going to come live on the land you want to live on.

It's Waterworld for polar bears.

I remember when that fuck Olbermann had that Janeane Garofalo woman on, and he kept agreeing with her and egging her on while she called the tea party protesters racist rednecks. Hell, just the fact that he agreed to even speak with that nut is enough.

At 6/29/09 09:35 PM, KidneyThief wrote:

At 6/29/09 09:17 PM, Korriken wrote: they have declared that they will be firing a missile at american territory. that alone is an act of war. turning north korea into a smoldering heap of refuse isn't bullying. its protecting one's own territory.

That's like saying blasting a person who kicked in your front door is cold blooded murder.

We know North Korea can't hit Hawaii. Your analogy is poor, North Korea hasn't kicked in our front door so to speak. They made a threat, and an empty one at that. I'm also pretty sure that killing someone who threatened to kick in your door is murder.

They said they're going to try, that's enough justification. Your analogy belittles the situation. We're talking about a country that just probablywon't be able to but still is threatening to hit the US with a missile that would kill many thousands of people. Thousands of people in your country.

If intelligence is correct, the new missile has a range of 4,000 km, but given the right wind conditions, it could easily hit Hawaii and possibly even the mainland. http://www.speroforum.com/a/19666/Iran--
North-Korea-Partners-threatening-America

But, speaking with respect to North Korean intentions, if we know the missiles are not powerful enough to make it to the US every time, we should wait for proper weather conditions (those minimizing missile range) and preemptively strike Korea. If we wait, we can be sure that they will develop a longer-range missile, and we can be sure that they will use that one, too. We could end this with minimal US casualties (possibly none) now, or we could end it with more US deaths later, those are our options.

At 6/29/09 08:28 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/29/09 07:41 PM, Christopherr wrote: The next best thing for them was making their cigarette ads look cool and original (because kids fall for things that look cool instead of things that are actually practical).

but so do adults.

I've always liked to think that kids are most susceptible to it, though. Check out #20 on this fact list: http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/c ommstud/freespeech/cont/cases/chitobacco two.html

At 6/29/09 08:19 AM, zendahl wrote: I have yet to see an ad that markets flavored tobacco let alone one that markets it to kids. Flavored tobacco is something you see sitting behind the counter and decide to buy. on top of that most places like gas stations and grocery stores don't carry flavored tobacco product (except cigars) and what they do carry are in similar packaging to the regular stuff with only the words being diferent.

I really hope you're joking. Companies are making new types of flavored cigarettes with new boxes and even names (see link below), and they're advertised and sold in nearly every gas station in my town. Get with the program.

How is this being marketed to children?

This would be because it's not legal to advertise towards children, but only in the obvious manner. The next best thing for them was making their cigarette ads look cool and original (because kids fall for things that look cool instead of things that are actually practical). Take, for example, the new flavor ball cigarettes, which are just flavored cigarettes with a slightly different delivery mechanism: http://www.cscoutjapan.com/en/wp-content /uploads/2008/07/camel-crush-kool-boost.
jpg

Never mind that about half of all smokers start as minors and that tobacco advertisers have had a history of marketing towards young people (ex. the Marlboro Man), making kids a really enticing marketing base.

I have a better idea. If we want to keep our kids from smoking why don't we show them a little respect and stop acting like they are too retarded to be able to tell that flavored tobaco isn't candy? Treating them like idiots is going to hurt thier self esteem and low self esteem is one of the real reasons kids start smoking. Kids are smarter than todays society gives them credit for.

Who tells kids that flavored tobacco is candy?

At 6/29/09 04:20 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 6/29/09 03:44 PM, GoldHippo wrote: I never understood why someone gets 100+ years in prison. Someone care to explain that for me?

Because it sounds really really harsh and is supposed to make people feel like justice was done. Look, this guy dies in prison now obviously, but in his case life is what? 10 years tops? So "life" doesn't sound as good here, but even though he dies in the same amount of time 150 sounds really big and really final. It's all psychological satisfaction that falls apart if you think about it for 2 minutes.

Could be for legal reasons as well. If they slap him with one big case, they might get a lower sentence, but no matter how much is done, there's no point trying to reduce a series of separate charges whose minimum sentences always add up to a large amount of time. You know, bring all your guns.

It's not uncommon for a Jehovah parent to refuse medical treatment on the basis that God is magically going to cure them (never mind that He gave them doctors to do that). However, while the state recognizes the constitutional right of the parent, they also have to act in the interest of the kid. What I'm saying is, the kid, being too young to understand the faith that was shoved on him by his parents, deserves not to be killed by his said faith, just because his parents want it.

Saving lives > Constitution.

At 6/27/09 03:30 PM, xKore wrote:

At 6/27/09 07:33 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: As for sexuality, especially for sexuality, the issue can be raised whether a man can force their partner into acts of sexuality. I mean, you are together for that reason, so you can no longer rape your partner, right? Wrong. Even in relationships the partner who refuses sex etc.

What? From my perspective, it is generally the case that this is common sense. Maybe in less civilized regions like Africa and the Middle East, and maybe small pockets of society, but you seem to be generalizing that our civilized society is like this, when from my point of view, it's totally the opposite. I think nowadays, women are respected more than ever.

Don't confuse equal treatment with respect. Victorian era women were generally seen as "pure" and "clean" creatures, unlike modern women.

But, as far as Muslim countries go, women have gained VAST amounts of respect with the rise of Western influence.

At 6/25/09 03:30 PM, lVlad wrote: 1. You cant change someones mind by arguing about something abstract which cannot be proven.
Millions of people throughout history have either joined or switched faiths because they were convinced by anothers arguments and or claims. Thus, it is possible and allows for the pleasure and knowledge to be exposed and enjoyed. Angry arguments help root out weaknesses in arguments and later allowing them to be altered.

Assuming we're talking about adult converts, people usually join/switch religions because of the actions of believers, not convincing arguments. Take, for example, the Lutheran church. It has become the largest Christian denomination in Africa because its mission projects seek to provide food, shelter, and medical care before offering spiritual sustenance, not because they throw pamphlets with arguments on them.

I lost all hope for PETA a loooooong time ago.

Oh, just because it's funny, here's PETA recommending breast milk be used in your ice cream.

In the Deep South, ma'am carries a much higher connotation... Anyone know where he's from?

If I want a new car, could I buy a shitty clunker for %500 and save myself $4,000?

At 6/18/09 01:16 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 6/17/09 05:57 PM, Christopherr wrote: If I wanted to sell my car, I could just tool with it to give it shitty mileage... then get free money. Lower the air pressure in my tires, tune the engine poorly, add weight to the car, make the electric appliances use more juice, etc.

How would the law work around that?

It's for a trade-in. You could get $4500 in credit towards a more fuel-efficient car, but if you were getting decent mileage in the first place, your car was probably worth more anyway.

HAH! Lots of crappy cars get good mileage. That's not very relevant though, I'm just noting that the idea leaves a LOT of room for abuse.

If I wanted to sell my car, I could just tool with it to give it shitty mileage... then get free money. Lower the air pressure in my tires, tune the engine poorly, add weight to the car, make the electric appliances use more juice, etc.

How would the law work around that?

At 5/19/09 08:18 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 5/19/09 08:10 PM, svenisgod wrote: i dont understand why not.
i mean they can fight just as good as the next person.

yeah when its over the last piece of the new line of designer clothing.

I'm pretty sure that the type of gay dudes who join the military are not flamers.

Not all gay men are effeminate. My best friend as a child was gay, and I never would've known had he not told me, for example. Think Spartans, not queens.

At 5/19/09 08:07 PM, stafffighter wrote: Ok, Got too much quoted text. Ok, I'll do the speel. You have opions, you have a viewpoint. That's good. It's not one I agree with but it's great that you express it. What bothers me here is that you're trying to hide the argument of your point of view behind something tagged as general dishonesty. That's leading, manipulative and really just dishonest in and of itself.

Is there any neutral way to answer the question, "how truthful is that partial birth title?"

Yes, I have opinions on abortion itself, but as far as the issue of Obama's failure to compromise that I made the thread to talk about [and which was promptly derailed in favor of your rebuttals to my simple facts] my examples and I were unbiased.

At 5/19/09 07:56 PM, fatape wrote:

At 5/19/09 06:13 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I'm of the opinion it's not. And if this type of hentai is in the hands of a previous offender, then I have to agree that it's probably being used to satisfy pedophilic urges.

should being a pedophile in and of itself be illegal?

No, it isn't. However, if a pedophile watches pedophilic hentai, his urges are being nurtured, which would most likely lead to a higher chance of him committing the actual crime.

At 5/19/09 06:26 PM, stafffighter wrote: You made a topic and didn't want to debate the issues you set forth in it?

The issue I set forth regarded compromise on abortion, not dozens of mini-debates over whether the listed actions were right or wrong in and of themselves. Together, the actions highlight that compromise is not as easy as Obama makes it seem and aren't meant to be taken as individual arguments (note that all of them are wholly factual).

With that, I wanted to find out when and how we will work together to do something about it.

Yeah. You're not taking sides.

Considering that the topic is about how different opinions will come together, When did I say I wasn't? I never promised my neutrality, but I did say that I didn't want to argue about the individual events.

Both of you, you're missing the point. I don't want to argue about these issues, they are examples. I'm trying to make a point about Obama's legitimacy in proposing that we reason with each other and make compromises.

At 5/18/09 08:26 PM, stafffighter wrote: Really, how truthful is that partial birth title?

I was just putting that there for people who didn't make the connection. The topic-starter has to appeal to all of the Poli board. True, it's not partial birth, as the baby is torn to pieces in the womb before it is pulled and sucked out.

The parenthetical statement wasn't the point.

-His budgets call for taxpayer-funded abortions.

Unless you mean he's going to have a government sponcered abortian truck roll through suburban streets in the summer I'm going to assume you mean abortians will be covered by health care.

Irrelevant. Whatever the medium, anti-abortion people should not be forced to spend their money to finance an abortion. (More specifically, he wants to revoke the law in DC that bans taxpayer-funded abortions so that the DC budget can have money appropriated to local abortion agencies)

Medical reseach? How dare he.

The point is that it is a hot topic in the abortion debate. I'm not taking sides, I'm just listing examples of his refusal to make any compromises.

Being rated by groups means he doesn't comprimise?

Considering that said groups (just looked it up, the NLRC) analyzes voting trends and whatnot, yes. Yes it does.

Even though I do beleive the parents should be informed the simple fact is that a lot of girls would rather get themselves in much deeper than admit it to them. It's a sad comprimise but a nessecary one.

I'm not following you here... I don't see how it's a compromise.

At 5/18/09 09:24 PM, Tancrisism wrote: The pill.. as in, the morning after pill? Or birth control? Or the abortion pill?

I should've been specific. The abortion pill.
http://www.cc.org/blog/obama_allow_abort ion_pill_girls_young_seventeen

Send me a link of this. Last I remember, he was against this.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article /77500/barack_hussein_obama_jr_defends_p artialbirth.html

-He is overturning conscience protections that allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions without repercussions.

Another link here would be dandy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022701104.
html

Right. This =/= abortion.

It depends which taxpayer you are talking to. To a large, large group of people, it is the equivalent in the sense that it destroys life.

You remember them, you say, but what were your sources? Some of your examples don't sound like him at all.

That or you don't know your own president.

I'm not sure if you have actually listened to his rhetoric at all. He has said that he understands that it's an issue where people perhaps will not be able to compromise, but he thinks that both sides are turning each other into ridiculously polarizing "caricatures" (his own word for it) and that this is not healthy, or helping anything.
He has an opinion on the issue, naturally, but he wants a realistic debate to be opened up rather than each side painting the other as satan. Which is, essentially, what they do.

If something is to be done, there's going to have to be a compromise, plain and simple. Obama knows that's just how things work, people aren't going to just start agreeing with each other without meeting somewhere in between. Realistic debate is the means to the end of compromise. In that speech, he urged people to listen to each other and build off of each other's differing opinions, or compromise.