Search results

BOS political compass scatterplot Go to The Political Compass to take the test. Then post your results here: http://67.220.218.99/~shebelie/compass/ Credit goes to runoutofsleep for creating it. Everyone rep him.

Well in financial terms, the risk that your date will not provide you with sex if you buy things for her is already priced into the transaction. The woman is not defrauding the man in anyway because no explicit agreement that sex will be provided has been made. If the man doesn't want to take...

I don't mind being used for money. It allows me to get attractive girls, despite my repulsive appearance and debilitating social awkwardness. I've also calculated that paying for dates is marginally cheaper than going to prostitutes, however you have to have sex multiple times each night for...

Wow, this post really nailed it.

Some of these people have absolutely no ability to think for themselves whatsoever. If they had been raised to believe that raping children was a good idea, they probably wouldn't question that either. If you suggested it was wrong, they'd just get really angry and appeal to "common sense" and...

Logic for first graders should be sufficient.

Well its hard to judge who are the "worst people" but I think any group that does the following would have to be in the running: -Has murdered civilians using nuclear weapons. -Holds people in secret prisons without trial. -Monitors the whole world's phone and internet traffic. -Has killed...

Statist Thug: I think its okay to hit children, as long as you don't do it to hard and stuff. Libertarian: But what gives you the right to make the judgment? Where do you draw the line? Why can you hit children lightly but not adults? Statist Thug: SHUT UP. EVERYONE KNOWS THERE'S A DIFFERENCE...

The government are the worst people and they already do have arms. But point taken, and yes, I do support the right of the "worst people" to bear arms including nuclear weapons. I certainly doubt that there would be much of a problem with terrorism if the US government hadn't funded these...

That was actually a pretty funny image. Still, it wouldn't matter if we were obese terrorist, pedophiles wallowing in our own filth as we type. The arguments are sound.

Private security firms. How would they be funded? With all the money people would save from not paying tax. Under the current system the council's laws could simply be enforced by the existing state and federal police. It really would not be that hard to modify the existing laws to allow for...

You seem to be assuming that criminals are nothing more than irrational, cold hearted killing machines. Most criminals don't want to be forced into such situations where they may be forced to kill someone and to face the very severe consequences associated with murder. Even if as you say...

When the government brings in a law that says guns are illegal, and unauthorized possession may result in jail time, all law abiding citizens will by definition surrender their guns. Criminals who do not respect the law and have less fear of sanctions like imprisonment will still be determined...

There are hundreds of pieces of research on this topic, all with different conclusions. At the end of the day when you're comparing different countries with unobserved factors other than gun control that influence the data, its going to be impossible to say with much confidence either way...

You fool! Of course firearm deaths are higher where there is easier access to firearms. But if we reduce firearm deaths and people just substitute other methods of killing each other and rates of suicide and homicide remain unchanged, we have achieved nothing. The relevant statistics are the...

It's not a false dichotomy. Explain how it is? Even if the government is successful at minimizing access to guns, as you admit, criminals will still have access to guns while law abiding citizens do not. Governments that already have nuclear weapons don't want other states to have them...

Oh yay, SHODAN is here to tell us how good the status quo in Australia is and to repeat points that have already been made in this thread.

Edited the OP. The main reason we need guns is not to protect us from petty criminals, but to protect us from the state itself. You continue to conflate banning firearms with eradicating firearms. Every government in the world has consistently failed to wipe out things people demand like...

Awesome. So if you do something that I judge subjectively to have "crossed the line", can I use physical force against you (as long as I don't leave any permanent adverse effects)?

It happened to work out well. That does not mean for one moment that it was a good idea. At the time, there was a risk that you would push the boundaries to such an extent that your parents would have had to actually beat you with the riding crop, or effectively admit that it was an empty threat.