If The Gay is genetic despite the variables of the spectrum, in the future the option to make a fetus 'not gay' will likely be offered. I neither condemn nor condone this inevitable tech.

The 4% indeed has a voice, right now it's far-too-loud, an imbalance that will have to find its center. When religious people state that, per their beliefs, they consider homosexuality wrong, they are made into 'hate criminals'. "Gay history" is now mandatory in at least one mexifornian school.

I'm all for personal freedom, but rights can't be spun out of thin air, and that's what's been happening.





>> ^rottenseed:

Sexuality and the hormones driving it falls on a spectrum and it involves several chemical processes. Since it's OBVIOUSLY not passed on from gay parent to gay child, that means straight people are having homosexual children at a rate of (4%?) or whatever it is.
And that 4% of the population deserves a voice. And the oppression of their rights should be of more concern than just 4% of the population. We should all be involved with maintaining one another's personal freedoms.>> ^quantumushroom:
The Gay is likely genetic, but that means in a few decades it can be "cured". And 4% of the population has no business steering an entire election.
Cain, unlike Obama, seems to understand the Constitution limits presidential power. Good on him.

>> ^ponceleon:

I'm curious, what would happen if you shot a few rounds into that giant open target that has to come up when it goes into the air? If it slid back I feel like it would be hard to hit from the ground, but the way that thing pops up, feels like you to shoot into it and probably get material to fall into that intake and cause a crash or explosion.
Or if you are an action hero, lob a grenade against that backboard and just 3-point that fucker out of the air.


Designed by the same person as the Death Star?

I'm curious, what would happen if you shot a few rounds into that giant open target that has to come up when it goes into the air? If it slid back I feel like it would be hard to hit from the ground, but the way that thing pops up, feels like you to shoot into it and probably get material to fall into that intake and cause a crash or explosion.

Or if you are an action hero, lob a grenade against that backboard and just 3-point that fucker out of the air.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:


The state can't pay people $100,000 a year plus benefits for doing unskilled labor. The state can't pay for everyone's health care, retirement, food, shelter, and education. It just doesn't work.
They are just neoliberal jackhole leftists who constantly braise themselves in class-warfare rhetoric.


1) i'd like to know what unskilled labor jobs the government pays 100k/yr for... seriously, because otherwise, you're kinda just pulling that out of the air

2) the solvency of pensions/health care is quite well documented; if you watch alot of FOX, you might not think so... but it is

infact, just use some logic... why would a "FOR PROFIT" corporation want (WANT so bad they are lobbying for privatization to be the ONLY option) if it wasn't solvent? if they were going to lose money supplying these services... why would they want to get involved in the first place?

i know you've been led to believe that only private business could figure out a way to make it work, but who instituted these services in the first place? people with business/economic experience... or do you honestly think they just literally stopped the first person they bumped into, while walking down the street, and had them draw it up?

3) the education thing just BLOWS my mind... you honestly don't believe the current situation the US is in has ANYTHING to do with decisions/cuts to education made over the past 30yrs... that the lack of government funding, the increase in privatization, and thus the HUGE rise in post secondary education costs... none of that plays a part in the current scenario?

and I love the "shocking" resort to "class warfare" crap you reach for when nothing else works

its CLASS WARFARE when the victim speaks up and demands justice... but the last 30yrs of widening income gap, cuts to social programs/services, cuts to education, bailing out of the rich at the expense of EVERYONE else, and pushing of debt from the current generation to not only our children's generation, but their children... that's not CLASS WARFARE... nope, that doesn't sound like that at all

i at least hope you are one of the 250k/yr +... because then you are just greedy and lacking of character

instead of being foolish ontop of it all

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
?????? This guy seems quite bonkers. The more he talks the more idiotic he gets. He's just grabbing stuff out of thin air.

Even so--it could be an accident nevertheless. Releasing something on accident is just a part of medicine. And it did not have to be a "bio weapons" center... It could just be human ere.


It was traced back to a bean-sprout producer in Egypt. This dude should not be on Tv spreading bullshit outrageous theories.

>> ^DerHasisttot:
?????? This guy seems quite bonkers. The more he talks the more idiotic he gets. He's just grabbing stuff out of thin air.


Even so--it could be an accident nevertheless. Releasing something on accident is just a part of medicine. And it did not have to be a "bio weapons" center... It could just be human ere.

Remember carbon offsetting? Plant trees instead of actually reducing your emissions to meet caps. You could even sell any reductions under your caps to other companies. Travellers could offset the CO2 emissions of a flight. Ofc, only about 30$ of the money actually went to offsetting CO2 emissions and its questionable how well you can actually get CO2 out of the air so it just gave companies an excuse to be dirty. Occasionally it actually more profitable to emit more C02 and simply offset it later, or be particularly polluting one year so that your base CO2 emission was artificially high so that you could really cash in next year.

Not that I'm saying his ideas are bad, its just that market forces often manipulate things in ways you don't expect.

Oh well, our energy addicted civilisation will burn out eventually and then we'll have to learn to live sustainably.

Of course, his answer would be half-identical: "The chicken and the egg both came at the same time when God Almighty decided they should *poof* appear out of thin air (alongside dinosaurs and humans, but then he killed the dinosaurs off almost immediately because he changed his mind about them)."

You've got a lot of hate in your heart, buddy. I think you'd be a better person if you were motivated by compassion instead of fear - and I don't think you are a bad guy as is it. Your lord and savior was motivated by compassion. Shouldn't you strive to be a little more like your savior? >> ^quantumushroom:

Once again, the responsible have to pay for their own birth control and the birth control of irresponsible idiots.
"Free" birth control for idiots sounds great, but the state has far too many enticements for 'making babby' and keeping the state as pimp and surrogate fadda.
Anyone on welfare for more than 6 months should be forced to take birth control until they're back on their feet, with their legs safely out of the air.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Once again, the responsible have to pay for their own birth control and the birth control of irresponsible idiots.
"Free" birth control for idiots sounds great, but the state has far too many enticements for 'making babby' and keeping the state as pimp and surrogate fadda.
Anyone on welfare for more than 6 months should be forced to take birth control until they're back on their feet, with their legs safely out of the air.


Yeah except when people look at their crappy paycheck they think "Hmmm do I want to eat this week or not get pregnant?"

See you QM actually made a point that makes sense in a fiscally conservative way...and with a lot of douchebaggery. Still you made a fucking argument with the facts on hand. My problem is the people who bypass the facts and an argument and just go to "NO...because God Says So!"

We're not even having the same discussion at that point...there's no give no talk there's just everything we do is fundamentally wrong and we're going to hell. That's amazing, people who make an argument like that should simply be ignored because they're clearly insane. Nobody knows where you go when you die.

Once again, the responsible have to pay for their own birth control and the birth control of irresponsible idiots.

"Free" birth control for idiots sounds great, but the state has far too many enticements for 'making babby' and keeping the state as pimp and surrogate fadda.

Anyone on welfare for more than 6 months should be forced to take birth control until they're back on their feet, with their legs safely out of the air.

>> ^dgandhi:
Really? I quote common phrases from well established ideologies, and you just can't figure it out, so I'm doing it wrong?

Look, if you have no idea about the alternatives to your self contradicting belief system you can't really expect to have a discussion with people literate in these issues without having to look some stuff up, do your homework.

Your lack of general knowledge in this field is not an argument against those who disagree with you.

No, you’re quoting “objectivism” for its absurdity like it has another meaning. You’re quoting phrases from other ideologies without establishing how it has any relevance to the video. You have failed to make any argument that liberty is self-contradicting. Quoting other ideologies and then saying those quotes contradict themselves—that has no relevance to liberty.
>> ^dgandhi:
Randism and Marxism are based on the same initial premise: people have a natural right to objects created by their labor. The video you posted makes a Randian argument, whether you believe that this argument existed before Rand is immaterial, we are not debating authorship, we are debating content.
Incorrect. Marxism does not share that premise. I don’t deny Rand believes in liberty, objectivism goes beyond just believing in liberty. That’s 0 for 2.
>> ^dgandhi:
I can just as easily claim that the fact that property is a social construction is self-evident, but that gets us nowhere since "self-evident" is just sloppy posturing.
Where does production come from? If it is a social construction then it would be self-evident.
>> ^dgandhi:
I made no claim about the efficacy of actions taken by individuals, I only made claims of power. Power is fact, not social convention. In my society I am forbidden from taking heavy objects and bashing people over the head with them. I still have the power to do it, because my body is capable of the motion and my mind is capable of directing it, which society I live in effects this not at all.

My point is that I am dealing in facts, and you are dealing in imposed social contracts, and attempting to conflate the two.

Then you have no point. Fact: Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Social convention: Property is taken from individuals to serve the collective.
>> ^dgandhi:
I insist it is categorically wrong, and you insist on perpetuating its basis. You really don't have a leg up on this one.
No, Liberty insists slavery is categorically wrong, you insist it doesn’t exist and never could.
>> ^dgandhi:
I have a social contract with my neighbors. If every social contract I have with my neighbors is universal and immutable, then I suppose there is a sacred responsibly to mow your lawn, and not park your car in the stretch of public space in front of my house. You also, by this "logic" (oh no, fear quotes, do't get distracted) are required by your natural rights to pay taxes, and submit to reasonable search and seizure.
False. Social contracts are not by default based on protecting liberty.

>> ^dgandhi:
You are all tied in knots because you want a benefit of social contract without the costs, you want to free ride, and it bothers you that we think you have no right to do so. In order to rationalize this to yourself you have decided that you are entitled to property by some mechanism outside of the social contract. The problem is you have failed to realize that in the absence of that contract, claims to property have no power. If society at large does not accept your property claim, then society will not protect your property, and others will use it with impunity. No amount of hand waving will create the power to protect your unattended stake out of thin air.
False again. If I produce something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me. I only seek a social contract as a means of collective force to protect myself and other individuals from unlawful action.

>> ^marbles:

@dgandhi
You seem to have a problem understanding how quotations work.

Really? I quote common phrases from well established ideologies, and you just can't figure it out, so I'm doing it wrong?

Look, if you have no idea about the alternatives to your self contradicting belief system you can't really expect to have a discussion with people literate in these issues without having to look some stuff up, do your homework.

Your lack of general knowledge in this field is not an argument against those who disagree with you.

>> ^marbles:


I’m still trying to figure out how something can be “ideology indistinguishable” from objectivism and also a Marxist axiom. Fascinating that it can capture the essence of two polar opposite philosophies. But nevertheless, it doesn’t matter--since it’s neither.

Randism and Marxism are based on the same initial premise: people have a natural right to objects created by their labor. The video you posted makes a Randian argument, whether you believe that this argument existed before Rand is immaterial, we are not debating authorship, we are debating content.

If you can point out even one point made by the video that diverges from Rand, then you can make a distinction, otherwise I'll continue to call it what it is.

>> ^marbles:
From the video: “Property is that part of Nature which you turn to valuable use.” That’s reality. It’s self-evident.

I can just as easily claim that the fact that property is a social construction is self-evident, but that gets us nowhere since "self-evident" is just sloppy posturing.

>> ^marbles:

And others live in places that don’t share the same freedom you have. What’s your point? Did your choices and actions produce anything of value?

I made no claim about the efficacy of actions taken by individuals, I only made claims of power. Power is fact, not social convention. In my society I am forbidden from taking heavy objects and bashing people over the head with them. I still have the power to do it, because my body is capable of the motion and my mind is capable of directing it, which society I live in effects this not at all.

My point is that I am dealing in facts, and you are dealing in imposed social contracts, and attempting to conflate the two.

Value is also an arbitrary social convention, you will find that it will not help you here.

>> ^marbles:
Thanks, you just ended slavery all over the world! It's amazing!



I insist it is categorically wrong, and you insist on perpetuating its basis. You really don't have a leg up on this one.

>> ^marbles:

Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.
You don’t have to accept my property argument. And I don’t have to accept your nonsense that property isn’t property. But guess who wins—the one with the property. Don’t believe me: Go ahead and “make use of all the things” of your nearest neighbor. Take his car, his money, his clothes. Let me know how that works out.


I have a social contract with my neighbors. If every social contract I have with my neighbors is universal and immutable, then I suppose there is a sacred responsibly to mow your lawn, and not park your car in the stretch of public space in front of my house. You also, by this "logic" (oh no, fear quotes, do't get distracted) are required by your natural rights to pay taxes, and submit to reasonable search and seizure.

You are attempting to get an ought from an is, while completely disregarding the why of the is, or the other things that are for the same reason. The fact that social contract property looks like Randian property 99.999% of the time does not make it the same thing.

You are all tied in knots because you want a benefit of social contract without the costs, you want to free ride, and it bothers you that we think you have no right to do so. In order to rationalize this to yourself you have decided that you are entitled to property by some mechanism outside of the social contract. The problem is you have failed to realize that in the absence of that contract, claims to property have no power. If society at large does not accept your property claim, then society will not protect your property, and others will use it with impunity. No amount of hand waving will create the power to protect your unattended stake out of thin air.

Simple: The FED takes US Bonds and gives the same amount of money back to the US Government. (Remember that the FED is a private bank, despite the word 'Federal' in the title.) It works exactly the way you or I could buy Federal Bonds, except on a much larger scale.

So if Congress decides we are in need of an extra 100 million, they give the FED that amount in bonds and get back 100 million in treasury notes (US dollars) which are immediately deposited into the US Treasury account at the FED itself. The FED then gets to use this money as a fractional reserve to loan out ten times that amount to other, smaller, consumer banks. (Who, in turn, do exactly the same thing.)

This technically puts the government 100 million in debt, and it's why everyone talks about 'making money out of thin air.' This is significant because - since the Gold Standard no longer exists - it is also the sole defining factor involved in the value of the dollar.

If you're actually curious to learn how all the background dealing works, I recommend reading "The Create from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. It's a remarkably well written assessment of how the FED operates.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

?????? This guy seems quite bonkers. The more he talks the more idiotic he gets. He's just grabbing stuff out of thin air.


Nah, this guy knows his shit.