>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^marbles:
@ChaosEngine
What do you mean "within their rights infringe on the rights over others"?
You don't have the right to infringe on the rights of other people.
If you infringe on the rights of someone else, then they have the right to protect themselves with force.
e.g. Murder is morally wrong. Self-defense homicide is justified.

That is exactly my point. At what point are you infringing on someone else's rights by exercising yours?
For example, do you have the right to smoke in a public place? Do you have the right to drink and drive? Do you have the right to dump toxic waste on your property if it's next to a river? Does a parent have the right to physically discipline their kids? At what point does physical discipline become abuse?
The world is filled with cases where you must choose the lesser of two evils. Some are trivial, some seem contrived, but when you have 7 billion people, almost every situation will come up eventually.
While we're on the subject, I perceive that my rights have been infringed upon. I have the right to protect myself with force. What if I am wrong? What if it's after the fact (i.e. my property was stolen)? What if I simply lack the force to back up my legitimate claim?


The perils of human life. There’s always going to be conflicts where both sides feel they are within their rights. Hopefully you can resolve your dispute peacefully.

Your point basically supports those who argue that individuals in a “state of nature” would willingly come together to form a state and government.

>> ^marbles:

@ChaosEngine
What do you mean "within their rights infringe on the rights over others"?
You don't have the right to infringe on the rights of other people.
If you infringe on the rights of someone else, then they have the right to protect themselves with force.
e.g. Murder is morally wrong. Self-defense homicide is justified.


That is exactly my point. At what point are you infringing on someone else's rights by exercising yours?

For example, do you have the right to smoke in a public place? Do you have the right to drink and drive? Do you have the right to dump toxic waste on your property if it's next to a river? Does a parent have the right to physically discipline their kids? At what point does physical discipline become abuse?

The world is filled with cases where you must choose the lesser of two evils. Some are trivial, some seem contrived, but when you have 7 billion people, almost every situation will come up eventually.

While we're on the subject, I perceive that my rights have been infringed upon. I have the right to protect myself with force. What if I am wrong? What if it's after the fact (i.e. my property was stolen)? What if I simply lack the force to back up my legitimate claim?

1. somehow they attributed this to "anti-americanism", like they hear from their right wing radios that democrats/liberals/lefties/socialists are always screaming about how terrible everything american is and burning flags, somehow in their brains un-nationalism=nationalism=fascism.

4. clinton and obama also increased military spending. we fought tons of proxy wars under the clinton administration and obama has just shifted the focus from iraq to afghanistan. and i can't argue that. they're right. even though they completely skimmed over 8 years of hyper-patriotism.

7. TSA porno-scanners. obama reauthorized the patriot act. also, can't argue with them, except theyre still ignoring the last 8 years.

8. so they're mormons, and historically, the government has interfered with the church. they see the whole prop 8 fiasco as modern day proof of that. and government is trying to legislate for the church, not the other way around.

9. no, corporate power is not protected. this socialist administration is infriging on them and the epa wants to bankrupt all the businesses.

10. unions are the enemy. nurses unions are the reason all of the hospitals in california are in trouble. labor unions are evil. theyre the mafia. blah blah blah. labor unions are fascist organizations funding the obama administration to take out the middle class. this list has a liberal bias.

11. obama killed all the student loans. there is no more access to student loans anywhere, eventhough i am currently living off of student loans. also, academia is where terrorist sympathizers hide out. which explains why her 2 most liberal children are working on graduate degrees in liberal things like physics and disability studies. and her conservative children didn't go to college. my brother and i are really the close minded fascists. if you point out my moms graduate degrees she says she got it during the clinton administration then she went and got a job with it outside of education. unlike my brother and i who don't actually have real jobs. even though my brother works for the military and the military pays for his education. nothing makes any sense.

12. they related this one to the ex con that works for my stepdad. he's finally off drugs and making an honest living and obama won't take his ankle bracelet off probably because he is a white non-violent offender. i'm not even sure what that has to do with the topic, but thats the anecdote they shared with me.

most of what they say doesnt make any sense to me. and vice versa. but i find if i break things down into really small individual issues then we agree like... climate change isnt man made... but it is bad for the planet to dump all of our trash in the ocean and bury toxic waste and cut the tops off all the mountains and burn things into the atmosphere. .... but there is not such thing as global warming.

or our border with mexico is a huge security risk and people in el paso are terrified of the drug wars raging in juarez and we need to deport all the undocumented workers and close our border for good until mexico sorts their shit out.
but women and children who flee from mexico are refugees and should be treated as such.

even when we talk about anarchism, they like anarchism. but if you were to say i was left wing and had radical leanings... they'd freak the fuck out.

so their values and morals are mostly intact, and theyre mostly just like mine... we just use different languages and theyre not worried about atrocities that happen in other places.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Wow, that's nuts. How did they spin 1, 4 and 7-12? >> ^peggedbea:
omg! i've actually gone through this exact list with her and her husband before and the most bizarre thing happened - they attached every single point to "liberals". the phenomenon here is that the language has been changed. the world "liberal" is no longer derived from the word "liberty". it simple means "ugly nazi fascist death monsters"
and the word "liberty" now means "liberty in christ".
i shoplifted a copy of "the overton window" over the summer and read it aloud to my friends, the entire thing is chocked full of doublespeak. the introduction itself is almost entirely doublespeak. and sometimes i read articles on fox's website, or the drudge report or whatever for fun. it's loaded with doublespeak. almost every article uses some device to change the meaning of language. it's brilliant.
one of my best friends brother is a linguist at UF. i'm pretty sure when those boys come back to texas for christmas we're going to have a serious discussion about this.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Have you tried explaining to her what fascism is?
Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3

>> ^CaveBear:

I thought GM would pull out of it so I hung on to my GM stock. Then they went bankrupt and my stock was worthless. Then they offered new stock and made Wall Street guys richer. My stock is still worthless. It's all a Wall Street game of Greed and Lies.
I will never buy any GM product again.


Exactly. In addition, instead of their assets going to someone else who has been doing well, like ford, GM gets the ride free and clear...and the while leaving out all the financial responsibility they owed their previous stock holders. It isn't like all those people would be out of a job anyway, other firms would want to buy up those assets and put them to work, Saturn was on that track till the deal feel through and the government bailed out GM proper. Now, Saturn sits in liability limbo because of the bail out...more toxic waste.

@GenjiKilpatrick: Yes, seriously.

As I said, I was only referring to plastic in the landfill. I realize it will degrade over several hundreds of years, perhaps millenia - we don't really know yet, and it depends heavily on the environmental conditions - but again, if I have to choose between having toxic waste released into the environment quickly or very very slowly, I'll take the slow option. None of this is me saying it's ideal to make tons of plastics and throw it away, just that I think as long as we do have plastics and throw them away, it's not solely a bad thing they don't degrade very fast.

I'm open to any counterpoints, of course.

>> ^SlipperyPete:

>> ^rebuilder:
I'm not sure I see the big deal about plastic not degrading in the landfill.

Unlike rocks, plastic does degrade over time, such as with UV radiation. Even if you were to assume that it were possible for the majority of the world's produced plastic to be sequestered underground, a remaining percentage will still end up in all sorts of unfortunate places.

Arrggh, I'm conflicted! On one hand, this song is the musical equivalent of toxic waste (and not in a cool mutates-things-into-giant-monstrosities way either).

On the other hand, The Shat rules. Damnit, now I have to upvote...

You sound like the Joker after Batman burns him in a vat of toxic waste - "You created me!"

>> ^quantumushroom:

...where they could be capped in less than TWO MONTHS. Also, congrats to the greens for preventing drilling in ANWR, on 1% of 1% of a people-less sheet of ice. Because caribou self-esteem is more important than energy dependency.

>> ^entr0py:
You're absolutely right. This disaster is the best proof yet that environmentalists were insane to not want oil rigs close to the shoreline.

There is no establishment priority too banal for you to defend like a yapping poodle.

Solar panels are not more toxic than nuclear power, and their production would not cause ecologic disasters the likes of which we're seeing in the gulf. Yet another artless dodge on your part.

Every year we learn how to do more with less. The problem with solar energy now is that we really haven't spent that much time perfecting the science and production, but we are getting better.

And you're a lying sack of shit regarding nuclear going ten years without change. One nuclear plant creates thirty to forty tons of waste per year. That waste is deadly for tens of thousands of years. They have no where to put the stuff other than store it away and hope that nothing happens to it in the mean time. If something adverse does happen, then it's "Whoopsie! Not our problem any more!" and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill and the radioactivity.

Solar energy doesn't have to be "grid oriented." Every house has a refrigerator. Every house has a television, a computer, an HVAC unit, etc. Each house could have its own solar cells and supply its own energy.

You're as dense as QM. Your solution to any problem is no solution at all, just criticize anyone for offering an alternative.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
You're still a fucking idiot.
The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.
Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.


Solar panels have more toxic materials in them than batteries, and generally include a large quantity of actual batteries as part of any installation as well. If you replace our entire grid with solar your going to have an enormous load of toxic waste to dispose of on a more regular basis than any nuclear plant(they can go decades between fuel loads depending on how you build them). Or do you somehow expect a solar mega-corp to be more responsible for some reason?

>> ^rougy:

You're still a fucking idiot.
The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.
Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.



Solar panels have more toxic materials in them than batteries, and generally include a large quantity of actual batteries as part of any installation as well. If you replace our entire grid with solar your going to have an enormous load of toxic waste to dispose of on a more regular basis than any nuclear plant(they can go decades between fuel loads depending on how you build them). Or do you somehow expect a solar mega-corp to be more responsible for some reason?

Well, there goes my dream of Baby Punchers 'R Us.
>> ^rottenseed:

I don't get the black and white proposed when discussing law of businesses vs people. I think it's a businesses right to refuse business to anybody based on any criteria they choose. If they want to be racist that's fine, it's not illegal for an individual to do that, it shouldn't be illegal for a business to do it. I DO think that if a business is doing something illegal though, such as illegal dumping, murdering people, punching babies in the face, etc., they need to be punished. I don't think the government enforcing a law for corporations is any different than the government enforcing laws for people. I can be racist, but I can't punch a Guadalajarian maid in the knee caps. I can't dump toxic waste into the water, neither should DOW chemicals. I don't see the problem here. There's an easily distinguishable line.

I don't get the black and white proposed when discussing law of businesses vs people. I think it's a businesses right to refuse business to anybody based on any criteria they choose. If they want to be racist that's fine, it's not illegal for an individual to do that, it shouldn't be illegal for a business to do it. I DO think that if a business is doing something illegal though, such as illegal dumping, murdering people, punching babies in the face, etc., they need to be punished. I don't think the government enforcing a law for corporations is any different than the government enforcing laws for people. I can be racist, but I can't punch a Guadalajarian maid in the knee caps. I can't dump toxic waste into the water, neither should DOW chemicals. I don't see the problem here. There's an easily distinguishable line.

I'm glad we have a healthy debate going here

SO, what i have not heard from any of the pro-libertarian group is how corporate monopolies would not run absolutely wild and end up ruling the world. I'm not even exaggerating here. Already corporations control way too much and have insane amounts of power. If libertarian beliefs were put in to practice there would be absolutely nothing stopping giant corporations from buying up every piece of land and every natural asset and then subjugating the entire population. Who's going to stop them?

Also, what about the environment? Under the hard core libertarian stance i have heard, If i want to dump toxic waste in my back yard, who is going to tell me i can't? so what if it leaks in to the ground water. that's for some other guy to take care of.

Okay..since my sarcasm didn't quite drive the point home, I'll explain why this is a misguided idea:

Tanning Salons
-Vitamin D is synthesized in the body after exposure to sunlight. Anyone living far enough from the equator is bound to be deficient in Vitamin D. In fact, go ahead and plot cancer incidence by latitude and you'll see what I mean. Vitamin D prevents cancer and heart disease.

Beef
- Read about Vilhjalmur_Stefansson. In the early 1900s he underwent a scientific study where he ate nothing but meat for a year...and came out healthier than when he went in. Also read about all-meat diets and ketosis. Prolonged ketosis is a cure for diabetes, heart disease and cancer - not to mention periodontal disease. In scientific studies, terminally ill patients who were so far gone they were beyond "medical science" had their tumors go into remission and even clear up completely on a ketosis diet. Cancer cells have a lot of insulin receptors - they respond to glucose, take away the glucose and the cancer starves. Read about it.

Pork
- Same as beef.

Alcohol
- In many countries, 1 in 3 people have some form of mental illness sometime in their lives. Alcohol helps a lot of people cope with society. How the hell do you think I cope with all the (50% of the population) sub-100 IQ zombies walking around?

Oil used for deep-frying
- Fat is not unhealthy. Cholesterol does not cause heart disease, nor is it a good predictor of those who will get heart disease. Only ~3% of arterial plague is cholesterol by composition - the vast majority is calcium. Vitamin D helps regulate calcium...this goes back to the tanning salons.

Gasoline -- especially because it gives people an incentive to WALK when they're going less than 2 miles to a store, instead of driving.
- I don't think the cost of gasoline has ever factored into a lazy persons decision of whether to walk. The burning of fossil fuels and the creation of air pollution is a national health hazard (akin to me walking up and dumping toxic waste on you) and so YES this should be taxed because pollution is a hidden cost of industry; but the funds shouldn't go to Medicare they should go to giant air-scrubbers which help de-pollute the air.

Coal
- Same as gas

Natural Gas
- Same as coal.

Sugar and High Fructose Corn Syrup, Junk Food in general, & Cigarettes
- Okay, maybe you have some kind of argument here because these are legitimately detrimental to your health, but only used in excess. So unless you find a way to tax "excess" or define "excess" I can't see an argument for taxing the stray cigarette or potatoe chip.

>> ^marinara:
BFkisses, why you asking about fluoride? r u a mother or something?

on t
I became interested in this topic after seeing the news report by Team 5 about the issues they're having with Chinese purchased fluoride. I was kind of surprized to find out that they haven't yet figured out what the insoluable substance is yet. It's as if safeguards are not in place to ensure the quality of this "additive" to our water supply.

I like to drink water, as I'm sure everyone does. Does one really need a reason be concerned about the quality of the most essential element that our body needs?

Anyway, they say it's safe and good for us but I wonder if that's entirely true. I've seen lots of cases for the banning of fluoride and the extremely negative response by the "Science" channel administrator here on the sift about any claims that it's unsafe so I thought I'd find some information that supports Fluoride. I was hoping to find a video that would prove the case that it's a truly a great idea to add this chemical into our water, however the case "for" fluoride seems a bit weak and there appears to be contradictory evidence by those whom oppose fluoride, yet this research is generally disregarded by individuals that are for fluoridation.

I can understand the case for wanting to reduce cavities for the population yet I'm not so sure the safeguards are in place to prevent poor quality fluoride from being used (obviously since the fluoride from china hasn't been tested and we've been told it's safe). I also have an issue with the fact that this fluoride is essentially a toxic waste byproduct.

What exactly constitutes "pharmaceutical-grade" and "industrial-grade" fluoride? Is it the same thing? Does industrial-grade contain other toxic elements comparatively? These seem like important questions, seeing as we all NEED to drink water to live and they add this toxin to our water.

Am I being irrational in my thinking? Do we have the right to question these things? Are there special interests involved that promote the use of fluoride?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Said it before - and I'll say it again...
Free speech is never a bad thing. I will never for the life of me understand how people can be so offended by the right of people (which includes companies & groups) to appeal to government. McCain/Fiengold was bad, stupid law and it was overturned with more than just cause because it was unconstitutional. They made a law abridging free speech. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Another thing I don't understand - why do people get so mad at lobbyists for approaching politicians, and yet they never get mad at the politicians for being 'influenced'? Why did we make an unconstitutional law to punish free speech, and yet we have NO law to punish politicians who vote for bad policy?
If it is 'bad' for companies & interest groups to dangle money, then surely it is far worse for the politicians to actually be - you know - INFLUENCED. Money is like water. It is going to find a way into the system. You can't stop it. McCain/Fiengold was not only unconstitutional, it was stupid. You might as well run around trying to stop a monsoon by catching it in your cupped hand. The only proper solution is harsh penalties, monitoring, and regulation of GOVERNMENT officials. I think a law that throws elected officials in jail for accepting money, jobs, gifts, or favors woudl be far more effective than a law banning corporate lobbying efforts. Attack the source - not the symptom.


Ok this guy is working for the man.

Also about politicians accepting money etc. etc. It is generally argued that a john is to be blamed for prostitution. Often the john will be held criminally accountable and the prostitute will be set free maybe with a warning. The argument I think is basically that if we eliminate johns(as they're trying to do with many court-ordered programs to help them deal with their prostitute seeking behaviour) then there won't be any prostitutes.

Personally I think they both should be punished but some would pardon the prostitute because the need to get paid(to feed your kids, clothe yourself, buy a stick of deodorant) is stronger than the need to get laid. I realize my argument here is not incredibly well developed but it doesn't need to be because...

If companies are people as you so clearly claim why are they never held criminally accountable for their actions, i.e. dumping toxic waste into a community causing unknown amounts of cancer and deformed babies.

A company is just fucking not a goddamn person. Companies don't fucking eat. Companies don't fucking require shelter. Companies are not held accountable to ANYONE or ANYTHING other than their profit sheet. Literally.

Business is war and a good company will turn itself a profit like a good general will win a war. Even if that means murdering the elderly, raping the women, and brainwashing the children.