I still have heard of any "SANE preventative means" that don't involve restricting gun ownership.

This is much like the war on terror insofar as victory is just minimisation not eradication. Massacres like this are going to continue so long as access to easily usable weaponry is maintained. The best you can realistically hope for in the USA is to have fewer of them. As such it is going to be near impossible to provide compelling evidence that a decrease in access to weapons amounts to a decrease in shootings as there are always going to be sporadic shootings in a country with so widely spread gun ownership. One massacre equals grist for the mill to those who say gun laws didnt stop anything just as all the counter-terrorist efforts haven't stopped terrorism. It is going to take a degree of calmness and maturity that the USA, given its heritage, simply doesn't possess. The rest of the developed world has only come to these findings after the fact and is screaming at the USA to heed their experienced advice. Likewise, the rest of the developed world can't get it through their heads that the USA has 'jumped the shark' in relation to gun ownership and proliferation and nothing short of a revolutionary change in the cultural psychology, such that near universal voluntary relinquishment of gun ownership is required, will address the problem.

In short, gun ownership in the USA is The Prisoners Dilemma writ large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

>> ^CreamK:

You deny their entrance. They have now sufficient proof that a crime is being committed right now since you refused a look-around (it's defined in the law, they can enter but not touch anything, can't open doors or drawers etc.) and the previous six months minimum limit is thrown out of the window...


The "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind being searched" people you refer to don't understand how the state/cops/browncoats/whatever can abuse that law. They don't understand that even though they are law-abiding citizens, they can still be victimized/harrassed by police. I don't trust cops AT ALL. They are revenue-raising, lying pieces of shit as far as I'm concerned, and the last thing I would agree to is a voluntary search of me, my car, or my home, whether I have something to hide or not. Here, we can refuse searches, unless they have a warrant.

Here's a case where cops right here in Oregon were using thermal imaging to detect homes that had heat signatures that indicated pot growing. Went all the way to the Supreme Court. Even though the police didn't enter the home, the action was considered an unreasonable search, and therefore unconstitutional. Scalia actually got one right.

@enoch why, is society so incapable of voluntary charity that, without government, people would simply have no concern for each other? Stating that it's a basic, fundamental role, doesn't make it so. Maybe you should question that.

@Yogi but you're not exactly giving money to an old widow or helping kids at school, you're just being forced into funding a corporation called "government", trusting that they won't steal that money for bailouts, corruption or sheer incompetence. Not wanting government involved doesn't imply lack of concern for the poor and needy or non-willingness to do charity by other means.

America is one of the most charitable countries in the world, more than $200 billion last year alone, most of the contributions coming from middle class individuals. Why are you so distrustful of the kindness of the human spirit, so sure that if government didn't make people do charity at the point of a gun, people would always let their neighbors starve and die?

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/ is often accurate.

I tend to be open about who I am, and I post about the same stuff on facebook - that's voluntary accountability, but like gorillaman says, some people can't be like that in lieu of their status, surroundings, family etc etc, so anonymity gives them an outlet to be who they really are.

@renatojj I agree with you! Coerced into transactions they dont want is indeed the only definition important. I just dont agree free market policies are about making transactions as voluntary as possible. Free market policies only do that in some cases, namely where you have optimal competition. In most markets that is not the case. That is what I mean with right.

I live in Europe. Spain currently has an official unemployment of 25%, 50% for those under 25. Do you think in that situation the unemployed have a choice? You will and do get coercion. People dont want to work for wages that are so low they cannot afford their homes and barely have enough to eat. But the other option is starvation, so they have to. I know the free market people argue that that is still a choice. It is not. If it where up to companies, they would pay even less. Thats why you need for instance minimum wages. If companies would be allowed to go below that minimum all kinds of nastyness would happen. Not for the companies, but for the country, which is bad also for the companies in the end.

Free markets rules are set to minimize government intervention. In some cases that also leads to maximum choices, which you call economic freedom. The issue here is that if all the choices are bad, you are still better off with more rules as lots of bad choices is another form of coercion. The entire idea is to maximize economic freedom while making sure there are good choices. I am not advocating government take full control, which would be the other side of the spectrum. I am advocating a middle road. Use free markets when you can, regulate when you need to.

@rbar the only definition of exploitation that really matters is when people are coerced into transactions they don't want to participate. Whenever you adopt any broader definition to fight against, you end up with more of that first kind of exploitation.

In a free market, the policy is to make transactions as voluntary as possible, maximizing options, which makes exploitation less likely.

When you argue that an environment is not right for a free market, what do you mean by "right"? Isn't that just passing judgement, just you implying force should be used to achieve whatever it is you consider to be "right" for a bunch of people, instead of letting them work it out without force? Wouldn't imposing by force your definition of "right" be likely more unfair?

What you said about unions not being involved with government any more than businesses are, I completely agree, because they both are very much involved, they both use force, laws, and taxpayer money to gain an unfair advantage. That would be unacceptable in a free market.

There is nothing arbitrary about the rules of a free market, they're defined on principle to maximize economic freedom for the individual. The only analogy I make with freedom of expression is that they're both freedoms, they have the same dynamic.

Watching it again with notes.
Single * are what he says, double ** are what I respond.
*Dopamine is released for novelty - aka new girls/guys.
*No control group, since everyone watches porn.
*Doctors thinks people who like porn, have ADD and related things.
*Internet porn is as different from sex, as video games from checkers.
*Porn is addictive, because of our built-in reward system (dopamine, binge mechanism).
*Excessive addiction, leads to brain changes (other pleasures numbed, hyper reactive to porn, willpower erosion) like all other addictions.
*"Reddit effect" constant novelty is addicting.
*He talks about a voluntary control group of people who voluntarily give up internet porn. I have issues with this.
** In people who voluntarily give up internet porn, there will often be other factors leading to this; say a wife that hates it and influence the man to also hate it. Or some bad experience might turn a person off it. My point is, that he assumes that there's only one variable changes from the rest of the people, and that's not really true, since many other factors play into it, since something caused the willing rejection of internet porn. It's not a true control group.
** Overuse of porn desensitizes the brain, stopping the use returns the sensitivity. This makes sense. This is like any other addiction, this does not say anything about whether or not porn is bad, it says overuse/addiction to porn is bad. I agree with that.

He wants us to not be addicted to porn. This does not speak against anything I've said in this thread.

It's all a fraud, but a voluntary one. The CSA is unscientific and doesn't abide by its own classifications... but has been adopted by the States, who now don't question it.

Since 2003, the US Govt, through the DHHS, owns a patent on Cannabidiol - a main ingredient in the cannabis plant and component of the smoke from combustion of the plant -- thus invalidating the claim against medicinal value. Patent Number 6630507. So why is it illegal? Guess who is in charge of authorizing the studies?

You will have to look it up, because for all intents and purposes it is actually the DEA who sets AND enforces drug policy in our country. (of course, they swear they are just followin the orders which come right from our citizens! they are doin the good work by keepin us from getting free medicine. don't you remember asking them to ruin your life just for fun?)

The current DEA director LYINGHEART actively blocks all attempts at scientific discourse regarding marijuana, yet screams the sky is falling because of synthetic cannabinoids that have been available for over a decade, proving that the DEA is up its own ass, at least partially enough to block hearing and sight. They can still smell pot smoke though.


Marijuana is not a drug. The plant isnt a drug. The chemicals inside it are... and they have medicinal value. So why make the plant illegal? Because its free. Number one, period.

prescription pain killer abuse is at an all time high and rising with the population... so one has to question the motivations of people who keep a free effective drug illegal. The most therapeutically safe substance known to man is classified with Heroin in terms of impact on health and society. That alone should be a warning flag to any thinking citizen.

Sickening, yet the only logical conclusion in light of all the facts.

>> ^renatojj:
uh... the broken window fallacy doesn't seem to apply here because manufacturing Lamborghinis is actually profitable, it's completely voluntary (people are free to do more productive things than build or buy a Lamborghini, if they want) and there's no destruction of someone else's property in that process. Unlike mass murder, wars or breaking a window.
You clearly consider yourself better than most people when it comes to directing humanity's resources, maybe you should run for office.


Paying $200,000 for a sports car is comparable to paying five people $40,000 each to spend a year digging and refilling holes. Nothing of value has been produced, five man-years of human productivity have been destroyed; it's economic vandalism.

@gorillaman, uh... the broken window fallacy doesn't seem to apply here because manufacturing Lamborghinis is actually profitable, it's completely voluntary (people are free to do more productive things than build or buy a Lamborghini, if they want) and there's no destruction of someone else's property in that process. Unlike mass murder, wars or breaking a window.

You clearly consider yourself better than most people when it comes to directing humanity's resources, maybe you should run for office.

Ana actually states that it was a voluntary sterilization program sorta like a man getting snipped or a woman having her tubes tied. Sorry can't remember the medical names for those procedures off hand. lol

[edit]A vasectomy or a hisdirectomy(sp?) that's what it is heh I just remembered.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Yogi:
Selective sterilization is a step towards eugenics.

They were being hyperbolic.
If anyone seriously tried to set up a forced sterilization program these two would be among the first to scream about it (as would I).

I think you've forgotten about high school and college. I went to tons of 'voluntary' assemblies, speeches etc. when I didnt want to. Do you think the Journalism teacher took his journalism classes to the journalism convention? No you don't have to go to this convention where I the journalism teacher worked my ass off to have here and which whoever paid tons of money for.....but I am offering extra credit if you show up.

anyway ...we should poll the people there to see if they were they voluntarily or not.........


>> ^TheJehosephat:

I don't think they were forced to attend anything. This was at the Seattle National Journalism Convention, and anyone who showed up was there voluntarily. Which makes their walking out possibly planned and even more rude.
>> ^Confucius:
>> ^BoneRemake:
Look at all the closed minds ensuring they stay closed.
FUCK THEM INDEED.

Maybe barreling into the 'bible is retarded' was not the best way to approach the subject. And I'm guessing the majority of those who walked out weren't offended about what he was saying and just saw the opportunity to gtfo of an assembly that they had been forced to attend.

... and in not ONE of these scenarios is Zimmerman NOT guilty of manslaughter.

It is very likely that Zimmerman would be guilty of voluntary manslaughter in some other state, but in this particular case Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law provides a very clear defense against the charge of manslaughter. I'm not trying to make any comment on whether the law is good or bad. I merely state the fact that the law was in effect at the time of the incident.

"A person ... who is attacked ... has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself... A person who uses force as permitted ... is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil actionfor the use of such force..."

That's the law. The general consensus appears to be that Martin and Zimmerman got involved in an altercation. In that altercation, Martin was pounding on Zimmerman, broke his nose, and did some damage to the back of his head. It is going to be VERY hard (legally) to prove that that Zimmerman had no reasonable cause to think he might have experienced "great bodily harm" while Martin was in the process of inflicting "bodily harm". The way I see it, this whole investigation is very much going to come down to a bunch of lawyers arguing over the word "great".

Bill Maher? As usual, he's a total fool and total tool. The only point he ever has is the one on his head, which perfectly fits his dunce cap.

It's obvious that you have a steady job and/or a lot of money. I'm so very happy for you.

I apply for a job--I jump thru all the hoops, except I refuse to give up my passwords--I don't get the job--how am I to know what their reasons are? If it's because I didn't give up my passwords how would I ever be able to prove it?

No one ever said that employers owe anyone a job--they do however owe everyone a modicum of dignity.

You don't see your argument as idealogical--your ideology has blinded you.

"Doesn't matter how important you consider a job to you or your family's survival, it's never your only possible means to survive." I imagine that someone probably would have said the same thing to Jean Valjean before he stole that loaf of bread.

I'm done responding to you.
>> ^renatojj:

This isn't ideological, it's about defining coercion. If you can prove in court that you were under real economic duress, then you can say there was coercion involved in denying your job because you didn't hand out your passwords.
However, we must be careful not to accept this interpretation that employers owe us jobs. That when they deny us a job, they are taking away something that is rightfully ours.
A job is a voluntary relationship that usually involves a contract. So, by definition, no coercion is involved, because no one is ever forced to hire/accept a job.
The hipocrisy of people who yell coercion, is that they want government to make laws to coerce those that aren't coercing at all. So we end up with a less civilized society overall.
You shouldn't resort to violence to stop something that isn't violent to begin with. How about not panicking, and coming up with non-violent solutions?

This isn't ideological, it's about defining coercion. If you can prove in court that you were under real economic duress, then you can say there was coercion involved in denying your job because you didn't hand out your passwords.

However, we must be careful not to accept this interpretation that employers owe us jobs. That when they deny us a job, they are taking away something that is rightfully ours.

A job is a voluntary relationship that usually involves a contract. So, by definition, no coercion is involved, because no one is ever forced to hire/accept a job.

The hipocrisy of people who yell coercion, is that they want government to make laws to coerce those that aren't coercing at all. So we end up with a less civilized society overall.

You shouldn't resort to violence to stop something that isn't violent to begin with. How about not panicking, and coming up with non-violent solutions?