a developed nation's reaction to a criminal is to incarcerate him/her. To deny the criminal of his freedom of movement, and be confined to a particular space for a certain amount of time until it seems he or she has had the time to ponder, reflect, consider, and hopefuly regret the actions that led him to that point.

Removing one's personal freedom does not need to equate with removing his humanity and/or sanity. In fact, it should be quite the opposite, and then give them a chance, after having served their time, to be re-introduced to society in a positive, productive manner.

Treating people like animals just makes them feel like animals. Why should an animal give a flying fuck about society and personal responsability?

Does it feel conflicting to give a criminal a confortable stay in prison? Yes it does, but it's also the moral thing to do.

I really don't see why something like this couldn't cost around $5000 at most. Replace the expensive french wood, with something more affordable (but still resistant), and mass produce it. A single unit could be produced in less than a day, and be shipped worldwide to provide affordable housing. I would totally live in a house like this if I was single.

We, as a race, need to really start thinking about living with less. Not less confort or less technology, just less space and less junk.

trying to wake a dog up by rubbing it's belly is like trying to wake a person up by giving it a more confortable bed.

I don't think tourists visiting Ground Zero is so bad. I mean, people from 50 something different nationalities died that day. Not to mention that it could be somewhat conforting what was once a pile of ruble and death, and is now a memorial to those who have died.

Religious people may not be idiots (and there are many cases of known historical, very intelligent figures, who were also religious).

HOWEVER, they have a complete lack of coherence and are completely intellectualy dishonest, and that's just fact. If you rationalize even a part of the myths from your religion, and set some of them aside as being not real, you are being incoherent with your so called faith.

Either you believe your religion to be what it is, and what it was, and that ALL the religious books it's based on are real and the absolute truth, or you're not really believing it, just making a version you feel confortable with.

So, there are actually only 3 possible stands on religion: You are either a zealot (and unfortunately there are a lot); you are a complete incoherent intellectualy dishonest person; or you are an agnotic or atheist.

Honestly I just think people are a bunch of cowards. Mind you I AM afraid of death. I just don't let that fear cloud my judgement and reasoning. People are too afraid to face the reality of their own mortality and dismiss the inherent bullshity nature of religion.

Q-Can your god prevent the hurricane?
A-No.
Q-Then WHAT THE FUCK IS PRAYER GOING TO CHANGE? Yes, it can bring confort for believers, but has zero impact on reality. A Reality you just said so yourself, god could not or would not change.

I really don't like silverman. He never goes straight to the point.

You sir, are an idiot. Congratulations.

OF COURSE it's a human right. We're talking about life and death. Not luxuries and confort.



if you're sick, and have no money or very little, in a country where health care would not be provided for free, and in some cases (like the US) most procedures are charged at unbelievable prices, YOU DIE.

Of course, you seem to be completely oblivious to that fact, as you seem to think that health is somehow a luxury and you should pay for it.




>> ^imstellar28:

If you think we are morally obligated to provide healthcare to people, fine, that's your opinion. Anyone can have whatever set of morals they please. If you think the government should pay for such things - hey, that's your vote to cast. But why is there the need to pretend this is a "human right" when everyone in this thread knows damn well it isn't. There is no logical or philosophical leg to stand on when making that argument. Rights are restrictions placed on social interactions between humans (no stealing, no slavery, no murder, etc.) not a guarantee for material goods or services.
If you think everyone in society should have a car, 3 meals a day, and a personal doctor feel free to start a cult or religion and get a bunch of followers who agree with you. If you are really motivated, start a business and save up enough money to feed all your neighbors and provide them with houses and healthcare -- but keep the "divine justification" for your opinions out of a philosophical argument because not only is it complete rubbish, it's intellectually dishonest.
Citing "human rights" as justification for your political opinions is as vacuous an argument as pulling out the bible and quoting scripture.

It's not a strawman argument, it's a fact; no argument needed. And I didn't say that all whites or even a majority are racists. I do think that most Americans of any color are apathetic, and would rather watch (and catch on phone video) a person suffering distress, than help. Apathy is all you need, not outright hostility, but today there is plenty of both.

Sure, you and I can make the distinction between reasonable public and private services. But what about these state politicians who are passing birther bills (various states), trying to privatize their health care systems (LA), and trying to nullify federal laws they don't like (various states). Not to mention the tea-idiots in Washington. I don't trust these fools to get those nuances, and I thank god every day that the federalists won out way-back-when. Because as much as some of these people say the federal government is too big and intrusive, they don't care if at the state/local level, things are run by fiat.

Since they don't get nuance, I get very nervous when on one hand, some politicians want everything privatized, then others say that private entities can serve who they want. A nice one-two punch.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
Even in 2011 you can walk into a restaurant or public establishment and not get served due to race.
With the number of racist kooks that have come out of the woodwork since Obama's election, it's not hard to believe that given the opportunity, a segregationist belt could emerge in this country again.
I think many libertarians don't care about that because, since it is a white majority country and most libertarians are white, they won't have to live with the negative consequences of a libertarian policy that removed anti-segregationist regulation. >> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
I liked those ideas, but I still don't think I would be confortable living in his ideal america. I'd be sitting in the back of greyhound, and using separate bathrooms at Walmart.

That's ridiculous. No way. Segregation would never happen again. Never. Even if you repealed every law in the land.


I'm talking about segregation in terms of public services and places, not refusal of private services. Think more Rosa Parks and the segregated school systems from the 50s and 60s. I think the majority of people believe that segregation is bad, so you won't see it among most private companies.
So, it is hard to believe that a "segregationist belt" would emerge if given the opportunity. And it's a copout to say that the majority of people in any party are white, because the US population is so. Means nothing and it's a straw man argument. I could say that the majority of Democrats are white, but that's just statistical numbers.
Also, just because you're white doesn't make you a racist.

>> ^longde:

Even in 2011 you can walk into a restaurant or public establishment and not get served due to race.
With the number of racist kooks that have come out of the woodwork since Obama's election, it's not hard to believe that given the opportunity, a segregationist belt could emerge in this country again.
I think many libertarians don't care about that because, since it is a white majority country and most libertarians are white, they won't have to live with the negative consequences of a libertarian policy that removed anti-segregationist regulation. >> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
I liked those ideas, but I still don't think I would be confortable living in his ideal america. I'd be sitting in the back of greyhound, and using separate bathrooms at Walmart.

That's ridiculous. No way. Segregation would never happen again. Never. Even if you repealed every law in the land.



I'm talking about segregation in terms of public services and places, not refusal of private services. Think more Rosa Parks and the segregated school systems from the 50s and 60s. I think the majority of people believe that segregation is bad, so you won't see it among most private companies.

So, it is hard to believe that a "segregationist belt" would emerge if given the opportunity. And it's a copout to say that the majority of people in any party are white, because the US population is so. Means nothing and it's a straw man argument. I could say that the majority of Democrats are white, but that's just statistical numbers.

Also, just because you're white doesn't make you a racist.

Even in 2011 you can walk into a restaurant or public establishment and not get served due to race.

With the number of racist kooks that have come out of the woodwork since Obama's election, it's not hard to believe that given the opportunity, a segregationist belt could emerge in this country again.

I think many libertarians don't care about that because, since it is a white majority country and most libertarians are white, they won't have to live with the negative consequences of a libertarian policy that removed anti-segregationist regulation. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^longde:
I liked those ideas, but I still don't think I would be confortable living in his ideal america. I'd be sitting in the back of greyhound, and using separate bathrooms at Walmart.

That's ridiculous. No way. Segregation would never happen again. Never. Even if you repealed every law in the land.

>> ^longde:

I liked those ideas, but I still don't think I would be confortable living in his ideal america. I'd be sitting in the back of greyhound, and using separate bathrooms at Walmart.


That's ridiculous. No way. Segregation would never happen again. Never. Even if you repealed every law in the land.

I liked those ideas, but I still don't think I would be confortable living in his ideal america. I'd be sitting in the back of greyhound, and using separate bathrooms at Walmart.

>> ^campionidelmondo:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Foxconn makes products for both Apple and Microsoft, so people who want to vote against Foxconn with their wallets don't get to use computers or the internet.
Wow. Ok first of all Foxconn manufactures hardware, so you'd still be ok to use Windows if you so choose. You wouldn't have to, since Ubuntu is a great alternative and as its userbase grows so will its usability. Damn, you can even install OSX on a non-Apple PC if that's worth the trouble for you. Let's start with your private use and not get into how you're forced to use certain things to earn a living just yet.
Second, you talk about food and medicine and how you could buy neither. There are always viable alternatives for these fundamental needs, but why not start small? If you want to boycott Foxconn you can't have any of the current generation gaming consoles. No Wii, PS3 or X360. If you own them already make a point by throwing them out. If you're willing to take that step, we can further discuss the more elemental human needs such as medicine and food, but my bet is that it's not gonna happen, because your attachment to some plastic piece of entartainment far outweights your bullshit rage at Foxconn that you spew. You're probably too confortable with the level of wealth and consumerism you live in, which is the real reason why "vote with your wallet" won't work.


To each his own. Good luck with your ineffective political ideology.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Foxconn makes products for both Apple and Microsoft, so people who want to vote against Foxconn with their wallets don't get to use computers or the internet.

Wow. Ok first of all Foxconn manufactures hardware, so you'd still be ok to use Windows if you so choose. You wouldn't have to, since Ubuntu is a great alternative and as its userbase grows so will its usability. Damn, you can even install OSX on a non-Apple PC if that's worth the trouble for you. Let's start with your private use and not get into how you're forced to use certain things to earn a living just yet.

Second, you talk about food and medicine and how you could buy neither. There are always viable alternatives for these fundamental needs, but why not start small? If you want to boycott Foxconn you can't have any of the current generation gaming consoles. No Wii, PS3 or X360. If you own them already make a point by throwing them out. If you're willing to take that step, we can further discuss the more elemental human needs such as medicine and food, but my bet is that it's not gonna happen, because your attachment to some plastic piece of entartainment far outweights your bullshit rage at Foxconn that you spew. You're probably too confortable with the level of wealth and consumerism you live in, which is the real reason why "vote with your wallet" won't work.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^Xax:
It's not unreasonable for any airline to be concerned about the comfort of their passengers.

Rubbish. If airlines were concerned about the confort of their passengers they wouldn't make the seats so cramped and have such little legroom in the first place, never mind other issues like food, inadequate air exchange, cramped toilets, narrow aisles... The balance between passenger comfort and company profit is weighed heavily toward the "company profit" end.

There are other factors that effect how comfortable passengers are, of course, but if other passengers are going to make customers uncomfortable, that's an easy thing to fix that doesn't cost the airline significantly.