@Jerykk
i cant make heads nor tails what you are trying to convey.
are you making an argument for harsher prisons?
or an assertion that if they were less harsh people would WANT to go to prison?
that recidivism is irrelevant so we should just execute prisoners?

i agree that poverty leads to desperation which can lead to criminal activity.there is plenty of statistics to back that up,though interestingly those numbers are dropping in regards to poverty=crime.

as for your deterrence argument.
yeah..no.the numbers obviously dont add up.
right now there are more american citizens incarcerated than the soviet gulags of the 80's.in fact,america incarcerates more citizens per capita than any other nation in the world.

americas prison population=2.4 million..and rising.

which leads me to my next point.
what is the purpose of prison?
well,it should be to remove those violent elements from society and for the offenders who are non-violent a way to pay a debt to the society they betrayed (fill in the offense here ____).

when their time has been served (paid) then they are free to rejoin society and reintegrate themselves back into society.

but what if that system of punishment strips you of all dignity and humanity?treats you like an abandoned dog at the local animal shelter?physically beaten and spiritually shattered,just HOW to you rejoin normal society?

what then?
do you blame the inmate who was thrown into a inhumane system?or maybe..juuuuust maybe..it may be the SYSTEM which is the blame.

let us look at some stats shall we?
the private prison industry is the 9th largest lobbiest in the country.who lobby for stricter sentencing,zero tolerance and mandatory jail time.a new trend in this area is now regarding teens AND pre-teens.they also make contracts with the local government to have a certain % occupancy.(meaning that even if those beds are not filled,the company STILL gets paid).

and lets not forget those kick backs to the local judges.already 25 judges this year got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

the idea that prison is a deterrence has been debunked.
there are over 5000 federal laws NOT including state and local.so at any given time,in any given day,YOU have perpetrated a federal crime.

the idea the prison is for rehabilitation is utter bullshit,another liberal feel-good "look at the good we are doing" trope.

prison is a business.
based on the mafia principle.
it is about making the poor a commodity and exploiting their lack of resources to fight back.
recidivism?
thats just repeat customers.american prisons care zippo about recidivism.

again i reference the milgram experiment.
treat people like animals and they will soon behave like animals.
treat them with humanity and dignity and the outcome is far more positive for a society as a whole..we ALL benefit.

but the private prisons dont want that..it means less profit for them.

the norden is doing it right and the results are impressive.

I'm not talking about a myth, I'm talking about math. There are 167,550,080 acres in Texas. If you divide that by 7 billion people you get 0.023935 acres per person. An acre is 4840 square yards. 4840 * 0.23935 acres is 115.84 square yards. A square foot is 1/9 of a square yard. 115.84 * 9 = 1042 square feet for every person on Earth. As it stands, 90 percent of the worlds population lives on 10 percent of the land. I don't know where you live but in America we have over 300 million people and the majority of the land here is empty. The vast majority of land in the world is uninhabited. To say there isn't enough land for everyone is the myth.

The fact is, we have more than enough resources; the problem is the mismanagement of the resources we already have. For example, around 1/3 of the food we produce gets lost or wasted every year. That is around 1.3 billion tons of food. That is enough to feed the world many, many times over.

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/GFL_web.pdf

The worldwide GDP is 63 trillion dollars. We clearly do not lack the resources to take care of all our essential needs. Again, it is simply the gross mismanagement of resources, greed, wars, poor infrastructure and other factors that led to the inequality we see today. Over 30k people starve to death every day, not because of a lack of food, but because of a lack of love.

People have been predicting that the world would run out of resources since the 1700s. Your ideas about carrying capacity are simply outmoded and the theory itself has no real basis in reality:

http://videosift.com/video/Overpopulation-is-a-myth


>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You could fit the entire population of the Earth in the state of Texas giving them 1000 square feet per person. You could feed the entire world on what Europe spends on ice cream every year. The problem isn't space, or resources, because we have plenty of both. The problem is human nature, specifically greed and a lack of love for our fellow man.

Pulling more ignorance off the webs, how unsurprising. That "population in Texas" myth needs to die, as well as the rest of the misinformation about human demographics that plagues the internet (often written by religious people: equally unsurprising). I'd suggest you look up "carrying capacity" and read up on how much of the earth's resources humans actually use, but considering you're a devout YEC, fat chance you'll let facts change your mind.
You're partly right about greed being a problem, but it's part of a bigger problem: a society/world economy entirely constructed around the imperative of growth.

No, I am not saying God cares about football, or who wins. It isn't about the football game. Tebow is a Christian who walks with Jesus openly, and gives God all the glory. Tebow puts God first, and that is why God is giving everyone a sign that He is with Tebow. God gives these kind of signs to others through those who sincerely love Him.

God is also helping the starving children in Africa. Look up Christian charities in Africa and see all that God is doing for them. Starvation is not due to a lack of resources on the Earth, it is due to greed. You could feed all the starving people in the world on the amount of money Europe spends on ice cream every year.

>> ^Taint:
Are you seriously saying that Jesus Christ helped win a Denver Broncos game? That's what God was up to on Sunday? The thousands of starving kids in Africa can wait! I've got to help Tebow not only win his game against an opposing sports team, but I'm going to make sure he runs over 300 yards so no one might think it was a coincidence!
Seriously, if you're going to bother believing in God, at least think bigger.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^agopo:
I don't know what deity was responsible for the picture to come down on her head, but it makes me want to turn religious - too good to be coincidence! (Then again, maybe not)

That's pretty blatant..as blatant as Tebow scoring 316 yards last game. The God I know, Jesus Christ, will let you know that there is no such thing as coincidence, and that you're here for a reason. Place your trust in Him and pray and ask Him for the truth.
Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Every theory is a conspiracy theory, including the official US theory. It's really semantics.

the bitter truth is that there is a contraction of resources in the world, due to overuse and growing population. That lack of resources, combined with climate change, will produce a lot of suffering in the world to come.
Whether 9/11 was an inside job or it wasn't...either way the US and many many insanely powerful multinationals used the opportunity to jockey and solidify their positions respective to resources in the world. And a lot of money was made.

Of course, as we're seeing, the US has overplayed it's hand.

>> ^marbles:


No, this is "the" definition of liberty.
Your assertion doesn't make it true. There is an open, active, and fairly passionate debate still raging over the philosophical definition of liberty.

The two most common conceptions of liberty are "negative" liberty, which defines liberty as freedom from external constraint, and "positive" liberty, which defines liberty as having the power and resources to do as you please. I personally feel like that's an artificial divison; a lack of resources constitutes an external constraint.

This whole video isn't trying to find a universally accepted definitions for the word liberty. It just lays out an entire philosophical doctrine, specifically, the libertarian philosophical doctrine.
>> ^marbles:
I'm not sure how Ayn Rand fits into the conversation and "libertarian" wasn't even a word until mid to late 19th Century.

Actually, libertarians are a 20th century phenomenon. And Ayn Rand was a big influence on libertarian thinking. Selfishness as a virtue, and all that.

>> ^marbles:
Individual liberty was a liberal idea born out of the Age of Enlightenment, along with other liberal ideas like free markets, consent of the governed, and limited government.
Liberal and liberty come from Latin word liber, which means "free."

Right, but that's liberalism, and it's not like liberal philosophy was flash-frozen in the 19th century.

Libertarians decided they didn't like all the talk of equality and the common good that classical liberals were wont to engage in, and so they excised it from their philosophy, and try to pretend classical liberals never cared about that stuff.

"Modern" liberals realized that negative liberty isn't the only kind of liberty. One needs to have a certain level of power and resources to have any individual freedom.
>> ^marbles:
You said "property owners get absolute unchecked authority over how people may interact with their property". "unchecked" implies that freedom grants people the right to ignore other people's rights.

What puts a check on a property owner's actions? And when is it legitimate to check a property owner's actions? Is it a short list (no damage to other people's property, no stealing, and no fraud), or is it a list too long to comprehensively state?

For example, should there be a legal constraint on racial discrimination?

>> ^marbles:
And if someone else has authority over your property, then by definition it's not your property.

Again, this is an attempt to assert a definition that doesn't apply in the real world. I own my house. I also have a mortgage on it, so the bank has a level of authority over my house. I also have to pay property taxes on it, and follow the local laws. Yet it's still my property.

Which is to say, the definition of the word "property" doesn't include anything about it being property if and only if I'm the only one who gets any say of any kind about what's done with it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You could take the entire population of the earth and fit it in the state of Texas with as much room as people have in New York City. Private consumption accounts for something over 20 trillion dollars every year. The richest 20 percent of the world account for 86 percent of that. The poorest 20 percent account for 1.3 percent. The problem isn't overpopulation or lack of resources, its greed. There is more than enough to go around, it's that the people who have the most money don't want to share it with the people who don't. This stupid rant about the size of families has nothing to do with why there is such gross disparity in this world.


What are your sources for these numbers and "facts" ?

You could take the entire population of the earth and fit it in the state of Texas with as much room as people have in New York City. Private consumption accounts for something over 20 trillion dollars every year. The richest 20 percent of the world account for 86 percent of that. The poorest 20 percent account for 1.3 percent. The problem isn't overpopulation or lack of resources, its greed. There is more than enough to go around, it's that the people who have the most money don't want to share it with the people who don't. This stupid rant about the size of families has nothing to do with why there is such gross disparity in this world.

>> ^Entropy001:
When in reality the Sherman tank was inferior to the German design.
Well, one could argue that it's more of a difference in the underlying philosophy than quality of engineering. German doctrin was based upon the use of what we now refer to as MBTs (Panzer I-V) while the Brits used infantry tanks (Mathilda, Valentine, Churchill, etc) and cruiser tanks (Cruiser, Crusader, Cromwell, etc), and the US troops deployed infantry tanks (Sherman) and TDs (M10, M18, M36). Once you split breakthrough and exploitation or infantry support and anti-tank warfare into separate vehicles, you're bound to end up with vastly different designs that might draw the short straw more often than not if not used properly.


If you include the lack of resources and manpower in particular, Wehrmacht tanks had to be superior individually, because they were doomed to be inferior numerically. Thus, the US could focus on easier and cheaper production. You don't need Zeiss optics and Krupp steel if you simply aim for number superiority. I'd say both design principles fulfilled their respective roles just fine, even though they could hardly have been more different. Simple, easy to maintain and reliable versus the latest in technology.

The Firefly was nice though, 17pdr was a beast.

Or maybe what I wrote is just a load of cockswallow and the German designs were, in fact, simply superior.

That said, this kitty was one hell of an engineering masterpiece. If they hadn't lost access to rare materials, even the transmission might have worked properly and those buggers wouldn't have broken down every 100km.

Still waiting to see the Panther at Koblenz again, last time was a blast.

Man deserves to be hit from what I can tell.

If he's intentionally trying to sabotage the emergency response by keeping 83% of the guard undeployed, simply in order to make the administration look bad, that's almost criminal.

And it really is looking that way given that over the last couple of months he has done nothing but complain about the lack of resource coming from the federal government. Now we lean that he had 6 fold as many troops approved and ready all along, but has chosen not to utilize them.

Atleast someone(a kid)has a cause and she goes all out for it. I believe whatever she said reflect the world we live in today.It is the matter of needs, wants and desires. One's desire is achieved at the expense of others.

What the northern countries have is this western idea of equating success with having fame and fortune. This idea influence people from all over the world to be materialistic. People are obsessed with becoming rich -some choose to achieve it with sheer hardwork while others do it illegally. With money come luxury.Luxury like cars etc are not simply created just like that, plenty of resources are needed to create these stuffs. When there is a lack of resources, developers will look for it and exhaust it elsewhere normally in the Third World countries. The Third World countries cannot develop because their resources have been used up and with what money they gotten from it, is simply not enough to feed millions of their own people. Yes, it is true that the government is responsible for the development of it's own country but the cooperation of other governments matters too. Human actions influence other humans and in effect, their environment.

'Give up your luxury'..simply means live with what you have and do not ask for more. For when you desire more, you deprive others of their needs.

WORLD PEACE..

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't think you would say that if you had a loved one who took their own life.


Actually, you might. Suicide is a cowardly way out and it's not something I personally take lightly. Yet, it could just as easily have something to do with an undiagnosed mental illness or simply the (perceived) lack of resources to accept another alternative.

Let me put it another way, ever heard the story of the man who invented Chess? well its probably just a myth and a legend, but it goes like this: Guy invents chess, some emperor or king thinks its the best game he's ever seen, so he asks the inventor to name a price, anything, and the king will pay it. So the inventor says "I want one grain of rice for square A1 on the board, two grains for A2, and 4 for A3, and so on, each one double the last, 1,2,4,8,16 and so on." and the king breaks out in a roaring laugh, "you fool" he exclaims, "Have you no idea how great my empire is, -Guards, give this man 10 bags full of rice, and let him keep the change!"

The lesson of the story is this: if you do the actual calculation of doubling 64 times, the true number of grains far exceed the number ever grown on earth, and the kings empire would crumble under the debt...

A replicator the chemical reactions that preceded life, able to produce hereditary copies of itself, works the same way. 1 makes a copy of itself, that makes a copy and you get 2, 4, 8, 16 etc.

In a short while, this copying could fill the entire universe with replicators, but thats not what happens, because the limitations kick in much, much earlier, lack of space, lack of resources etc FORCES the start of the most important mechanism on earth: Natural selection. Only the elite survive, those who CAN survive, survive.those who are "born" with an ever so slight advantage in some way, will become the dominant group. its all imperfect copies of the original, some worse, some better. The more imperfect the copying is, the more chance there is that a mutation will be a disaster but real mutations are very, very small which makes the disasters rarer, and occationally, mutations are good, and then they are naturally selected.