ParanoiA

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303076,00.html This story is just an example, so I really don't want to argue about it's specifics unless they represent a broader application. But when do you get to be yourself? When are you "off work"? Why are our employers dictating how we can behave off work? Why can't the woman in this story post personal pics, info, sexual or not, etc? She's not allowed to be a slut, if she so desires, and perform her job? One has nothing to do with the other. The excuse I keep getting is that you represent the company, even outside of work. Accepting that premise implies we are only really free when we're unemployed. Otherwise, my "legal" behavior becomes censored and restricted - punishable by termination. Yeah, I know, we're free to quit that job if we don't like it. And my typical libertarian views are inconvenient on this issue, since all that's required to enable this kind of control by your employer is to simply include it in the contract you sign for the job. So, is it right to be controlled by your employer off work like this?

Ok, show me how I "misquoted" you. That would imply that I changed your words around; paraphrased...etc.

That's not a misquote. You mean "out of context" quote, and ordinarily I would agree with you however it stands on its own - in or out of context in this case. Here's the context: What you're doing is not backing up your statements. You won't pursuade anyone like that.

Once again, a logical, thoughtful post by SkepticLance. Yes, I agree with you on 1. In fact, I was under the impression that chicken farms and such are terrible even when up to government standards. I've seen some ugly films on the matter. And I agree, they are criminals and should be prosecuted - and I believe many of them are, thanks to SPCA, PETA and etc. Issue 2 - again, I totally agree here. But, I also believe there should always be a population of these species left in the wild. I have no problems with ethical farming, but I don't think we should remove a species entirely from the wild.

How hideously inconsistent. All you've done is say it is so "because it just is". That's been your whole argument here. Do you not see the obvious in your last sentence? Because there is one farm that mistreats their animals does not mean that there are no farms that treat them good. Honestly, I've seen good experienced, logical posts from Paralith, Skeptic and Lockheed, and you respond to each of them with emotional appeals and stereotypical vegan rhetoric that's been debunked over and over in this thread. We are animals. We are predators. We are the most dangerous efficient predator on the earth. And we're so kick ass that we actually "feel" enough for our prey that we wish no suffering for them - and that's a fringe benefit granted to no other prey on the earth by no other predator. All animals are driven by self interest. That is our job. We owe it to nature to do our job. If predators suddenly contemplated how cruel they were and selflessly became herbivores then overpopulation of life becomes an extinction factor for thousands of species. Natural selection depends on self interest. This is the logic that you refuse to deal with. Tell me why the predatory animal called Humans should not continue to cooperate with a process that's been in place for millions of years and is responsible for our very existence.

Funny how Lovejunkie ridicules people for believing in god, yet shares the same irrational "belief" quirk with veganism. Show me the logic. All I've heard is one inaccurate emotional appeal after another.

Hope I remember to watch this. It's November 13. I have a feeling I'll completely forget about it...

True. I agree with that. Most people I know complain about it. I would like to see us change to a multi-vote, weighted system, to get the 3rd party candidates a better chance and everyone's vote at least feels a little more valuable - well, at least it's not an all-or-nothing single vote. I don't know if that would help with voter turnout or not.

To determine which candidate is preferred as an absolute favorite. As opposed to determining which candidate has the most discrete units of total preference. Personally, I prefer the latter. But we don't have that kind of system here. I do too, actually. That's why I've convinced myself I'm sending a message when I vote. I really do enjoy it.

The war on drugs The war on poverty The war on terror The war on guns The war on christmas The war on spam The war on religion The war on science is it safe to go outside anymore?

No, no, I get what you're saying. I'm just saying that by using a plurality voting system suggests a different intent than range voting. By voting for candidate A over C, for fear of B getting the win, you're basically circumventing the design intent of plurality voting (if I'm using that term correctly...I was just reading up on this). This 3 party scenario you're presenting is the people basically voting as if our electoral process is looking for a "range" winner over a "plural" winner. And I'm saying that is skewing the process. And yes, I get why they're doing it and I hear that excuse from many, but I just can't play along. Not to mention that the more votes these 3rd party guys get, the more encouraging it becomes for others. Now if they'd just come up with some decent stock...sheez...

I absolutely hated the 80's...during the 80's. As far as I was concerned the only thing good to come out of it for me was Metallica. Now, I enjoy some of the old pop tunes and stupid MTV videos from that era when I run into them. You sir, have good taste in music. You sir, do not. Just kidding. I actually love the Cars, Iggy and Elton. Maybe supertramp...but Simply Red? Don't be shocked if you get shunned for a few days. Oh I miss Suicidal.

That only holds true if the intent of the election was to hire the guy with the most "weight" of support, rather than the most "numbers" of support. There's a word for this, I'm sure of it, but I'm drawing a blank. What I mean is, if the intention of the voting system was to "get the guy least disliked" then it should have been set up as a weighted voting system. Since it wasn't, I'm left to conclude you're skewing it when you manipulate it so. And yes I blame them. I externalize all of my problems.

I liked Ross Perot. He had that attitude that I like - this humbled approach to fixing things: I may not have the solution, but I know someone who does. A good leader knows his limitations and surrounds himself with good people that will hopefully fill that void. Perot struck me as that kind of guy. Ah, that's the word I was looking for and didn't know it: gambling. I was thinking along the lines of competition - trying to vote for the guy that's going to win. I can see your point there too.

Because it's not about voting for who has a chance. It's about voting for who you want to be in office. Whether they have a chance or not is irrelevant and undermines the intent of the election process. Not saying this is your opinion here...but, it has always puzzled me why the chances of winning or losing has ANY bearing at all on who you vote for.

Yeah...what iNow said... Oh, and I'll vote for Hillary Clinton over Guiliani. Hell, I'll vote for Michael Moore over Guiliani...

Not to mention Firefly, you accuse MrSandman of not saying anything "logical and relevant" yet you haven't responded to those posts that are.

We should always put our citizens' consideration above all others. We will always have an ethical responsibility to our countrymen over others. We should not be the police of the world. It isn't morally right to force your neighbor's son to go risk his life for your ideas of "policing". It is wrong to intervene with no specific interest or threat to the country. Iraq was not a threat. It was wrong to invade. When countries ask for help, we should help if we can as long as we're not helping with warfare. We're a generous country and should stay that way. But non-interventionism is preferred as it avoids tangling alliances and wholesale military obligations for generations of americans not even born yet.

Why do you feel your vote is wasted? It was counted and your guy lost. That isn't thrown away. That implies every losing vote was thrown away. I've never really understood the mentallity of most people when it comes to elections. So many people are consumed with who they think is going to win, throwing their vote away and yadda yadda. I don't get it. I thought you were supposed to show up and vote for who YOU want in office. Not who you think is going to win. Not who you think has a chance. That's irrelevant. I've never once considered my vote a throw away and I've always voted for unpopular (libertarian mainly) candidates. How would it NOT be thrown away if I voted for a "winner"? They weren't who I wanted to be in office so... I have skipped voting before. Before I learned about the other parties, I pretty much boycotted all involvement in the process. Now I look forward to making a statement with my vote, if nothing else. I would feel dirty if I voted for Thompson, or Romney because they "actually have a chance".

Sure. I would think so. The average SFN member at least as an inkling for truth, in some capacity. That in itself can motivate gathering information. Do you think the average SFN member can identify a picture of Cheyney? I don't think the average 18-24 chronic non-voter can.

I used to think the same thing, but I don't believe it - or maybe I can't believe it. But, I don't think he'd run on the republican ticket if he didn't think he was going to win. Afterall, as a 3rd party candidate, he would have more exposure post-primary, when the rest of the country actually starts paying attention to the race, debates and so forth. On the republican ticket, he risks being ousted before the country even starts paying attention. So how much good would shaking the tree do then? I think people of principle, that put those values ahead of everything else are going to come off that way. He answers questions directly, without hesitation, with no dancing or skirting, and usually with a ready to go logical background to thrown in. And he doesn't try to make himself palatable to everyone - just lets the chips fall where they may. Isn't that basically Ros Perot? Isn't that basically any truly principled candidate? People are scared to death of that. That's why candidates don't worry about looking fake anymore, as society is more comfortable with that now. Now we want them to be fake, and to try to be all things to all people. We actually cheer when they pull this off. And we write them off when they don't. Hence, Dr Paul will be ignored and dismissed until the bitter end - self fulfilling in a way. But, don't they leave the matter of "punishment" up to the states? I mean, life is protected by the constitution. They don't leave murder up to the states to decide if it's protected or not under that constitution. And I think that's the point bascule is getting at. I could be wrong.

They're fighting for the wrong country maybe? Over here, we're all into freedom and such. We prefer the advantages and disadvantages associated with freedom. One of the disadvantages is fighting terrorism is more difficult in a truly free society, due to our aversion to oppressive government. This means keeping said government from eliminating these civil liberties in the name of "protecting" us. If you're willing to sacrifice freedom, then why live here? Seriously. There are plenty of free societies out there, democratic societies with socialist governments, and perhaps they would love to sacrifice these liberties so you can feel safer. Not meant to be taken offensively, actually. I'm just increasingly confused why people are so adamant about becoming more "euro". If you want that kind of life, go there. Why change our country just because you're afraid of a true free society? I agree with this. Our media is quite taken by romance it seems. They've romanticized Islamic murder cowards to be the fault of the oppressive policies of oil hungry america. While they enjoy the benefits of oil in producing their cameras, computers, broadcast gear..etc - they are hopeful we'll lose very soon. It's a little odd being in this corner because I personally do not believe Iraq is a justified war and do not believe we should have gone, and I want out. At the same time though, I also don't believe the bull coming out of the mainstream media - there's too much disparity between their reports and actual servicemen - as you've seen. I think they're just bent on anti-war and will simply not allow facts to daunt them.

I have to admit being torn on this one. On the one hand, I really appreciate decentralizing controversial issues like this. A one-size-fits-all solution is not appropriate for issues that the country is obviously so split on. And I like more power and diversity on the state level. However, bascule's got a really good point. It's kind of like leaving the constitutionality of "murder" to the states. This is a good spot for federal law. I'm leaning towards Dr Paul on this one so far, since it's such a sensitive issue and the country is split on it. I'll be interested in the evolution of this thread, as this view is subject to change. One thing to note here is that while Dr. Paul is pro-life, he's still refraining from using federal power to stop abortion. That's an interesting priority statement in terms of principles and beliefs.

The only thing that infuriates the apostles of the free market is the fact we don't have one for healthcare. You keep making the mistaken assumption that we have a free market healthcare system today. We don't. We have a government propogated socialist bubble shoved into the market place.